(Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics) Julie Norton (Editor), Heather Buchanan (Editor) - The Routledge Handbook of Materials Development For Language Teaching-Routledge (2022)

The Routledge Handbook of
Materials Development for

Language Teaching
The Routledge Handbook of Materials Development for Language Teaching is the defini-
tive resource for all working in this area of language and English language teaching. With
34 chapters authored by leading figures from around the world, the Handbook provides an
historical overview of the development of language teaching materials, critical discussion
of core issues, and an assessment of future directions.
The contributions represent a range of different international contexts, providing insight-
ful, state-of-the-art coverage of the field. Structured in nine sections, the Handbook covers:
·· changes and developments in language teaching materials

·· controversial issues in materials development
·· research and materials development
·· materials for language learning and skills development
·· materials evaluation and adaptation
·· materials for specific contexts
·· materials development and technology
·· developing materials for publication
·· professional development and materials writing.
Demonstrating throughout the dynamic relationship between theory and practice, this
accessible Handbook is essential reading for researchers, scholars, and students on MA
programmes in ELT, TESOL, and applied linguistics.
Julie Norton is a Lecturer in Applied Linguistics and TESOL and Co-Director of Teaching
and Learning at the School of Education, University of Leicester, UK. She is a Senior
Fellow of the Higher Education Authority (SFHEA). She is also co-author of Navigate Pre-
Intermediate (2015).
Heather Buchanan is a Lecturer in Language Education and Director of Postgraduate Taught

Courses (Teaching and Learning) at the Department of Education, University of York, UK and
an experienced teacher trainer. She is co-author of Navigate Intermediate (2015).
Consultant editor: Graham Hall
Editorial Advisory Board: Kathleen Graves, Hitomi Masuhara, David Nunan

Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics
Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics provide comprehensive overviews of the key topics in
applied linguistics. All entries for the handbooks are specially commissioned and written by lead-
ing scholars in the field. Clear, accessible and carefully edited Routledge Handbooks in Applied
Linguistics are the ideal resource for both advanced undergraduates and postgraduate students.
The Routledge Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexuality

Edited by Jo Angouri and Judith Baxter
The Routledge Handbook of Plurilingual Language Education

Edited by Enrica Piccardo, Aline Germain-Rutherford and Geoff Lawrence
The Routledge Handbook of the Psychology of Language Learning

and Teaching
Edited by Tammy Gregersen and Sarah Mercer
The Routledge Handbook of Language Testing

Second Edition
Edited by Glenn Fulcher and Luke Harding
The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics

Second Edition
Edited by Anne O’Keeffe and Michael J. McCarthy
The Routledge Handbook of Materials Development for Language

Teaching
Edited by Julie Norton and Heather Buchanan
For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com/series/RHAL

The Routledge Handbook
of Materials Development
for Language Teaching
Edited by Julie Norton and Heather Buchanan

First published 2022
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 selection and editorial matter, Julie Norton and Heather Buchanan;
individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Julie Norton and Heather Buchanan to be identified as the
authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual
chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-0-8153-8257-7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-20152-8 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-26247-3 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/b22783
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India
To our parents, Sylvia and Jim Norton and Cynthia and Peter Gray,
With all our thanks.

Contents
List of illustrations xi
Acknowledgements xiii
List of contributors xiv
Introduction and overview xix
Julie Norton and Heather Buchanan
PART 1
Changes and developments in language teaching materials 1
1 The discipline of materials development 3

Brian Tomlinson
2 Language learning materials in the digital era 17

Freda Mishan
3 Theory and practice in materials development 30

Ivor Timmis
PART 2
Controversial issues in materials development 47
4 Why do we need coursebooks? 49

5 Authenticity in language teaching materials 65

Christian Jones
6 Selecting language for materials writing 78

Graham Burton
vii
Contents
7 From global English to Global Englishes: Questioning current

approaches to ELT materials 93
Alessia Cogo
8 Culture and materials development 109

Karen Risager
9 Representation in coursebooks: A critical perspective 123

Pau Bori
PART 3
Research and materials development 137
10 Research in materials development: What, how, and why? 139

Nigel Harwood
11 Using research to inform materials development 155

Greg Hadley and Hiromi Hadley
12 Writing corpus-informed materials 170

Michael McCarthy and Jeanne McCarten
PART 4
Materials for language learning and skills development 185
13 Materials for teaching grammar 187

Penny Ur
14 Materials for teaching vocabulary 202

Takumi Uchihara and Stuart Webb
15 Materials for developing speaking skills 218

Scott Thornbury
16 Materials for developing reading skills 233

Claudia Saraceni
17 Materials for developing writing skills 244

Clare Furneaux
viii
Contents
PART 5
Materials evaluation and adaptation 261
18 The analysis and evaluation of language teaching materials 263

Andrew Littlejohn
19 Approaches to materials adaptation 277

Hitomi Masuhara
PART 6
Materials for specific contexts 291
20 Developing a primary coursebook series for Turkey 293

Seyit Gok
21 Versioning coursebooks 307

Heather Buchanan and Julie Norton
22 Writing EAP materials 321

Yasemin Kırkgöz
23 Writing materials for ESOL 334

Naeema B. Hann
24 Materials for English-medium education 347

Oksana Afitska and John Clegg
25 Writing materials for Spanish teenagers 366

Caroline Krantz, Julie Norton, and Heather Buchanan
26 Writing materials for an English-speaking environment 385

Lizzie Pinard
PART 7
Materials development and technology 397
27 Developing blended learning materials 399

Sharon Hartle
28 Materials for mobile learning 414

Gavin Dudeney and Nicky Hockly
ix
Contents
PART 8
Developing materials for publication 427
29 Learner contributions to materials in language teaching 429

Julie Choi and David Nunan
30 How do writers write? 441

Antonia Clare and J. J. Wilson
31 The editor’s role in developing materials 456

Fiona MacKenzie and David Baker
PART 9
Professional development and materials writing 473
32 Making the materials writing leap: Scaffolding the journey from teacher
to teacher-writer 475
Jane Spiro
33 Coursebook materials as a tool for professional development:

A perspective from publishing 488
Stacey H. Hughes
34 Training materials writers 511

John Hughes
Index 527
x
Illustrations
Figures
11.1 Early materials developed for ER course using Bookworms Corpus 161
11.2 Example of student questions and corpus material from Bookworms
Corpus 169
14.1 An example of a concordance for the keyword ‘priority.’ 205
14.2 A sample output of the lexical profile analysis 209
20.1 The factors that shaped the locally developed coursebook series
(Gok 2019) 296
20.2 A framework for coursebook investigations (adapted from
Harwood 2014) 303
24.1 CLIL primary science in Spain 351
24.2 Science for primary years 3–6 in the UK 352
24.3 Science for primary years 3–6 in the UK 352
24.4 Science text for grade 4 learners of science in English in Rwanda 353
24.5 Science text for grade 4 learners of science in English in Rwanda 354
25.1 Vocabulary quiz from Reach Up 2. (Reproduced by permission of
Oxford University Press from Reach Up 2 by Caroline Krantz and
Rachael Roberts (2018b:44) © Oxford University Press) 375
25.2 Error correction exercise from Reach Up 1. (Reproduced by
permission of Oxford University Press from Reach Up 1 by Caroline
Krantz and Rachael Roberts (2018a:85) © Oxford University Press) 376
27.1 Learner choices of positive personality adjectives to describe their
characters 408
31.1 The iron triangle (based on Lock 2007:21) 468
33.1 Comparison of teachers’ evaluation of CBs and CB components 495
33.2 How useful have TBs been to you in your professional development? 498
34.1 The relationship between the materials, the learner, and the teacher 519
xi
Illustrations
Tables
2.1 Synthesized list of criteria for the evaluation of CALL programmes,
platforms, and pedagogy 22
11.1 Participants in this study (n = 76) 158
11.2 Mean and standard deviation of word amounts read for collated
experimental and control groups (d = 0.59) 164
14.1 Example of Technique Feature Analysis 212
18.1 Levels of analysis of language teaching materials 267
18.2 A task analysis schedule 268
21.1 Differences between the two street plans 314
23.1 ESOL level descriptors 346
24.1 Readability in textbooks for Rwanda and Tanzania 358
25.1 Example of ‘Watch Out’ box in Reach Up 1 378
27.1 Some of the most commonly available digital tools for authoring and
organising content 404
27.2 A comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of f2f and digital
classrooms 405
28.1 Device affordance mapping grid 422
29.1 Steps to learner autonomy through contributing to materials for learning 436
31.1 Profile of participants 470
34.1 Training syllabus for materials writers 515
34.2 Needs analysis questionnaire 518
34.3 A comparison of two drafts of a gap fill exercise 520
34.4 Example of a ranking activity 522
34.5 Loop input ranking activity 522
34.6 Example set of cards 524
xii
Acknowledgements
We are indebted to Graham Hall for his invaluable advice throughout the process. We are
also very grateful to the Editorial Advisory Board:
Graham Hall
Kathleen Graves
Hitomi Masuhara
David Nunan
We would like to acknowledge the hard work of all our contributors and thank them sin-
cerely for their patience and continuing support during the global COVID-19 pandemic. We
are also extremely grateful to the Routledge team for their editorial assistance and encour-
agement, in particular Eleni Steck, Hannah Rowe, Louisa Semlyen, and the copy editor. Our
thanks also go to the anonymous reviewers who provided helpful feedback on our proposal
for the handbook.
We have benefitted immensely from working with wonderful colleagues over the years
who have shaped and inspired us to research materials development in language teaching.
We would like to thank them all. We also recognise the contribution of MATSDA, MaWSIG,
and IATEFL for the professional development opportunities they have provided us with.
xiii
Contributors
Oksana Afitska, PhD, is a Lecturer in TESOL at Lancaster University, UK. Her primary
research interests lie in the areas of content and language integrated learning, curriculum,
and materials development. She is currently investigating educational and linguistic chal-
lenges that learners with English as an additional language face in UK state schools.
David Baker is a freelance ELT author, editor, and publishing consultant. Previously, he was
an in-company language trainer and university teacher in Paris, before completing a mas-
ter’s degree in Applied Linguistics. He worked for Oxford University Press for 14 years,
ending up as Publishing Manager for ELT Grammar and Reference.
Pau Bori is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade. His
main areas of interest and research are language education, critical pedagogy, and language
teaching materials. He is the author of Language Textbooks in the Era of Neoliberalism
(Routledge).
Heather Buchanan is a Lecturer in Language Education and Director of Postgraduate

Taught Courses (Teaching and Learning) at the University of York and an experienced
teacher trainer. She is co-author of Navigate Intermediate (Oxford University Press).
Her main interests lie in the areas of teacher training and education and materials
development.
Graham Burton is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Education, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano,

and has written coursebooks and other teaching materials for a number of publishers. His
PhD focused on how the consensus on pedagogical grammar for ELT evolved, how it is
sustained, and how it compares to empirical data on learner language.
Julie Choi is a Senior Lecturer in Education (Additional Languages). She is co-edi-

tor of the books Language and Culture: Reflective Narratives and the Emergence of
Identity (2010) and Plurilingualism in Teaching and Learning: Complexities across
Contexts (2018), and sole author of the book Creating a Multivocal Self: Autoethnography
as Method (2017).
Antonia Clare is a teacher, trainer, international conference speaker, and author. She has
taught and trained around the world, and co-authored bestselling coursebook titles including
Total English and Speakout. She is a consultant trainer with NILE, working on their MA in
Professional Development for Language Education.
xiv
Contributors
John Clegg is a freelance education consultant, specialising in education in a second lan-

guage. He works in curriculum evaluation, materials design, and teacher education. He
researches English-medium education in Africa and in content and language integrated
learning in Europe. He writes on teaching and learning subjects in a second language.
Alessia Cogo is a Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at Goldsmiths, University of

London, where she is director of the MA in Multilingualism, Linguistics and Education.
Her research focuses on ELF multilingual practices in professional, academic, and migra-
tion contexts. She is Editor-in-Chief of ELT Journal https://academic.oup.com/eltj.
Gavin Dudeney is Director of Technology for The Consultants-E, working in online train-
ing and consultancy in EdTech on the NILE /University of Chichester MA in Professional
Development for Language Education. Gavin is also author of The Internet and the
Language Classroom (Cambridge University Press) and co-author of How to Teach English
with Technology (Longman), Digital Literacies (Routledge), and Going Mobile (DELTA
Publishing).
Clare Furneaux is a British National Teaching Fellow, Professor of Applied Linguistics, and
a Teaching and Learning Dean at the University of Reading, UK. She has taught English
in Asia, and also led MA ELT campus and distance study programmes. She supervises and
conducts research into academic literacy, especially writing.
Seyit Omer Gok is the programme coordinator of the English language learning programme
at English Academy for Newcomers in the Netherlands. His main research area of interest
is the design, development, and evaluation of language teaching and learning materials. He
is also interested in teaching English to young learners (TEYL), lesson study (research les-
son), and management in ELT.
Gregory Hadley is a Professor of TESOL and Cultural Studies at Niigata University. Since
2012, he has been a Visiting Fellow at Oxford University. He has published numerous
works in ELT, data-driven learning, qualitative research methodology, and critical grounded
theory.
Hiromi Hadley is an Associate Professor of TESOL at Niigata University. She is currently

investigating the effects of short-term overseas study on Japanese university students using
grounded theory. She has been involved in the development and evaluation of the English
language curriculum and the Self-Access Learning Center.
Naeema Hann began her career as an EFL teacher in Peshawar. She then taught and co-
ordinated ESOL and bilingual courses in Bradford, UK. Naeema has written literacy materi-
als for adult learners for the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency
(Becta). She currently teaches on the MA at Leeds Beckett University and researches lan-
guage learning, especially in low-literate contexts.
Sharon Hartle is an Associate Professor of English Language in the Department of Foreign

Languages and Literatures at L’Universita’ degli Studi di Verona, Italy. Her research inter-
ests are related to English language teaching and in particular materials development, mul-
timedia teaching, ESP, and the use of corpora in ELT.
xv
Contributors
Nigel Harwood is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Sheffield. His

research interests include textbook design, academic writing, proofreading, and citation
analysis. He is editor emeritus of the journal English for Specific Purposes.
Nicky Hockly is Director of Pedagogy of The Consultants-E (www.theconsultants-e.com).

She writes columns on technology in English Teaching Professional magazine and English
Language Teaching Journal. Her prize-winning methodology books include Focus on
Learning Technologies (Oxford University Press), and ETpedia Technology (Pavilion
Publishing). Nicky’s research interests focus on blended and online learning.
Stacey Holliday Hughes has worked as a language teacher, teacher trainer/educator, and
materials writer. Her writing work includes student materials, blogs, academic articles, and
teacher support materials. She has extensive experience in ELT publishing, and in her role
as an in-house teacher trainer for a major publisher, she has delivered live and online profes-
sional development workshops worldwide.
John Hughes is an award-winning ELT coursebook author with over 40 titles and a teacher
trainer based in the UK. He is also the originator and series editor for the ETpedia teacher
resources (Pavilion ELT) and has delivered training courses and provided consultancy in
materials writing for language schools.
Christian Jones is a Senior Lecturer in TESOL and Applied Linguistics at the University
of Liverpool. His main research interests are connected to spoken language, and he has
published research related to spoken corpora, lexis, lexico grammar, and instructed second
language acquisition.
Yasemin Kırkgöz is a Professor in the English Language Teacher Education Department

of Çukurova University, Turkey. Her publications focus on foreign language education
policy, teacher education, and EAP. She was the recipient of the IATEFL Leadership and
Management Special Interest Group Scholarship in 2013, and is co-editor of the book, Key
Issues in English for Specific Purposes in Higher Education (Springer).
Caroline Krantz is a teacher and ELT writer, based in Oxford. She has authored and co-
authored a number of coursebooks, workbooks, and teacher resource books for adult and
upper-secondary learners. Her titles include Move on Students’ Book and Headway Teacher’s
Resource Books. She also writes listening tests for Cambridge ESOL.
Andrew Littlejohn is an Associate Professor for English Language Education in the Sultan
Hassanal Institute of Education at the Universiti Brunei Darussalam. He is the author or
co-author of numerous English language teaching texts, including Cambridge English
for Schools, Primary Colours, Company to Company, and others (Cambridge University
Press).
Michael McCarthy is an Emeritus Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of

Nottingham, Adjunct Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Limerick, Ireland,
and Visiting Professor at Newcastle University. He is the (co)-author and (co)-editor of
xvi
Contributors
53 books, including Touchstone, Viewpoint, Cambridge Grammar of English, and English

Grammar Today, and 112 academic articles.
Jeanne McCarten has been in ELT for over 35 years as a teacher, publisher, and materials
writer. She has published several academic papers on applying insights from corpus research
to materials and is co-author of the corpus-informed materials Touchstone, Viewpoint, and
Grammar for Business, published by Cambridge University Press.
Fiona MacKenzie is a freelance ELT consultant, author, and editor working on print and digi-
tal projects. Previously, she taught English/ESL in UK schools, then worked for Heinemann
and Macmillan in editorial roles for more than 20 years, the last 8 years of which were as a
Publishing Director.
Hitomi Masuhara is a Lecturer in the Department of English in the University of Liverpool,

Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, and Secretary of the Materials Development
Association. Her current research and publications focus on materials development, listen-
ing and reading processes, and second language acquisition.
Freda Mishan is an Emeritus Lecturer of the University of Limerick, working on the MA

TESOL and the Structured PhD TESOL there for over 15 years. Her research and publications
are in the areas of materials development and technology and language learning/blended learn-
ing. She is editor of Folio, the journal of the Materials Development Association (MATSDA).
Julie Norton is a Lecturer in Applied Linguistics and TESOL and Co-Director of Teaching
and Learning at the University of Leicester. She is also co-author of Navigate Pre-
Intermediate (Oxford University Press). Her current research focuses on materials develop-
ment in language teaching and lesson study.
David Nunan is a Professor Emeritus of Applied Linguistics at the University of Hong Kong
and Distinguished Research Professor at Anaheim University, California. He has published
over 100 books and articles on language curriculum development, research methods, and
teacher education.
Lizzie Pinard is an EAP tutor and Assistant Director of Studies at the University of Sheffield’s
English Language Teaching Centre. She has worked in ELT for ten years, in the UK and
abroad. She holds a Delta and an MA in English Language Teaching, and is a senior fellow
of the Higher Education Authority (SFHEA).
Karen Risager is a Professor Emerita in Cultural Encounters, Roskilde University, Denmark.

Her research focuses on the language–culture relation and the concept of linguaculture (cul-
ture in language), the cultural dimensions of foreign and second language education, (analy-
sis of) culture in language learning materials, and language hierarchies in higher education.
Claudia Saraceni is a Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at the University of Bedfordshire.

She holds a PhD in Reader Response Analysis, and her research interests lie in the areas
of language acquisition, materials development for language teaching and learning, critical
awareness development, and world Englishes in literary texts.
xvii
Contributors
Jane Spiro has run training programmes for materials writers in Sri Lanka, Kenya, India,
and Mexico, and is currently a Reader at Oxford Brookes University. She has written two
books of teacher resources (Oxford University Press) and a core book for MA TESOL
(Edinburgh University Press), as well as learner literature, language tests for Cornelsen,
two poetry collections, and a collection of case studies of innovative language practice in
schools (Palgrave Macmillan).
Scott Thornbury has written a number of books on language and language teaching, includ-
ing The New A-Z of ELT and 30 Language Teaching Methods. He has taught and trained
extensively in several continents, and currently teaches for the New School (New York) on
their MA TESOL programme. He is also the series editor of the Cambridge Handbooks for
Language Teachers.
Ivor Timmis is an Emeritus Professor of English Language Teaching at Leeds Beckett

University. His main research interests are in materials development, corpus linguistics,
and historical linguistics. He has worked on materials development projects for China
and Ethiopia, and delivered materials development workshops for the British Council in
Bangkok and Hong Kong.
Brian Tomlinson is an Honorary Visiting Professor at the University of Liverpool, a Chair

Professor at Shanghai International Studies University, and a TESOL Professor at the
University of Anaheim. His main research interest is the evaluation, selection, development,
and use of language learning materials.
Takumi Uchihara is currently completing a PhD in Applied Linguistics at the University

of Western Ontario, Canada. His research includes studies of second language speak-
ing, pronunciation, and vocabulary learning. His research has appeared in journals such
as Language Learning, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, TESOL Quarterly, and
Language Teaching Research.
Penny Ur, now retired, is an experienced English teacher and materials writer at primary
and secondary level, and lectures at Oranim Academic College of Education, Israel. She has
published a number of books and articles on practical aspects of English language teaching.
Stuart Webb is a Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Western Ontario,

Canada. His research interests include vocabulary studies, extensive reading and listening,
and language learning through watching television. His articles have been published in jour-
nals such as Applied Linguistics and Language Learning.
J. J. Wilson is author or co-author of over a dozen books in the ELT field, including Speakout
and How to Teach Listening, both of which won English Speaking Union prizes. J. J. is
also a multi-award-winning novelist. He is writer-in-residence at Western New Mexico
University, USA.
xviii
Introduction and overview
Materials development is a burgeoning field in applied linguistics which attracts doctoral

students and is particularly popular on MA courses in UK universities, both for the the-
oretical insights it brings and its practical utility for language teaching professionals. It
still remains a relatively under-researched area, however. This handbook includes a broad
range of key topics, some of which have not received extensive coverage previously in the
academic literature. Many of the chapters relate specifically to English language teaching,
but the approaches and principles suggested for materials development are generalisable to
other languages as well. The handbook provides an historical overview of the development
of language teaching materials, critical discussion of core issues and an assessment of future
directions. It is hoped that the topics covered will inspire future research in the field.
The handbook challenges the perception of materials development as an ‘atheoretical
activity’ (Samuda 2005:232) by demonstrating throughout the interface between theory and
practice, thereby narrowing this perceived gap. It includes contributors from a wide range of
international contexts: some well-known, applied linguists and academics, but also, diverse
voices, such as those of coursebook authors and editors, who are often woefully under-
represented in academic publications on materials development. It is one of our aims to
address this issue and encourage greater collaboration between all stakeholders involved in
materials development, as we believe that this is essential for future empirical research and
innovation within the field.
The aims, scope, and structure of the handbook are delineated in greater detail below,
with a rationale and brief commentary on each of its nine parts. The handbook provides
cross-referencing to related chapters and provides suggestions for further reading at the end
of each chapter.
Part 1 includes three chapters which aim to sketch out the current terrain of materials
development. Chapter 1 traces the rapid progress of materials development for language
learning, from a field initially dismissed by some applied linguists as a purely practical pur-
suit, to one which is now well-respected as an academic discipline. It highlights the seminal
events and publications which contributed to this process, and comments on current issues
and future directions for materials development. Chapter 2 offers an overview and analy-
sis of the expanded concept of language learning materials in the digital era and provides
xix
a backdrop for further discussion of this topic in Part 7. The chapter begins with a rough
sketch of the use of technology in language learning, including what constitutes ‘materials’
in the digital age, and suggests criteria to evaluate technology-mediated materials. Chapter
3 reviews the relationship between theory and practice with reference to the four skills,
vocabulary, and grammar. It outlines theoretical principles advocated in the literature, the
rationale for these principles, and the inherent challenges for materials designers who aim
to produce theoretically informed materials.
Part 2 examines some of the more controversial, recent debates in the field. Chapter 4
reviews critically the arguments proposed by the pro- and anti-coursebook camps, exploring
the value of global coursebooks, as well as their limitations. It also considers how repre-
sentation of coursebooks in the literature may contribute to polarised views and entrenched
positions. Chapter 5 aims to explore the notion of authenticity in relation to materials
development. It considers to what extent materials reflect authentic, spoken language, and
whether scripted materials provide a realistic model of unscripted conversations found in
corpora. Chapter 6 considers how materials designers select language for teaching materials.
It discusses principles for grading and ordering linguistic items and suggests how materials
writers can make more informed decisions about language choices. Chapter 7 challenges
the current ‘global’ approach to ELT materials for not including the diversity of English and
relying on Anglocentric ideologies. It argues that ELT needs global Englishes coursebooks,
not global coursebooks, and envisages what such materials might look like. Chapter 8
explores how coursebook authors and materials writers construct, directly or indirectly, rep-
resentations of culture while they are developing activities to facilitate language learning.
Drawing upon theories related to national studies, citizenship education studies, Cultural
studies, postcolonial studies, and transnational studies, the chapter specifies several ana-
lytical questions that may be considered when developing materials or drawn upon when
analysing the cultural content of existing materials. The final chapter in this section, Chapter
9, discusses representation in language coursebooks and aims to debunk two educational
myths: firstly, that materials are neutral, and secondly, that they are apolitical. Examples are
presented from Catalan coursebooks, and suggestions are made as to how stakeholders can
explore more critical approaches to materials development through greater awareness of the
ideological issues raised.
Part 3 contains three chapters. Chapter 10 provides a rationale for research into learning
materials, focusing on content (analysing materials and textbooks at the level of the page),
consumption (exploring how learners and teachers use materials), and production (uncover-
ing how materials and textbooks are written and published). It offers examples of recent,
innovative studies, and presents a research agenda for the future. Chapter 11 challenges the
view that materials development in language teaching is an atheoretical activity, an underly-
ing theme of the handbook as previously noted, by comparing approaches to researching
this field. It argues that further longitudinal and experimental studies are necessary, and also
presents a three-year study of a corpus-driven, extensive reading programme, conducted in
a Japanese national university, drawing out relevant implications for materials development.
Chapter 12 traces the historical development of corpora, the shift from written corpora to
the creation of spoken corpora and the emergence of learner corpora. The value of corpus
insights for materials development is explored, and the future relationship between corpora
and learning technology is considered.
In Part 4, we deal with core issues in teaching language systems and skills. Chapter 13
examines the content and scope of grammar-teaching materials, with a particular focus on
coursebooks and grammar books. A brief survey of courses produced for the international
xx
market reveals the main features of grammar-teaching components, and specific recom-
mendations for changes or additions are made. Chapter 14 provides an overview of empiri-
cal research and examples of how to develop, evaluate, and modify materials for effective
vocabulary learning. It suggests how vocabulary learning programmes should be organised
and highlights areas ripe for future research. Chapter 15 tracks how the speaking skill,
with its own distinctive linguistic features, has been re-construed due to explorations in
corpus linguistics and discourse analysis. It considers how this has impacted upon materials
development in relation to fluency as well as accuracy. Chapter 16 examines the interface
between research into reading skills development and approaches to reading represented in
published ELT materials. The chapter defines key reading skills and strategies and explores
reader response theory. It argues for a reader-centred approach which emphasises a more
authentic reader–text interaction than is traditionally found in comprehension activities. The
final chapter in this section, Chapter 17, explores three different approaches when develop-
ing materials to teach writing, focusing on product, process, and sociocultural activity. It
also discusses relevant topics, such as English for academic purposes vs. academic litera-
cies, feedback, and assessment. The implications and challenges for materials development
are discussed with reference to the role of writing in the curriculum, pedagogic concerns
around developing appropriate skills and strategies, and the role of technology.
Part 5 includes two chapters. Chapter 18 reviews some of the main approaches to the
analysis and evaluation of language teaching materials. It argues that materials evaluation
should involve a separate, prior stage of materials analysis, and that both stages are highly
specialised activities which demand expertise. Chapter 19 explores definitions and kinds
of materials adaptation and provides a brief historical account of adaptation studies. It dis-
cusses implications, challenges, and suggests a number of possible ways forward in an era
of global Englishes.
Part 6 includes seven chapters and examines the development of materials for specific con-
texts. Chapter 20 focuses on the design and development of a new primary coursebook series,
created specifically for the Turkish market. It provides a rationale for the project and explores the
implications of recent research on materials development for young learners. Chapter 21 focuses
on how materials are ‘versioned’ to make them suitable for different global audiences and con-
siders the practical and ethical implications which this entails for materials writing. Versioning
is a good example of a topic that is under-represented in the materials development literature
and ripe for further research and investigation. Chapter 22 uncovers the craft of writing English
for academic purposes (EAP) materials. The influences of three theoretical approaches: register
analysis; discourse and rhetorical analysis; and genre analysis on EAP materials development
are explored. Global perspectives on developing EAP materials are related to a local context,
focussing on EAP courses which were developed at Turkish universities. The chapter argues
for the enhanced professional development of EAP teachers to increase the quality of materials
produced in-house. Chapter 23 discusses the paucity of ESOL-specific materials and the need
to create them. It suggests three areas to consider when writing ESOL materials: learner factors,
contextual factors, and pedagogic factors. Chapter 24 looks at English-medium (EM) education
for language majority and minority learners in Europe and for language majority learners in
Sub-Saharan Africa. The chapter highlights that published EM materials are scarce in particular
global contexts, distinct in terms of design and pedagogy, and that a lack of resources can be
detrimental to learning. Chapter 25 considers specific considerations when writing coursebooks
for Spanish teenagers, exploring the affordances and challenges of creating materials for a mono-
lingual group in that age group. The final chapter in this section, Chapter 26, addresses a topic
which has also received very limited attention in the literature, that is, writing materials for an
xxi
English-speaking environment. It considers the challenges that arise when writing these types of
materials, focussing specifically on learner autonomy, motivation, and culture.
Part 7 includes two chapters. It begins with a chapter on blended learning (BL), referring to
the blend of digital tools with face to face (f2f) resources used in physical classrooms with a
teacher. This chapter outlines what BL is and what BL materials are, discussing current practice
in the development of commercial materials, as well as locally developed ones. It advocates a
principled approach to materials development for both digital and f2f contexts, allowing work
conducted in the f2f context to dovetail with what is done online. Chapter 28 examines how
materials writers can exploit the affordances of mobile devices to design pedagogically sound
English language learning activities, based upon relevant theories of second language learn-
ing and mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) research. Current mobile trends and how to
evaluate the effectiveness of mobile materials are also explored.
The chapters in Part 8 focus on the potential contribution of under-represented voices,
namely learners, authors, and editors in the materials development literature. Chapter 29
presents a case for learner involvement in the creation and adaptation of materials. Learner-
generated materials are viewed as an integral part of a learner-centred curriculum which
can supplement commercial and other types of materials. Chapter 30 offers insights into
the process of developing materials for commercial publication from a writer’s perspec-
tive. Recent trends in writing materials for adults, such as authenticity, use of video, the
influence of digital learning, and 21st-century skills, are also reviewed. In addition, topics
such as homogeneity in materials writing, the creation of engaging, innovative materials,
and the role of theory are discussed. New ways of working within the publishing industry
which impact on the way writers write are also explored. In this way, the chapter uncovers
some of the hidden issues related to how writers work collaboratively with editors. The final
chapter in this section, Chapter 31, also has a focus on publishing, focussing on the key role
that editors play in materials development and how this has been affected by the ongoing
changes in the publishing industry. It draws upon the authors’ own professional experience
as editors, publishers, and authors, and also includes insights from current practitioners.
Recommendations for editorial training are proposed, and future trends for ELT editors,
publishers, and teaching materials are explored.
The final part of the handbook, Part 9, focuses on professional development and materi-
als writing. Chapter 32 delineates the journey from teacher to materials writer, exploring the
challenges, and compromises involved. The chapter considers the status of print materials,
the impact of digital media and presents examples of real-world writing projects to illustrate
some of the issues raised. Chapter 33 considers the role of coursebooks, coursebook compo-
nents, and teachers’ books in the professional development of language teachers. It presents
the results of a small-scale survey, which suggests that teachers benefit developmentally
from the use of these materials. It also documents the role that publishers play in providing
professional support for teachers at different stages in their careers in terms of their class-
room use of materials. The final chapter in the handbook, Chapter 34, addresses the issue of
training teachers to write their own materials and how this has changed over the years. An
innovative syllabus for a materials writing training course is proposed, which could be used
in its entirety or form the basis of shorter, specialised courses. The chapter presents a range
of original training tasks which can be used to develop trainee materials writers.
As this overview suggests, the handbook is aimed at readers who seek to expand their
theoretical knowledge of materials development to support their practical skills and experi-
ence, but it will equally help those with more theoretical knowledge to gain insights into the
practical applications and commercial concerns of the field. The handbook aims to bring a
xxii
fresh angle to topics which have been previously covered in the literature, but also focuses
on areas which have received more limited coverage, such as the impact of digital materi-
als on the craft of materials writing, and the versioning of international coursebooks to
make them suitable for a wider range of cultural contexts, as well as commercial aspects of
the publishing process. Teachers and postgraduate students who are interested in becoming
materials writers or working in publishing require an in-depth understanding of how high-
quality, theoretically sound, language learning materials are produced within the current,
commercial climate: for example, how writing projects for a global audience have become
more publisher-led rather than author-led, how this has transformed the publishing process,
and the constraints it places upon writers. Through the inclusion of an expanded range of
topics, a more balanced, holistic view of the world of materials development is represented
here, which takes into account theoretical, practical, and commercial concerns.
In addition, however, certain themes and topics which have emerged through this
expanded focus have highlighted areas which merit further research. For example, the need
to conduct greater research into the way materials are versioned by exploring the princi-
ples that are drawn upon in selecting and adapting sections of best-selling coursebooks to
make them suitable for a global audience, whilst addressing the political, ethical, and moral
dimensions of this enterprise more openly. Developing materials for an English-speaking
environment is another under-researched area which requires further study in terms of
how language learning opportunities can be promoted, supported, and exploited outside
the classroom. Another pressing issue to explore, which is gaining momentum but has not
received the attention it deserves, is the need to create more inclusive learning materials by
representing greater diversity and a wider range of voices in a non-tokenistic way in lan-
guage learning materials. ELT Teacher 2 Writer has produced training materials to address
this issue which demands serious engagement (Seburn 2021).
Editing and writing chapters for this handbook during a global pandemic has entailed
innumerable challenges, both for us and for our contributors. This has led us to reflect on
the lessons learned and our hopes for the future of materials development, some of which
we would like to articulate here. Firstly, we are extremely grateful to all our contributors
for their hard work, efforts, and patience during these unprecedented times. As co-editors
and co-authors, we have a long track record of collaboration, which began when we met
at primary school aged four and five in Leeds, West Yorkshire. As life-long friends, we are
privileged to teach, write, research, and present at international conferences together. We
are also both co-authors of the flagship coursebook series, Navigate, published by Oxford
University Press in 2015, which was a finalist in the English-Speaking Union (ESU) awards
in November 2016, and a finalist in the British Council ELTons awards in June 2017. We,
therefore, feel we are in a rather unique position, due to the professional experiences we
have shared, to comment upon two significant issues which have come to our attention
during work on the handbook: firstly, the importance of collaboration between a range of
stakeholders to take the field of materials development forward. This would entail holding
critical discussions with students, parents, teachers, coursebook authors, editors, and pub-
lishers to set relevant research agendas which would lead to greater innovation in materials
development. Secondly, the importance of encouraging new voices in the field, including
student voice and greater international representation. We are delighted that the handbook
includes chapters from authors who were our former MA and PhD students, and from col-
leagues who have never been invited to contribute to this kind of publication before, despite
their extensive experience and expertise. Our wish-list in terms of materials development
would overarchingly include greater collaboration to minimise the theory-practice divide,
xxiii
which still exists, and to support teachers to become researchers of their own contexts when
creating, using, and evaluating learning materials. This is obviously nothing new, but what
is new is the desire to support and collaborate in innovative ways, drawing upon diverse
research agendas which can impact positively upon the field of materials development in a
more democratic and progressive way. The other important issue is to ensure that research
findings are communicated to teachers, impact upon practice where relevant, and that class-
room practice is both valued and drawn upon for the insights it can offer to the advancement
of theory.
References
Samuda, V., 2005. Expertise in pedagogic task design. In Johnson, K., ed. Expertise in Second
Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Seburn, T., 2021. How to Write Inclusive Materials. ELT Teacher 2 Writer.
xxiv
Part 1
Changes and developments in
language teaching materials

1
The discipline of materials
development
Brian Tomlinson
Introduction
The term ‘the discipline of materials development’ is used in this chapter to refer to the
academic study of all the different processes made use of in the development and use of
materials for language learning and teaching. ‘Such processes include materials evalua-
tion, materials adaptation, materials design, materials production, materials exploitation and
materials research’ (Tomlinson 2012:143–144). All of these processes are important and
should ideally ‘interact in the making of any materials designed to help learners to acquire
a language’ (Tomlinson 2012:143–144). By materials I mean anything which can be used to
facilitate the learning of a target language.
So materials could be a coursebook, a CD ROM, a story, a song, a video, a cartoon, a

dictionary, a mobile phone interaction, a lecture or even a photograph used to stimulate
a discussion. They could also be an exercise, an activity, a task, a presentation or even
a project.
(Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018:2)
Materials can be informative (in that they inform the learner about the target language),
instructional (in that they guide the learner to practise the language), experiential (in
that they provide the learner with experience of the language in use), eliciting (in that
they encourage the learner to use the language) or exploratory (in that they help the
learner to make discoveries about the language).
(Tomlinson 2012:143)
It was not until the 1990s that materials development for language learning began to become
accepted as an academic discipline. Before that it was often dismissed in tertiary institutions as a
practical pursuit without any tradition of research or any theoretical underpinning, and publica-
tions focused on advice on how to evaluate and select materials (e.g. Cunningsworth 1984), adapt
materials (e.g. Madsen and Bowen 1978), or write materials (e.g. Byrd 1995). I remember in the
early ’90s proposing the development of an MA in Materials Development at a British university
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-2 3
Brian Tomlinson
and subsequently a module in Materials Development for an MA in Applied Linguistics at a

prestigious university in Asia. Both proposals were initially resisted by academics who insisted
that materials development was insufficiently academic to be the focus of postgraduate study.
However both proposals were eventually accepted by committees who I managed to persuade of
the potential value of the academic study of the processes, procedures, and products of materials
development for language learning. In 1993 I founded MATSDA (www.matsda.org), an inter-
national materials development association dedicated to bringing together teachers, research-
ers, writers, and publishers to work together to inform the field of materials development for
language learning. Other universities began to develop materials development modules on
their MAs, and publications began to appear theorising the process of materials development
and reporting research (for example, Harwood 2010; McGrath 2002; Tomlinson 1998, 2003).
Proposals for PhDs on aspects of materials development began to be accepted, and such studies
eventually led to further research-informed publications (for example, Garton and Graves 2014;
Harwood 2014; McGrath 2013; Tomlinson 2013b, 2016b; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2010), and
to presentations at conferences.
Nowadays materials development is accepted throughout the world as an academic disci-
pline. It has become a very popular focus for MA and PhD research, and there are now many
books and journals reporting the theories and findings of materials development research
(for example, ELT Journal and Folio, the journal of MATSDA, as well as the publications
mentioned above).
The first MATSDA Conference in 1993 featured mainly presentations on ideas for the
development of effective materials. Most of them were principled but very few focused
on the application of theory to practice or reported research findings. In contrast, at the
MATSDA/SISU Conference at the Shanghai International Studies University in 2018, 45
of the 75 accepted presentations presented research findings and suggested implications for
the development of materials, 14 proposed ways of developing research-informed materi-
als, and 16 described academic materials development courses designed to help teachers
develop both theoretical awareness and practical expertise.
The battle now though is not to gain academic acceptance for the discipline of materials
development but to ensure a positive interaction between materials development as a practi-
cal pursuit and materials development as an academic discipline. We need to make sure that
teachers and materials writers are able to access and apply relevant research findings when
they develop, select, adapt, and use materials. We also need to make sure that researchers are
aware of the realities of language learning in the classroom and that they gain insights and
awareness from contact with practice. Fortunately this awareness has been demonstrated
in many recent publications about materials development, for example Garton and Graves
(2014), Harwood (2010, 2014), Masuhara et al. (2016), McDonough et al. (2013), McGrath
(2013, 2016), Mishan and Timmis (2015), Mukundan (2008), Tomlinson (2011a, 2013b,
2013c, 2016b), and Tomlinson and Masuhara (2010, 2018). Nearly all the writers in these
books are both practitioners and researchers, and their focus is on both theoretical principles
and their practical realisations. This is true too of recent special materials development edi-
tions of the journals Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching (Tomlinson 2016c) and
the European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TESOL (Tomlinson 2015). Unfortunately
there is little evidence as yet that actual commercially produced materials are being effec-
tively informed by research and theory (Tomlinson and Masuhara 2013). This is not too sur-
prising as the commercial imperative warns against the economic risks of radical change and
supports the perpetuation of approaches which sell well. A good example of this is the pres-
entation, practice, production (PPP) approach which, in one unit, can introduce a language
4
The discipline of materials development
item, structure, or skill through description and exemplification, provide controlled and
guided practice of it, and get students to produce it. This is an approach which has driven the
best-selling coursebooks of the last 50 years (Tomlinson and Masuhara 2013) despite being
discredited by many researchers (for example, Mishan 2013; Tomlinson 2011b; Tomlinson
and Masuhara 2018; and Willis and Willis 2007). It is, though, an approach which appeals
to teachers because it can help them to cover a large curriculum quickly and to administra-
tors because it can help them to timetable and to standardise. However, according to the
researchers referred to above, the apparent learner success achieved by PPP can only be an
ephemeral illusion effected by short-term memory as language acquisition requires multi-
ple, spaced, and engaged encounters in contextual use as well as multiple opportunities for
communicative use.
Critical issues and topics

Teaching vs. learning
Most publications on materials development used to focus on the teaching of the target lan-
guage. This emphasis was reflected in such titles as Evaluating and Selecting EFL Teaching
Material (Cunningsworth 1984). Nowadays the focus is much more on materials devel-
opment for the learning of a target language, and this shift is reflected in such titles as
The Complete Guide to the Theory and Practice of Materials Development for Language
Learning (Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). This shift mirrors a change in attitude towards
materials which to a large extent has been influenced by an awareness that learners do
not learn what teachers teach but what they want and need to learn, as well as by SLA
research which demonstrates the need for language learners to experience a rich and mas-
sive exposure to the target language in use, to be affectively and cognitively engaged, to
gain opportunities to use the language for communication, and to be given opportunities to
make discoveries for themselves (Tomlinson 2016a).
In theory the teacher’s role as an implementer of materials has become much more as a
provider of opportunities for learning than a giver of knowledge, though this is not always
reflected in the writing of coursebooks nor in actual practice in the classroom. In Tomlinson
(2014a) I argue for teacher quality talking time (not teaching time) and say that teachers
need to talk to their learners in order to:
·· Provide their learners with exposure to the target language in use (especially as in many
contexts they are the learners’ only source)
·· Engage their learners both cognitively and affectively
·· Develop a positive rapport
·· Provide communicative feedback
(Tomlinson 2014a:70)
Explicit vs. implicit learning

Related to the question of whether a language can be taught or not is the question of what
contributes most to language acquisition, explicit learning in which the learner is making a
deliberate attempt to learn a specific language item, feature, or skill or implicit learning in
which the learner is focused on communication but finds out something incidentally (and
often subconsciously) about the language too.
5
Brian Tomlinson
Traditionally, teaching methodologies and materials have focused on explicit learning

as a product of explicit instruction from teachers and books. However for the last 50 years
many researchers have been questioning the value of such approaches and proposing more
focus on implicit learning. For example, Krashen (1981) proposed that comprehensible input
was necessary and sufficient for language acquisition; Swain (1995) argued for the value of
pushed output in which learners acquired communicative competence from their attempts
to communicate; Elley and Manghabai (1981) demonstrated the value of extensive reading
in facilitating language acquisition; and Ellis (2016), Long (2015), and Skehan (1998) have
for many years provided evidence of the value of implicit learning. Also a number of experi-
ments have taken place in which learners have been immersed in the target language instead
of being taught it, for example, the Canadian Immersion Project in which young learners in
Canada were taught their school subjects in their second language and incidentally acquired
communicative competence in that language (Swain 1995).
Schmidt (1994) drew attention to the need for noticing how a language item or feature is
being used in order to achieve acquisition of it. This assertion has been generally accepted
by researchers, but there is discussion about whether the noticing needs to be deliberate and
whether it is best initiated by the learner or the teacher. It has been used however to justify
the continuing practice of coursebooks focusing learners’ explicit attention on specific fea-
tures of the language and together with skill acquisition theory (DeKeyser 2009) (a theory
stating that frequent explicit practice leads to automatic ability to use) to justify such explicit
learning approaches as PPP (Criado 2016).
Most coursebooks continue to concentrate on explicit teaching and learning, though
many researchers are convinced that implicit learning is also essential for the acquisition
of communicative competence. For example, Ellis (2016:204) states that whilst ‘[e]xplicit
knowledge of an L2 can play a role in both L2 use and acquisition,’ ‘[a]cquiring an L2
primarily involves the development of implicit knowledge.’ Ellis explains how this can be
achieved, as do Tomlinson and Masuhara (2021).
Despite the research evidence most commercial coursebooks continue to follow a forms-
focused approach in which each unit focuses on a specific teaching point. Publishers say
that this is what teachers and learners want; it gives teachers clear, specific, and achievable
goals; and it gives learners a sense of organisation and progress. But does it help learn-
ers to acquire communicative competence in the target language or does it just promote
short-term learning and create an illusion of coverage? Certainly most researchers favour
a meaning-focused, form-focused approach in which the learners and/or the teacher pay
attention to forms which prove or have proved problematic during communication (Ellis
2016; Long 2015).
Received declarative knowledge vs. discovered awareness

The norm in most language learning materials is for the learners to receive knowledge
about the items and features of the language they are learning based on the assumption that
this knowledge will help them to understand what they are reading and listening to and
to express themselves when speaking or writing. Unfortunately such received knowledge
is inevitably partial, is often not perceived as interesting or useful by the learners, and is
unlikely to become intake which facilitates acquisition and effective use. An alternative
approach is for learners to be given samples of the language in use (ideally samples per-
ceived by the learners to be relevant and engaging) and for them to be stimulated to make
6
discoveries for themselves about how a particular language feature is used in this and other
texts. An example would be to get learners to respond personally to the first two pages of the
novel The Graduate (Webb 1964) (e.g. ‘Why do you think Benjamin didn’t want to go to
his own graduation party?’) and then to work together in groups to discover what the inter-
rogative is used for by Benjamin’s father and what the imperative is used for by Benjamin.
For information and discussion about this discovery approach see Bolitho et al. (2003);
Tomlinson (1994, 2018). For a detailed unit of materials driven by The Graduate plus teach-
ers’ reactions to it, see Tomlinson (2019).
Very few coursebooks make use of open-ended discovery approaches (with English for
Life by Tomlinson, Hill, and Masuhara 2001 being one exception), but nowadays some do
use a compromise approach (usually referred to as consciousness raising) in which learners
are guided to answer closed questions about language features (see Ellis 2016).
Pedagogic approaches to materials development

It is very difficult to research the impact of a particular pedagogic approach on language
acquisition as it is almost impossible to isolate the materials as the only variable. Such
factors as teacher use of the materials, learner motivation, time available, supplementary
resources, exposure to the target language outside the classroom, and the particular inter-
pretation of the approach by the materials developers are bound to influence the effect of the
materials. Nevertheless there have been attempts at such research.
Hadley (2014) researched the longitudinal effect of the use of a PPP-focused coursebook
in Japan and claimed considerable improvement over the academic year for the students.
The improvement though was in scores on the coursebook placement tests of declarative
knowledge rather than in communicative competence.
A number of researchers have recently suggested ways of applying task-based theory
(i.e. acquiring a language through achieving communicative outcomes with it) to materials
development practice (for example, Foster and Hunter 2016; Mackey et al. 2016; Masuhara
2015). In Belgium schools, there have been many projects using task-based materials,
and the largely effective results have been reported in Van den Branden (2006). However,
in Asia, task-based materials have not been as successful, as many of the contributors to
Thomas and Reinders (2015) reveal when reporting how teachers weakened task-based lan-
guage teaching materials in a number of Asian countries (by, for example, pre-teaching
language and asking comprehension questions) in order to focus on preparing their students
for examinations.
An approach which is popular both in the research literature and on projects nowadays
is content and language integrated learning (CLIL), an approach in which the learners make
use of the target language to gain new content knowledge and skills (e.g. architecture, play-
ing a musical instrument, space travel). There are many publications focusing on the princi-
ples and procedures of CLIL but very few proposing procedures for materials development.
One publication which does is Coyle et al. (2010), a book on CLIL which includes a chapter
on ‘Evaluating and Creating Materials and Tasks for CLIL Classrooms.’
The approach I favour (and have used on textbook projects in many countries, for example
Namibia (On Target 1994) and Singapore (Tomlinson et al. 2001)) is the text-driven approach
in which a written, spoken, or multi-modal text is selected for its potential for affective and/
or cognitive engagement and is then used to drive a unit of materials in which the activities
focus on personal response to the text, learner discovery, and learner expression of opinions
7
Brian Tomlinson
and ideas (Tomlinson 2013a; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). There is as yet no empirical
evidence proving the effectiveness of this and of other experiential and humanistic approaches
(or of any other approach for that matter), but there are indications of the effectiveness of text-
driven approaches in helping students to achieve engagement, motivation, and participation
(e.g. Al-Busaidi and Tindle 2010; Darici and Tomlinson 2016; Heron 2016; Tomlinson 2019).
In the last 40 years, there have been many changes in the methodologies which
coursebooks claim on their blurbs but very little change in the pedagogies they actu-
ally use. Most commercially published coursebooks are still using a PPP approach and
featuring such closed practice exercises as listen and repeat, dialogue repetition, and
filling in the blanks, although some researchers have proposed more experiential and
learning-centred approaches. For example, Bolitho et al. (2003) and Tomlinson (1994;
2018) have proposed a language awareness approach involving learners making discov-
eries for themselves about language use. Prabhu (1987), Ellis (2003), Van den Branden
(2006), and Willis and Willis (2007) have advocated task-driven approaches in which
the ‘learners’ target is task completion and the teacher’s objective is language devel-
opment’ (Tomlinson 2012:160). Tomlinson (1981) edited a textbook of task-driven
activities, and Tomlinson (2013a, 2016a) advocated the text-driven approach referred
to above. What all these innovative approaches have in common is a research-informed
move away from discrete teaching points driving instructional material to a focus on
experience of language in use. Such approaches have been used on projects. For exam-
ple, total physical response and discovery approaches were used in materials on the
PKG Project in Indonesia (Tomlinson 1990, 1994, 1995), and a number of textbook
development projects have utilised a text-driven approach (Tomlinson 1995, 2013a),
a task-based approach (Prabhu 1987), or a CLIL approach (Eurydice 2006). However
none of these approaches has yet been used effectively in mainstream commercially
produced coursebooks despite their claims to do so (see Mishan 2013 for a critique of
a global coursebook claiming to be task-based and also for reference to a little known
coursebook which is actually task-based: Widgets by Benevides and Valvona 2008).
Encouragement to look for the target language outside the classroom

There is a growing realisation that it is impossible to acquire a language with the limited
experience which most learners gain on institutional courses and that learners need to look
for the language outside the classroom. This can be achieved through, for example, exten-
sive reading, listening, and viewing (Krashen 2004; Maley 2008); self-access ‘experiences’
(Cooker 2010; Tomlinson 2010a); real and virtual contact with speakers of the language,
forming language clubs in which the members agree to always use the target language when
they meet (Barker 2010); and surfing the web and group research projects. For other ideas
for helping learners to gain greater experience of the target language and especially the role
which materials developers can play, see Pinard (2016 and this volume) and Tomlinson
(2014b).
Teachers’ use of materials

It is my experience with commercial publishers and on coursebook development projects
that most textbooks are written as scripts to be followed rather than as resources to be
exploited, and that most teachers are required to follow and complete their coursebook.
8
However textbooks ‘designed as scripts to follow are aimed at idealised groups of stereo-
typical learners and cannot cater for all the needs and wants of any actual class of learners’
(Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018:29). It has also been my experience when observing lessons
around the world that all teachers are materials developers in that they at least make small
changes to materials to match them more closely to the needs and wants of their learners. I
suspect this is even true of the teachers reported to be using their textbooks as scripts to fol-
low (see, for example, Tsui 2003 and Shawer 2010). It was true of the teacher in Guerrettaz
and Johnson (2013) who used his coursebook as a script but did allow impromptu stu-
dent discussions to develop, and it is certainly true of the teachers reported to use their
coursebooks as resources in, for example, Garton and Graves (2014), Gray (2010), McGrath
(2013), Shawer (2010), Tsui (2003), and Wette (2010). Many teachers manage to make
their coursebooks more meaningful and engaging for their learners (for example some of
the teachers reported in Loh and Renandya 2015), but many just make them more useful in
preparing their learners for examinations (Menkabu and Harwood 2014).
Learner use of materials

One area of potential research is learner use of materials. What do learners do mentally
when they are using materials? What do they pay attention to, what engages them, and
what do they ignore? What do learners do physically when using materials in class? Are
they actually following the lesson in the materials or looking elsewhere? Do they refer to
previous units to help them when doing an activity? Do they actually follow the instruc-
tions? What do learners do with classroom materials outside the classroom? Do they use
the materials for revision? Do they read some of the texts again? Do they repeat some of
the activities? All these are important questions as what learners do with their materials is
likely to be as influential in relation to successful acquisition of communicative competence
as what teachers do with the materials. We need to ask and answer these questions through
observation, learner introspection and reflection, and learner questionnaires, and to report
our discoveries to materials writers, to teachers, and to researchers.
For more detailed discussion of issues in the field of materials development see
Azarnoosh et al. (2016), Harwood (2010), Tomlinson (2010b, 2011a, 2012), and Tomlinson
and Masuhara (2018).
Implications and challenges for materials development

Conducting research on unresolved issues
More and more postgraduate students and researchers are conducting academic studies of
aspects of materials development. Inevitably many of the studies replicate previous studies
and many focus on what is easily measurable (for example, analyses of the types of ques-
tions typically asked in coursebooks). However I am hoping that soon researchers will be
brave and resourceful enough (ideally in well-funded consortia featuring universities team-
ing up with publishers) to attempt to at least find indicative answers to some of the following
unresolved issues:
1. which pedagogic approaches are most likely to help L2 users of language learning
materials to acquire communicative competence?
2. what are the absolute essentials of effective language learning materials?
9
Brian Tomlinson
3. which affordances of digital materials are most likely to facilitate the development of
communicative competence?
4. is using blended learning materials more likely to facilitate the acquisition of commu-
nicative competence than just using paper materials or just using digital materials?
5. are multi-modal materials (e.g. paper plus audio plus video) more likely to facilitate
language acquisition than mono-modal materials (e.g. paper only)?
6. how can effective recycling be incorporated into a coursebook?
7. how can choices of route, voices, texts, and activities be incorporated effectively into a
coursebook?
8. what effect, if any, do features of coursebook design, such as the use of colour or the use
of cartoons, have on the eventual acquisition of communicative competence?
These are big questions requiring longitudinal studies and effective control of variables, but
I think the field and the learners would benefit considerably from attempts to answer them.
For other suggestions for materials development research studies see Tomlinson (2012)
and Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018).
Communicating research findings

It is one thing discovering research findings, it is another communicating them not only to fel-
low researchers in the field but to practitioners who could help teachers and learners to benefit
from them. The MATSDA journal Folio attempts to do this specifically in relation to mate-
rials development. In addition, such journals as ELT Journal, the JALT Journal, the RELC
Journal, and Fortell, as well as such conferences as IATEFL, JALT, MATSDA, RELC, and
TESOL, often feature reports of research findings aimed at informing and stimulating practi-
tioners of materials development. Interestingly these journals and conferences were originally
targeted at practitioners but are becoming more willing to host applied research which is
made accessible and relevant to researchers and practitioners alike. This is true too of some
new associations such as Materials Use in Language Classrooms: An International Research
Group (MUSE International) which has both researchers and teachers as its members. MUSE
is dedicated to finding out how language learning materials are actually used in the classroom
and has a website which reports its activities (https://museinternational.wordpress.com/).
Informing researchers about the realities of classroom use of materials

Just as important as informing practitioners of the findings of materials development research
is informing researchers about such realities of classroom use of materials as the constraints
imposed by large classes, insufficient copies of materials, lack of resources for supplemen-
tation, insufficient time, the demands for examination success, inadequate teacher develop-
ment, and excessively large curricula, as well as the challenges of motivating tired students
with little incentive to acquire the target language, catering for mixed-ability classes, con-
trolling ill-disciplined students, and satisfying students, parents, and superiors. It is really
important that researchers visit typical classrooms, that they actually use materials with
students, and that they become familiar with the concerns of students, teachers, and admin-
istrators. It is also important that they become aware of the positive possibilities of class-
room use of materials and see, for example, normally lethargic students come to life when
affectively and cognitively engaged by texts and activities.
10
Achieving innovation in materials development

Recent articles and books on materials development are crammed with suggestions for
innovations involving more learning-centred and research-informed approaches, and yet
recently published coursebooks continue to perpetuate the stereotype of a coursebook
which provides teachers with coverage of pre-determined structures, lexis, and skills. The
new books might be more colourful and attractive than their predecessors, they might
use different buzzwords on their blurbs, they might be supplemented by digital materi-
als, but most of them still feature explicit teaching, follow a similar PPP approach to
their predecessors (Tomlinson and Masuhara 2013), and sell a world in which speakers
of the target language live happily, harmoniously, and affluently (Gray 2010; Tomlinson
and Masuhara 2018). The reality is that researchers do not publish materials; commercial
companies do. And understandably these companies only publish what they know they
can sell. They know that it is senior teachers and administrators who make decisions
about which materials to buy, and they know that such decision makers tend to prefer
approaches which they are familiar with rather than risk their reputations (or even liveli-
hoods) on innovation.
Achieving innovation in the classroom

Even when innovation has been achieved in materials development, it has not always been
achieved in the classroom, often because heads of department, inspectors, parents, and
teachers have worried that the innovation will damage the examination prospects of the
learners they are responsible for and/or because the teachers are not helped or encouraged to
make good use of the innovative materials. In my experience innovation only occurs in the
classroom if in-service teacher development courses accompany the introduction of innova-
tive materials and if senior staff are trained to provide the teachers with sustained support.
This happened with the introduction of task-based materials in Vanuatu primary schools
(Tomlinson 1981), with the development of communicative materials on the Indonesian
PKG Project (Tomlinson 1990), and with the introduction of a teacher-developed text-
driven coursebook in Namibia (Tomlinson 1995).
For a discussion of how language planning can influence innovation in materials devel-
opment and use see Kennedy and Tomlinson (2013).
Recommendations for practice

My personal recommendations for practice-based research would be to:
·· base more studies of the effects of materials on actual learners in actual classrooms
(even though this means controlling many variables, collecting very rich data, and
spending a lot of time gaining ethical clearance);
·· base more studies on the long-term effects of materials on specific aspects of language
acquisition rather than on short-term memory gains (even though this would take a long
time and the variables would be very difficult to control);
·· conduct more open-minded research of the effects of the development and use of mate-
rials in which the results are not anticipated, rather than trying to validate preconceived
theories or replicate previous research.
11
Brian Tomlinson
Based on my reading and my research, my recommendations would be to develop materials

which provide learners with:
·· a rich, meaningful, and recycled exposure to the target language in use, prior to, during,
and after their language learning lessons;
·· written, spoken, and multi-modal texts with the potential to engage them affectively;
·· written, spoken, and multi-modal texts with the potential to engage them cognitively;
·· experience of embodied language use in which meaning is not just created by words but
by intonation, volume, gestures, and movement;
·· opportunities to make discoveries for themselves of how the target language is used to
achieve intended outcomes;
·· opportunities to use the target language in order to achieve intended outcomes;
·· opportunities to interact with users of different varieties of the target language with dif-
ferent levels of proficiency for different purposes;
·· opportunities to make choices for themselves in relation to pedagogic approaches, to
levels of difficulty, and to competences to aim at;
·· encouragement and help in finding opportunities to explore the target language outside
the classroom.
Future directions
Research-driven materials development
Materials development as a practical undertaking was for a long time considered to be
atheoretical, but it is gradually becoming accepted as a pursuit which can and should be
research-informed. I would like materials development to progress even further and become
research-driven, provided that the research that drives it is based in the realities of language
teaching and learning rather than on unattainable theoretical ideals and that it does not focus
exclusively on what is measurable and provable.
Classroom-driven materials development research

I would like to see much of the research which drives materials development led by what we
know happens, could happen, and could not happen in classrooms. This would require much
more participation (and ideally initiative) from teachers and their institutions and much
more cooperation between institutions which teach languages, institutions which research
language learning, and companies which publish language learning materials. Such coop-
eration would not be easy but it would be valuable.
What we need to know

We still need to know a lot more about the input which is required for language acquisition,
what facilitates the transfer of input to intake, what facilitates the retention of intake, what
facilitates the transfer of intake to acquisition, and what facilitates the application of acquisi-
tion to communicative competence. We also need to know a lot more about which types of
materials can best contribute to these processes. For a book which asks questions about what
we know and what we need to know about the application of different aspects of applied
linguistics to materials development see Tomlinson (2013b) and for a book which attempts
12
to apply what we know about language acquisition to all aspects of the learning of languages
(including materials development) see Tomlinson and Masuhara (2021).
Conclusion
Materials development has come a long way in the last 25 years from a practical pursuit with
publications offering advice on how to evaluate, write, and adapt materials to an academic dis-
cipline whose publications report research investigating the nature and effects of materials and
advocate the application of theory to the practice of materials development. Perhaps the most
distinctive feature of materials development as a discipline today is that, unlike some other disci-
plines in the field of applied linguistics, its research is conducted primarily in order to inform and
improve practice. Let us hope that in future there will be even more interaction between research
and practice, that the research becomes even more informed by the realities of practice, and that
the practice becomes more informed and beneficially influenced by research.
Further reading
Harwood, N., ed., 2014. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production.
Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
This is a book which provides a survey of recent research on the development and use of textbooks
for language learning and which also provides a collection of reflective reports on the contents of
textbooks and of how textbooks are written, designed, published, and used.
McGrath, I., 2013. Teaching Materials and the Roles of EFL/ESL Teachers: Practice and Theory.
London: Bloomsbury.
In this book, McGrath establishes a theory of what teachers can best do in relation to their evaluation,
selection, adaptation, and use of materials and then evaluates teachers’ actual practice against this
theory by reference to published accounts of what teachers do with the materials available to them.
Tomlinson, B., ed., 2016. SLA Research and Materials Development for Language Learning. New
York: Routledge.
This a collection of chapters from eminent researchers and practitioners on the application of
SLA research to the development and use of materials. Recent research results are reported and then
measured against current materials development practice with recommendations then being made in
relation to innovative, research-informed practice.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., 2018. The Complete Guide to the Theory and Practice of Materials
Development for Language Learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons..
This is the most recent and complete review of all the major theoretical and practical aspects
of materials development. As well as the usual chapters on materials production, evaluation, and
adaptation, it contains chapters on materials for different levels and purposes, on materials development
research, on materials design, and on the publication process. It is distinctive also in combining theory
and practice in all the chapters.
Related topics
Theory and practice in materials development, research in materials development: what, how
and why?, using research to inform materials development, approaches to materials adaptation.
References
Al-Busaidi, S. and Tindle, K., 2010. Evaluating the effect of in-house materials on language learning.
In Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., eds. Research for Materials Development in Language
Learning: Evidence for Best Practice. London and New York: Continuum.
13
Brian Tomlinson
Azarnoosh, M., Zeraatpishe, M., Faravani, A. and Kargozari, H.R., eds., 2016. Issues in Materials
Development. Rotterdam: Sense.
Barker, D., 2010. The role of unstructured learner interaction in the study of a foreign language. In
Menon, S. and Lourdunathan, J., eds. Readings on ELT Materials IV. Petaling Jaya, Malaysia:
Pearson Longman.
Benevides, M. and Valvona, C., 2008. Widgets. Hong Kong: Pearson Longman.
Bolitho, R., Carter, R., Hughes, R., Ivanic, R., Masuhara, H. and Tomlinson, B., 2003. Ten questions
about language awareness. ELT Journal 57/2:251–59.
Byrd, P., 1995. Materials Writers Guide. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Cooker, L., 2010. Some self-access principles. Studies in Self-Access Learning, 1/1:5–9.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D., 2010. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Criado, R., 2016. Insights from skill acquisition theory for grammar activity sequencing and design in
foreign language teaching. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10/2:121–132.
Cunningsworth, A., 1984. Evaluating and Selecting EFL Teaching Material. London: Heinemann.
Daraci, A. and Tomlinson, B., 2016. A case study of principled materials in action. In Tomlinson, B.,
ed. Second Language Acquisition Research and Materials Development for Language Learning.
New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R.M., 2009. Cognitive psychological processes in second language learning. In Long, M.
and Doughty, C., eds. Handbook of Second Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell.
Elley, W.B. and Mangubhai, F., 1981. The Impact of a Book Flood in Fiji Primary Schools.
Wellington: N.Z. Council for Educational Research and Institute of Education and University of
South Pacific.
Ellis, R., ed., 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., 2016. Language teaching materials as work plans: An SLA perspective. In Tomlinson, B., ed.
SLA Research and Materials Development for Language Learning. New York: Routledge.
Eurydice, 2006. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at Schools in Europe. Retrieved
on 15 June, 2020 from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/756ebdaa-f694
-44e4-8409-21eef02c9b9b
Foster, P. and Hunter, A., 2016. When it’s not what you do, but the way that you do it: How research
into second language acquisition can help teachers to make the most of their classroom materials.
In Tomlinson, B., ed. SLA Research and Materials Development for Language Learning. New
York: Routledge.
Garton, S. and Graves, K., eds., 2014. International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Basingstoke
and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gray, J., 2010. The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism and Promotion in the ELT
Coursebook. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guerrettaz, A.M. and Johnston, B., 2013. Materials in the classroom ecology. Modern Language
Journal, 97/3:779–796.
Hadley, G., 2014. Global textbooks in local contexts: An empirical investigation of effectiveness.
In Harwood, N., ed. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harwood, N., ed., 2010. Materials in ELT: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Heron, M., 2016. Using affectively engaging texts to stimulate motivation in the learner-Centred
Classroom. In Azarnoosh, M., Zeraatpishe, M., Faravani, A. and Kargozari, H.R., eds. Issues in
Materials Development. Rotterdam: Sense.
Kennedy, C. and Tomlinson, B., 2013. Implementing language policy and planning through materials
development. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Applied Linguistics and Materials Development. London:
Bloomsbury.
Krashen, S., 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York:
Pergamon Press.
14
Krashen, S., 2004. The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Loh, J. and Renandya, W.A., 2015. Exploring adaptations of materials and methods: A case from
Singapore. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 4/2:93–111.
Long, M., 2015. Second Language Acquisition and Task-based Language Teaching. Malden, MA:
Wiley Blackwell.
Mackey, A., Ziegler, N. and Bryfonski, L., 2016. From SLA research on interaction to TBLT materials.
In Tomlinson, B., ed. SLA Research and Materials Development for Language Learning. New
York: Routledge.
Madsen, K.S. and Bowen, J.D., 1978. Adaptation in Language Teaching. Boston, MA: Newbury
House.
Maley, A., 2008. Extensive reading: Maid in waiting. In Tomlinson, B., ed. English Language Learning
Materials: A Critical Review. London: Continuum.
Masuhara, H., 2015. “Anything goes” in task-based language teaching materials?: The need for
principled materials evaluation, adaptation and development. The European Journal of Applied
Linguistics and TEFL, 4/2:113–128.
Masuhara, H., Tomlinson, B. and Mishan, F., eds., 2016. Practice and Theory for Materials
Development in Language Learning. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
McDonough, J., Shaw, C. and Masuhara, M., 2013. Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide.
3rd ed. London: Blackwell.
McGrath, I., 2002. Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
McGrath, I., 2016. Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Menkabu, A. and Harwood, N., 2014. Teachers’ conceptualization and use of the textbook on a
medical English course. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content,
Consumption, Production. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mishan, F., 2013. Studies of pedagogy. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Applied Linguistics and Materials
Development. London: Bloomsbury.
Mishan, F. and Timmis, I., 2015. Materials Development for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Mukundan, J., ed., 2008. Readings on ELT Materials III. Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia.
Pinard, L., 2016. Looking outward: Using learning materials to help learners harness out-of-class
learning opportunities. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. 10/2:133–143.
Prabhu, N.S., 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R., 1994. Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars
and SLA. In Ellis, N.C. ed. Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Shawer, S., 2010. Classroom level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers,
curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26/2:173–184.
Skehan, P., 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer,
B., eds. Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H. G. Widdowson.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, M. and Reinders, H., eds., 2015. Contemporary Task-based Language Teaching in Asia.
London: Bloomsbury.
Tomlinson, B., ed., 1981. Talking to Learn. Port Vila: Govt. of Vanuatu.
Tomlinson, B., 1990. Managing change in Indonesian high schools. ELT Journal, 44/1:25–37.
Tomlinson, B., 1994. Pragmatic awareness activities. Language Awareness, 3/3–4:119–129.
Tomlinson, B., 1995. Work in progress: Textbook projects. Folio, 2/2:26–31.
Tomlinson, B, ed., 1998. Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tomlinson, B., ed., 2003. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum Press.
15
Brian Tomlinson
Tomlinson, B., 2010a. Principles and procedures for self-access materials. Studies in Self-Access
Learning Journal, 1/2:72–86.
Tomlinson, B., 2010b. Principles and procedures of materials development. In Harwood, N., ed.
Materials in ELT: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B., ed., 2011a. Materials Development in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Tomlinson, B., 2011b. Principled procedures in materials development. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
Development in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B., 2012. Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching,
45/2:143–179.
Tomlinson, B., 2013a. Developing principled frameworks for materials development. In Tomlinson,
B., ed. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London: Continuum Press.
Tomlinson, B., ed., 2013b. Applied Linguistics and Materials Development. London: Continuum.
Tomlinson, B., ed., 2013c. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London: Continuum
Press.
Tomlinson, B., 2014a. Let the teacher speak. In IATEFL 2013: Liverpool Conference Selections.
Faversham: IATEFL.
Tomlinson, B., 2014b. Looking out for English. Folio, 16/1:5–8.
Tomlinson, B., guest ed., 2015. Special issue on materials development. European Journal of Applied
Linguistics and TESOL, 4/2:1–179.
Tomlinson, B., 2016a. Achieving a match between SLA theory and materials development. In
Tomlinson, B., ed. SLA Research and Materials Development for Language Learning. New York:
Routledge.
Tomlinson, B., guest ed., 2016c. Special issue on materials development. Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching, 10/2:73–153.
Tomlinson, B., 2018. Discovery-based instruction. In Liontas, J.I., ed. TESOL Encyclopedia of English
Language Teaching. Hoboken, NJ.: Wiley.
Tomlinson, B., 2019. Using literature in text-driven materials to help develop spoken language
awareness. In Jones, C., ed. Literature, Spoken Language and Speaking Skills in Second Language
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., 2013. Adult coursebooks. ELT Journal, 67/2:233–249.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H. 2021. SLA Applied: Connecting Theory and Practice. Cambridge:
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., eds., 2010. Research for Materials Development in Language
Learning: Evidence for Best Practice. London: Continuum.
Tomlinson, B., Hill, D. and Masuhara, H., 2001. English for Life, Vol. 1. Singapore: Times/Federal.
Tsui, A., 2003. Understanding Expertise in Teaching: Case Studies of ESL Teachers. New York:
Van den Branden, K., 2006. Task-based Language Education: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge:
Webb, C., 1964. The Graduate. London: Constable and Company Ltd..
Wette, R., 2010. Professional knowledge in action: How experienced ESOL teachers respond to
feedback from learners within syllabus and contextual constraints. System 38/4:569–579.
Willis, D. and Willis, J., 2007. Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16
2
Language learning materials in the
digital era
Freda Mishan
Introduction
Authors are often justly nervous about writing about technology. Apart, perhaps, from poli-
tics, nothing changes so rapidly or dates so quickly. The saving grace, however, is the steady
march towards the normalisation of technology, in society as a whole and in spheres such
as language education, which permits us to make generalisations about its use. The extent
to which technology has become normalised – ‘invisible’ or ‘non-remarkable’ – in language
education is clear when one considers the range of technologies language teachers have
come to rely on over the past 50 or so years, including early forms of audio and visual
recordings, and extending, latterly, to computer and digital technologies. It is no longer pos-
sible to opt out of using technology: ‘it is so pervasive and so interwoven with human activ-
ity that to teach language without some form of technology would create a very limited and
artificial learning environment—if it were even possible at all’ (Chun et al. 2016:65). The
most pervasive technology, the mobile phone, reached 67% of the global population (circa
4.8 billion people) by 2020 (Statista 2020), leaping the so-called digital divide as it becomes
ubiquitous even in very low-resource contexts (Hockly 2014). It can be argued that as lan-
guage educators, we have thus surpassed the point of debating whether to use technology in
language learning (Liu and Chao 2017) or comparing technology use to face-to-face teach-
ing. A large body of such research exists; Grgurović et al. (2013), for instance, conducted
a meta-analysis of 37 effectiveness studies carried out between 1970 and 2006. Instead we
need to recognise the impact of this societal shift and explore how to maximise the learn-
ing opportunities that technology offers, not least of which is expanding learner knowledge
of the language conventions of interacting in the digital environment. Since the role of the
language teacher has always been as a guide towards an understanding of how linguistic and
cultural norms operate, ‘it is important for teachers to address how language is used in ways
both old and new across different material mediums and technologies’ (Chun et al. 2016:65).
The precepts of sociocultural theory, that the tool mediates and transforms the outcome
(Warschauer 2005), are clearly at play here: ‘Change the tool and you change the possibili-
ties of communication. This is particularly evident in the age of digital media’ (Chun et al.
2016:65). What is more, language use is only part of a broader digital literacy which refers
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-3 17

Freda Mishan
to: ‘the individual and social skills needed to effectively interpret, manage, share and create
meaning in the growing range of digital communication channels’ (Dudeney et al. 2013:2).
The use of technology and language learning has thus redoubled value as it fosters the
development of these essential transferable skills.
The research in a field whose raison d’être is to deploy technological innovation for
language learning is necessarily diverse and rapidly evolving. Online journals are the best
touchstones for this, with their much speedier publication turnaround than published books.
Journals such as Language Learning and Technology (LL&T), CALICO journal, ReCALL,
Computer Assisted Language Learning (LL&T), System, and the Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication have traced the use of evolving technologies for language learn-
ing from the early days (LL&T, for instance, was 21 years old in 2017). Some applications
of technology have come and gone; wikis (authorable websites) for example have become
more or less redundant with the advent of social media and its affordances for uploading
personalised content. Others have persisted and become relatively mainstream, such as the
pedagogical use of corpora, or online content offered by YouTube, TED Talks, podcasts, and
the like. Perhaps the most obvious overall shift over time is that the hardware has shrunk
– from the desktop PC to the mobile device. This has meant a corresponding move from
web to digital technology and has made for (the possibility at least of) more individualised
language learning as the more open online environment of the early 2000s has ceded to
today’s social media and ever-multiplying selection of apps. Hence the growing interest
in mobile-assisted language learning (MALL), cashing in on the ubiquity and flexibility of
mobile devices, making MALL, or M-learning one to watch (as at the time of writing, see
Dudeney and Hockly, this volume).
As technology evolves, so does the terminology. The most enduring term associated
with technology and language learning is the somewhat anachronistic computer-assisted
language learning (CALL) even though digital devices are rapidly replacing computers.
Its concision is perhaps one reason for its survival (and the reason why it is used in places
for convenience in this chapter). The term computer-mediated communication (CMC) has
an old-fashioned ring to it for the same reason. Furthermore, it was coined in the 1990s
when the advent of email saw the development of many inter-institutional communications
projects (see Lin 2014 for a meta-analysis of studies from 2000–2012). The more neu-
tral information and communications technology (ICT) is a more contemporary contender,
along with purely descriptive terms like language learning and technology and of course,
blended learning, although this refers rather to the techniques whereby technologies and
face-to-face teaching are integrated (see Hartle, this volume). Turning to the subject of this
chapter, the term digital materials is often used today (e.g. by Kiddle 2013, Motteram 2016,
and Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). This leads us into the next section where we seek
to reposition what we understand by language learning materials within the technological
environment.

Tools, tasks, materials
One of the points often made about technology is not that it affects activity but that it trans-
forms it. Such is the case in language learning. Today’s technologies offer learning activi-
ties unique to their affordances: the use of Quick Response (QR) codes, for example, to
access other media, or apps such as Google Translate which has altered learner dictionary
18
Language learning materials in the digital era
behaviour. Our conceptualisation of language learning materials in the technological realm

has had to evolve to take this into account. There are still materials available on digital/online
platforms that are comparable to their print-based counterparts: language learning course-
ware, language learning apps, and ready-made online materials on language learning web-
sites. These are materials delivered digitally, referred to as digital materials by Tomlinson
and Masuhara (2018). But the potential of technology is not fulfilled by restricting itself to
what has previously been done in print; it has far more to offer in the form of generic tools
enabling some form of learning enactment – what we might call authentic tools, to extend
the traditional definition of authentic in the context of language learning materials as not
designed for language learning. This is evident from a trawl through online journals on ICT/
CALL displaying research on an ever-growing range of digital and online tools being used
for learning. A search for the key word materials, on the other hand, does not yield many
articles, and the ones it does tend to be from the 1980s, 1990s, or early 2000s. This would
seem to acknowledge ‘a shift from the concept of creation of “materials” (as content created
for learners’ use) to harnessing and exploitation of “tools”’ (Kiddle 2013:192), a distinction,
to use theoretical terms applied in language pedagogy, between materials as product and
materials as process. This shift in the research and use of technologies for learning, from
materials as content/product to tools, reflects the realisation that what technology affords is
not an alternative platform for traditional materials, but entirely new dimensions. It is this
deployment which offers the greatest potential, and it is this that has inspired the vast major-
ity of the research in this field.
The pedagogical framework that is most identified with the use of authentic technologi-
cal tools for language learning is task (i.e. a language activity that is goal-oriented rather
than form-focused). The synergy between CALL and task was noted as early as 2001,
when Chapelle drew attention to the ‘unique technology-mediated tasks’ (2001:2) enabled
within the online medium. It has been pointed out that the way we interact with the online
environment is task-like: ‘despite being conceived before the digital age … task is per-
fectly in tune with work modes that have come to be associated with using the Internet’
(Mishan 2010:150). Indeed, an online platform inspired by task sprang up in the mid-1990s,
WebQuest.org, which offered frameworks for designing a WebQuest (a task-based online
research project) together with a database of teacher-authored WebQuests. Two volumes,
Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology (Thomas and Reinders
2010) and Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (González-
Lloret and Ortega 2014), have helped consolidate tasks as the acknowledged methodologi-
cal fit for the digital environment. As technology develops, so does the scope of tasks:
‘Once technological design mediates tasks, the technology becomes not just a vehicle of
instruction or delivery, but instead spearheads a set of new demands and actions which in
and of themselves become target tasks’ (González-Lloret and Ortega 2014:7). This can be
seen in the conceiving of tasks using digital technologies, most now accessible from mobile
devices, such as social media – as at the time of writing, the popular social networking
services (SNSs) include Snapchat, WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. By now
quite traditional media, but still consistently used in language learning tasks, include blog-
ging, online chat, and email, while massive immersive environments such as massively
multiplayer online games (MMOGs) can be exploited as interactive places for collaborative
tasks (see also below).
Falling somewhere between the conceptions of materials as tasks and materials as prod-
uct/content as defined earlier, comes a third category capitalising on the affordances of tools/
apps designed to generate or author learning materials like quizzes, cartoons, word clouds,
19
Freda Mishan
memes, and the like. Examples include the comic strip generator makebeliefscomix (www
.makebeliefscomix.com), quiz generator puzzlemaker (www.puzzlemaker.school.discovery
.com), word cloud generator wordle (www.wordle.net), the interactive quiz app Kahoot, or
more generic tools still, such as the meme app Producer or, indeed, Wikipedia which allows
the uploading of user-generated content. Some of these tools (such as comic strip, quiz, and
word cloud generators) can be used by teachers to produce content to be delivered either
digitally or in hard copy. Alternatively they can be used by learners in tasks aimed at pro-
ducing their own content for peer-sharing, uploading, and so on. Thus, collaborating on a
Wikipedia entry or uploading a collaboratively generated quiz to the class SNS can be seen
as tasks (meaningfully interactive, goal-focused) but ones which produce digital materials
(as earlier defined). This blurring of the materials-tools distinction is part of the reality of
technology use for language learning, and illustrates the complexities of seeking to realign
the parameters of materials for the digital era.
Theoretical underpinnings for language learning with technology

The exigencies of operating in an online linguistic environment have altered not only our
conceptions of learning materials, as illustrated above, but also the learning needs of our
students: ‘what it means to learn a language—the kinds of skills and social practices that one
must develop in order to be a productive member of civic society—has … shifted’ (Hafner
et al. 2015:1). This would suggest that the conception of that bedrock of language pedagogy,
communicative competence, also needs to be recast:
Those able to contrast today’s communication with that in the pre-computer-technology

era recognize that communicative competence cannot possibly be defined in the same
way that it once was … Because learners communicate through technology, communi-
cative competence needs to include the ability to communicate using readily accessible
L2 technology aids (such as online bilingual dictionaries and tools that check gram-
mar), the ability to make appropriate linguistic choices in face-to-face, remote, written,
and oral modes, and the ability to choose appropriate technologies for communication
and language learning.
(Chapelle 2009:749–750)
The conflation of an expanded concept of communicative competence to include what is

usually termed digital literacy is really useful, and it will be seen to inform the framework
for evaluation discussed later on.
To capture and describe this spread of skills and competences born of interacting within
the digital environment, writers have looked to a number of educational theories and philos-
ophies. The one most traditionally associated with CALL is sociocultural theory (Vygotsky
1981). Conceived at the end of the 19th century, sociocultural theory appears remarkably
prescient from the vantage point of our digital age. It conceived human thought as medi-
ated by symbolic tools, the most important of which is language. The concept of symbolic
mediation is based on ‘the analogy with the processes through which humans mediate their
interaction with the world of objects through the use of physical tools’ (Lantolf 1994:418).
Activity theory (e.g. Leontiev 1979), which derives from sociocultural theory, develops
the notion of mediation further, suggesting that ‘the appropriate unit of analysis for under-
standing human cognition and behaviour is not simply the person, or even the person plus
20
the tool, but rather the activities that people carry out when assisted by tools’ (Warschauer
2005:42). What is emphasised in these theories is that all tools, whether symbolic or physi-
cal, ‘fundamentally transform human action’ (ibid:41) – a concept that reverberates at the
level of pedagogy, where we note that the affordances of technological tools can transform
the types of activities offered. A much-cited model by Puentedura (2006) illustrates the
degrees of change that technology offers pedagogy. These range from merely enhancing
activities that we already do (for example, substituting digital photographs for printed ones
in getting to know you activities), to redefining activities, where technology makes for ‘the
creation of new tasks, previously inconceivable’ (Puentedura 2006, slide 2) (such as creat-
ing interactive websites). This type of pedagogical model suggests that sociocultural and
activity theories are in a sense concretised in the technological environment; we can con-
ceive of today’s technologies as physical tools that mediate our actions and ways of thinking
by means of that symbolic tool, language.
The other general educational theory closely associated with the use of technology for
learning is social constructivism. Also identified with Vygotsky (e.g. 1978), among others, it
is evident why social constructivism, which posits that learning is a collaborative effort that
takes place in social environments, was attractive to CALL practitioners. It gave theoretical
sanction to interactive tasks taking place in online environments (see Tools, tasks, materials
section above), offering a satisfying synergy between theory, task, and technology.
But how does SLA theory – which would seem axiomatic in informing the use of technol-
ogies for language learning – fit within this overarching theoretical umbrella? Hegelheimer
and Chapelle (2000:42) warn that ‘despite convictions that SLA theory and research should
inform CALL practice, details of how to form such links need to be spelled out.’ Such
frameworks, in other words, need to encompass the extended affordances of digital tools,
their unique features, and their impact on their users.
One of the main SLA theories broad enough to be associated with CALL is interaction-
ist SLA theory. Ellis attributes this theory to the work of Hatch in the 1970s (Ellis 2008),
but it is probably more recognisably identified with researchers such as Krashen (input
hypothesis) and Long (interaction hypothesis). As its name suggests, interactionist SLA
takes account of the role of input and interaction in SLA in instructional settings. Drawing
on other SLA theories such as Krashen’s and Long’s, the claims of interactionist SLA theory
include:
·· Linguistic input needs to become intake in order to be acquired by the learner

·· Input is more likely to become intake if it is noticed
·· Learners are most likely to notice linguistic form during interaction e.g. through nego-
tiation for meaning, modifying input
(Hegelheimer and Chapelle 2000).
In fact, ‘noticing’ was identified early on as being facilitated and stimulated by the amount
of online writing done on technological interfaces such as word processors (e.g. Warschauer
1997). It is no coincidence that writing via technology attracts a mass of research to this
day (there are more research articles on this theme than any other in the journal Language
Learning and Technology, for instance).
The emphasis in interactionist SLA theory on meaning-oriented activities that engage
learners’ attention to form implicates other known factors for SLA, cognitive engagement,
and, potentially, affective engagement. These two factors are implicit in Chapelle’s sets of
SLA-informed CALL evaluation principles (Chapelle 2001) in criteria labelled ‘learner fit’,
21
Freda Mishan
‘authenticity’, and ‘positive impact’. ‘Learner fit’ assesses the appropriacy of the CALL task
in terms of learner language ability and learner characteristics (e.g. age, learner style, and
‘willingness to communicate’ (ibid:56)). ‘Authenticity’ assesses the (perceived) relevance
of the CALL task to the learners’ out of classroom activities. ‘Positive impact’ refers to
engagement with the target culture as well as development of pragmatic abilities and meta-
cognitive strategies (ibid:57). These usefully cross-match to other sets of SLA principles
in the literature, notably, in the context of this chapter, the ones Tomlinson and Masuhara
(2018) use to evaluate materials, including what they term digital materials.
Implications and challenges

Evaluating language learning with technology
The influences of sociocultural theory, interactionist SLA theory, and in particular, Chapelle’s
SLA principles for CALL evaluation have informed much of the work on evaluating the use
of technology in language learning, including the most comprehensive evaluation frame-
works for CALL to emerge to date (to this author’s knowledge), expounded in Leakey 2011.
Leakey maintained that ‘empirical studies of CALL’s effectiveness cannot take place in a
theoretical or pedagogical vacuum and any judgement of student progress will need to be
made in the light of existing theory and pedagogy’ (2011:251), and set about establishing
what has become a standard reference for CALL evaluation. Leakey’s framework for CALL
evaluation is particularly robust due to the breadth of scope of the evaluation criteria which
encompass pedagogy, programmes, and digital platforms (what Leakey calls ‘the three Ps’).
The three Ps work in synergy (a platform is empty without software (the programme), and
this has to be framed by pedagogy), and these encapsulate the many and diverse uses of
technology for language learning. The core set of 12 CALL enhancement criteria which can
be applied across the 3 Ps is presented in Table 2.1.
Leakey anticipated these to have ‘the theoretical and conceptual breadth to cater for
the full range of language learning approaches and CALL resources’ (Leakey 2011:251).
Table 2.1 Synthesized list of criteria for the evaluation of CALL

programmes, platforms, and pedagogy
Twelve criteria for CALL enhancement
1. Language learning potential (beneficial focus on form)

2. Learner fit
3. Meaning focus
4. Authenticity
5. Positive impact
6. Practicality
7. Language skills and combinations of skills
8. Learner control
9. Error correction and feedback
10. Collaborative CALL
11. Teacher factor
12. Tuition delivery modes
Note: based on Leakey 2011:250–251.
22
(Although in implementing these, it is understood that the converse is not the case; not all 12
criteria can necessarily be fulfilled in every item being evaluated.) That Leakey’s criteria did
indeed succeed in their comprehensive brief, however, is indicated by their use and influ-
ence in the literature (see, for example, Caws and Heift 2016; Levy et al. 2015). The three
Ps, platforms, programmes, and pedagogy, frame the short critical overview below.
Focusing on the first, platforms, the most commonly used platforms in education at the
time of writing are institutional virtual learning environments (VLEs) also known as learn-
ing management systems (LMSs) using such software as Moodle, Blackboard, Sakai, and
WebCT. Since this sort of platform is only a container of resources, it can only really be
evaluated in terms of its functionalities and how well these are used to fulfil pedagogical
principles. Features typical of these platforms include online quizzes, tests, wikis, commu-
nication forums, chat, and blogs, as well as test grading features, etc., for the educators. All
of these are configurable, and they can be selectively integrated in pedagogically principled
ways to create tasks. An example from the author’s own practice, using the Sakai-based
VLE at her institution, integrated its online synchronous chat facility and its wiki in a col-
laborative creative writing task. Students collaboratively built up a story by adding to it
line by line on synchronous chat. They then individually downloaded the chat transcript
onto Word and refined the story, correcting errors as necessary, and finally shared the final
version with the class by uploading it to the class wiki on the VLE. Used appropriately,
such a relatively simple task can be seen to broadly fulfil most of Leakey’s evaluation cri-
teria. While students doing this task were all in the same classroom, a particular advantage
of VLEs is in enabling learner autonomy (Leakey’s criterion 8) in self-directed learning.
Non-educational, multi-user platforms are popularly used for this, including virtual worlds
(such as Second Life), online gaming, chat rooms, and SNSs. Interactivity is integral to
such platforms which is, of course, why they attract language educators, and they therefore
score well for this criterion. Of these, the current general popularity of online gaming (at
the time of writing) has attracted the attention of language practitioners. There is of course
a proliferation of online games, each with its own aficionados, but one that recurs in the
literature on education is Minecraft, a creative game in which users (playing individually or
together) develop life skills in one of its two modes: survival or creative. The game’s flex-
ibility (Smolčec and Smolčec, 2014, describe it as a ‘sandbox’) appeals to teachers who can
tailor it to their teaching aims; a learning context created using Minecraft for academic writ-
ing is described in Kuhn (2014). The language learning potential of massively multiplayer
online role-playing games (MMORPGs), which require users to interact and negotiate, has
particularly been recognised (Reinhardt and Thorne 2016). In MMORPGs, players create an
avatar and network/interact with friends or indeed strangers in playing action, storyline, or
problem-solving games. The availability of games on mobile apps, together with the move
to app versions of SNSs (Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook, and Twitter for example) all hand
over control to the learner, enhancing self-directed learning skills (Leakey’s criterion 8).
Turning to platforms designed specifically to host what we have called digital content
materials – language materials delivered digitally, platforms such as the BBC learningeng-
lish and the British Council learnenglish sites, and companion websites to some of the most
popular ELT coursebooks, Oxford University Press (OUP) and Cambridge University Press
(CUP) – we will see that these fare rather poorly under Leakey’s evaluation conditions.
While these are certainly reputable and popular ‘go to’ sites for language teachers, they tend
to be perceived and used merely as repositories for supplementary resources, rather than as
offering functioning CALL tasks. The criterion in which almost all of these materials score
lowest is, paradoxically, the one that can be claimed as the defining feature of CALL tasks
23
Freda Mishan
– potential for interaction/collaboration. Most of the so-called interaction in the language

exercises on these sites is merely technical: mouse-clicking answers, with marking (right/
wrong) the only feedback. Of these sites, the best attempt at genuine interaction/collabora-
tion is on the British Council’s site, which offers discussion/feedback threads on some of its
materials, which appeal particularly to the more autonomous learner.
Another criterion that these types of materials repository sites largely fail to meet is
the first in Leakey’s framework – and arguably the most crucial one – ‘language learning
potential’ (opportunity for ‘beneficial focus on form’). This is due to the persistent practice
of direct presentation of grammar rules, skipping the crucial ‘noticing’ step of the focus
on form principle. This was noted in Mishan 2013 and in Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018.
Leakey’s second criterion, ‘learner fit,’ fares better, although this really breaks down into
two: ‘amount of opportunity for engagement with language under appropriate conditions’
and ‘learner characteristics’ (2011:250–251). The British Council site learnenglish again
stands out as catering to the interest of its audience; its Premier Skills English series, in
which Premier League footballers are interviewed, is clearly market-oriented and taps into
the concept of football as an international language. Learnenglish is also more intercultural
than many of the other sites, offering variety from the standard British English accent which
dominates on the BBC site, for example. Other sites, such as OUP, also provide authentic
videos set to interest users, although these have no supporting activities.
Learner fit as language proficiency is easier to satisfy, particularly for coursebook com-
panion sites which match supplementary materials to coursebook level. Proficiency level
needs to be matched not only in the content but in the interfaces of some of the sites, how-
ever; OUP and CUP’s learners’ site homepages can seem decidedly user-unfriendly with
interfaces that, somewhat ironically, do not accommodate the levels they are catering for –
so elementary learners of OUP’s English File, for example, are offered lists of bewildering
metalanguage, such as exercises on discourse markers, adverbs, and adverbial expressions.
Overall, the defining characteristic of such digital materials – their delivery mode apart –
is their resemblance to their print-based antecedents, in terms of the teaching methodologies
implicit in them and the types of exercises they offer. In transposing print-based formats
(multiple choice, matching, gap-fills, text-ordering) and traditional teaching approaches to
digital/online platforms, they largely neglect the potential of technology. It is an indictment
that this comment from 2001 remains true today: ‘the learner is faced with a technologically
advanced, consumer-friendly version of his coursebook from the sixties’ (Vogel 2001:139).
This stasis may, admittedly, have more to do with budgetary constraints than commitment
to traditional teaching approaches and modes of presenting materials.
The second of Leakey’s categories, programmes, is a broad set ranging from apps to soft-
ware and courseware, each category in itself hugely varied and evolving in tandem with the
technology. Nevertheless, evaluating the efficacy of any or all of these for language learning
needs to take into account the SLA or language learning methodology principles that underpin
them. One category of programmes is specific-purpose apps available for mobile devices; these
include flashcards, dual language dictionaries, phrase books, and apps like Quizlet for produc-
ing customisable activities such as games, exercises, and quizzes. In a review of 87 such mobile
apps for ESL, Kim and Kwon (2012) found that ‘their L2 approaches are not diverse and remain
[mainly] form-focused instruction’ (ibid:53) – 30% took an audiolingual approach. The authors
nevertheless observed certain task-based features such as problem solving in around 30% of
the apps they evaluated. Most disappointing, considering that it is the collaborative potential of
technology in general that we have stressed as its defining feature (see Leakey’s criterion 10),
the apps evaluated in Kim and Kwon’s study provided little opportunity for collaboration with
24
others. Although the apps offered various media – audio, videos, music, and images – media
that would facilitate collaboration, such as SNSs and podcasting, are not used. Godwin-Jones, a
leader in the field of emerging technologies, observes laconically of apps that ‘not all are of the
highest quality’ (2011:4).
At the other end of the programme spectrum is large-scale commercial courseware, such
as that produced by big players such as Rosetta Stone©, ClarityEnglish©, or the open-
source programme, Duolingo©. Rosetta Stone© is available for many languages includ-
ing English, and it seems to be aimed at the tourism market, with its focus on speaking,
using speech recognition technology as well as online tutors. The design of the learning
activities in Rosetta Stone© and Duolingo© seem to have been little influenced by contem-
porary language learning research. Beneath their polished interfaces they retain outdated
methodologies: Rosetta Stone© seems to draw on the direct method from the 1970s, while
Duolingo© goes back to the grammar-translation method, requiring learners to translate
sentences between the target and native language. In contrast to these, the design of course-
ware produced by ClarityEnglish© is clearly informed by contemporary pedagogy. Their
popular Tense Buster course, commissioned by the British Council, follows a verb tense-
based syllabus as its name suggests, but takes a consciousness-raising (C-R) approach, pre-
senting language in context, asking learners to notice language use and infer grammar rules,
before moving on to form and function practice. There is a variety of interactive exercises
with tailored feedback, and tips for learning outside the classroom. The structure of their
other programmes such as Active Reading, Practical Writing Study, and Skills for English
all likewise have a strong pedagogical rationale, offering genuinely interactive and engag-
ing activities (such as group discussion and authentic samples, such as student essays and
interviews with fellow students in the study skills programme).
Products like ClarityEnglish’s apart, it would seem that courseware struggles to hold a
market share in the CALL arena. In Farr and Murray’s comprehensive handbook on tech-
nology and language learning published in 2016, for example, courseware gets hardly a
look in. It is mentioned in only 3 of its 38 chapters and is substantially discussed in only 1.
This could be seen as tacit recognition that successful use of technology for learning was
never about technological versions of printed coursebook materials. The use of technology
in language learning has burgeoned because its affordances offer such expanded scope, not
because it offers the same materials frameworks just in different modalities.
Turning to pedagogy, the natural fit of technology with task-based language teaching
approaches and how these enact constructivist principles have already been discussed
above. The efficacy of tasks which involve technology depends not on the tools used but on
the task design. For example, a typical early CALL task set-up (in the Web 1.0 era) required
students to sit in pairs at one PC in order for them to interact about the information they were
sourcing for the task. This fulfilled the criterion for interactivity, so fundamental to task,
just as well as today’s online networking (some would argue, better, as face-to-face discus-
sion opens out modes of interaction). Web 2.0, with its capacity for reciprocal information
exchange, enables a huge variety of collaborative, interactive, and creative tasks. One that
exemplifies these characteristics is the ‘iPod therefore iWrite’ project reported in Vallance
et al. (2009). In this project:
content and delivery are created and managed collectively by students in Japan and
Wales, UK using asynchronous [recorded video presentations] and synchronous [online
chat] tools for communication. The results of the collective intelligence within the ‘iPod
therefore iWrite’ project are digital artifacts in movie, text and image formats which are
25
Freda Mishan
then later distributed on portable iPods and additionally altered by the Japanese or
Welsh students or instructors.
(Vallance et al. 2009:7)
Another that in a way epitomises the Web 2.0 era and its enabling of constructivism in action
is the use of Wikipedia, the poster child for the collaborative creation of content, by students
working together to produce and publish a Wikipedia entry on practices local to their con-
texts (described in King 2015). For many more such ideas for tasks, the interested reader
is referred to the two comprehensive volumes on TBLT and technology mentioned above,
Thomas and Reinders (2010) and González-Lloret and Ortega (2014), as well as Thomas’s
Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning (2009).
Having offered a whistle stop tour of some of the technologies used by teachers to devise
language learning materials, via the lens of established CALL evaluation criteria, we now
circle back to the materials development literature briefly to summarise its take on technol-
ogy use.

In the dozen or so chapters specifically on the use of technology within the materials devel-
opment literature of the last decade (2010-2019), varying conceptualisations of materials
in the digital environment are apparent, and many have emerged in the discussions above.
Clear trends are:
·· the transition from material to tool and the shifting relationship between them (e.g.
Kervin and Derewianka 2011; Kiddle 2013; Mishan and Timmis 2015; Reinders and
White 2010);
·· the adopting of task as the chief pedagogical paradigm (e.g. Mishan 2010; Motteram
2011; Reinders and White 2010);
·· the insistence on pedagogical and/or SLA frameworks for digital materials (e.g. Kervin
and Derewianka 2011; Mishan and Timmis 2015; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018);
·· the move towards blended learning (e.g. Mishan 2013, 2016).
Another unifying strand is the increasingly normalised presence of technology, with technol-
ogies like Skype, blogs, online resources, and SNSs becoming commonplace in the research
reported in these chapters. This is well illustrated in a recent collection of materials develop-
ment papers (Bouckaert et al. 2019) in which, while there is a dedicated section with chapters
on digital materials and multimedia, electronic media (e.g. VLEs, courseware, and corpora)
crop up in many of the other chapters as a normalised part of language teaching practices. An
unavoidable problem faced in writing about technology, obsolescence, was alluded to at the
start of this chapter. What becomes apparent, in the materials development literature reviewed
here as well as hopefully in the chapter as a whole, is that with principled approaches to using
technology, the future-proofing is in the pedagogy. Technologies will come and go, but their
effective use as language learning materials is dependent on the supporting pedagogy.
Conclusion
The thrust of this chapter has been the impact of technology in wrenching the concept of
language learning materials away from its print-based roots. I have sought to demonstrate
26
that what technology offers the materials world is not merely a digital platform for materials
from a pre-digital age, but an entirely new multi-dimensional and multi-modal environ-
ment. I have recommended that teachers and materials developers look to pedagogically
sound frameworks for deploying generic tools and online resources for learning. One of the
fundamentals of materials development is that resources are merely such, until a pedagogi-
cal framework transforms them into learning materials (Mishan and Timmis 2015). This is
all the more true of our 21st-century resources and tools, and the role of today’s materials
developer-teacher is therefore all the more crucial in terms of pedagogical guidance, digital
literacy skills, and knowledge.
Further reading
Chapelle, C. and Sauro, S., 2017. The Handbook of Technology and Second Language Teaching and
Learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
A very welcome addition to the copious literature on technology and language learning with
contributions from some of the key names in the field. It covers some of the issues discussed in this
chapter and many more, including the technology-pedagogy interface, such as task, and chapters on
technology and the acquiring of the four skills, grammar, vocabulary, pragmatics, and intercultural
understanding.
Gruba, P. and Hinkelman, D., 2012. Blending Technologies in Second Language Classrooms.
Blended learning is the contemporary model for the principled integration of technology with face-
to-face learning. This book is a clear and pedagogically sound resource for practitioners wishing to
implement blended language learning.
Kiddle, T., 2013. Developing digital language learning materials. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing
Materials for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
With a clear conception of materials in the digital era, Kiddle discusses only those tools or materials
which exploit a digital mode or media and describes digital materials from the viewpoint of being
created, firstly, by teachers and secondly, by learners.
Related topics
Developing blended learning materials, materials for mobile learning.
References
Bouckaert, M., Konings, M. and van Winkelhof, M., eds., 2019. Meaning-Focused Materials for
Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Caws, C. and Heift, T., 2016. Evaluation in CALL: Tools, interactions, outcomes. In Farr, F. and Murray,
L., eds. The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning & Technology. London: Routledge.
Chapelle, C., 2001. Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for
Teaching, Testing and Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C., 2009. The relationship between second language acquisition theory and Computer-
Assisted Language Learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93:741–753.
Chun, D., Kern, R. and Smith, B., 2016. Technology in language use, language teaching, and language
learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100/16:64–80.
Dudeney, G., Hockly, N. and Pegrum, M., 2013. Digital Literacies. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Ellis, R., 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farr, F. and Murray, L., eds., 2016. The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning & Technology.
London: Routledge.
27
Freda Mishan
Godwin-Jones, R., 2011. Emerging technologies: Mobile Apps for language learning. Language
Learning & Technology, 15/2:2–11.
González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. eds., 2014. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching Technology
and Tasks. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. and Shelley, M., 2013. A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on
computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25/2:165–198.
Hafner, C.A., Chik, A. and Jones, R.H., 2015. Digital literacies and language learning. Language
Learning & Technology, 19/3:1–7.
Hegelheimer, V. and Chapelle, C., 2000. Methodological issues in research on learner-computer
interactions in CALL. Language Learning & Technology, 4/1:41–59.
Hockly, N., 2014. Digital technologies in low-resource ELT contexts. ELT Journal, 68/1:79–84.
Kervin, L. and Derewianka, B., 2011. New technologies to support language learning. In Tomlinson,
B., ed. Materials Development in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Materials for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Kim, H. and Kwon, Y., 2012. Exploring smartphone applications for effective mobile-assisted
language learning. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 15/1:31–57.
King, B.W., 2015. Wikipedia writing as praxis: Computer-mediated socialization of second-language
writers. Language Learning & Technology, 19/3:106–123.
Kuhn, J., 2014. Journaling the Zombie Apocalypse: Minecraft in college composition [Online video].
Retrieved on 30 January 2020 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpGRopPNWI4.
Lantolf, J.P., 1994. Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Introduction to the special
issue. The Modern Language Journal, 78/4:418–420.
Lantolf, J.P., ed., 2000. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Leaky, J., 2011. Evaluating Computer-Assisted Language Learning: An Integrated Approach to
Effectiveness Research in CALL. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Leontiev, A.N., 1979. The problem of activity in psychology. In Wertsch, J.V., ed. The Concept of
Activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpte.
Levy, M., Hubbard, P. Stockwell, G. and Colpaert, J., 2015. Research challenges in CALL. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 28/1:1–6.
Lin, H., 2014. Establishing an empirical link between computer-mediated communication and SLA: A
meta-analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 18/3:120–147.
Liu, Q., and Chao, C., 2017. CALL from an ecological perspective: How a teacher perceives affordance
and fosters learner agency in a technology-mediated language classroom. ReCALL, 30/1:1–20.
Mishan, F., 2010. Designing authentic tasks in the digital era. In Mishan, F. and Chambers, A., eds.
Perspectives on Language Learning Materials Development. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Mishan, F., 2013. Demystifying blended learning. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing Materials for
Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Mishan, F., 2016. Re-conceptualising materials for the blended language learning environment. In
McCarthy, M., ed. The Cambridge Guide to Blended Learning for Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Mishan, F. and Timmis, I, 2015. Materials Development for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Motteram, G., 2011. Developing language learning materials with technology. In Tomlinson, B., ed.
Materials Development in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Motteram, G., 2016. Language materials development in a digital age. In Farr, F. and Murray, L., eds.
The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning & Technology. London: Routledge.
Puentedura, R., 2006. Transformation, technology, and education [PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved
on 31 January 2020 from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/.
28
Reinders, H. and White, C., 2010. The theory and practice of technology in materials development
and task design. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reinhardt, J. and Thorne, S., 2016. Metaphors for digital games and language learning. In Farr, F.
and Murray, L., eds. The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology. London:
Routledge.
Smolčec, M. and Smolčec, F., 2014. Using minecraft for learning english. TESL-EJ, 18/2:1–15.
Statista, 2020. Forecast number of mobile users worldwide 2019–2023 [Online]. Retrieved on 29
January 2020 from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/274774/forecast-of-mobile-phone-users
-worldwide/.
Thomas, M., 2009. Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning. London:
Information Science Reference.
Thomas, M. and Reinders, H., eds., 2010. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with
Technology. London: Continuum.
Development for Language Learning. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Vallance, M., Vallance, K., and Matsui, M., 2009. Criteria for the implementation of learning
technologies. In Thomas, M., ed. Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language
Learning. Hershey: IGI Global.
Vogel, T., 2001. Learning out of control: Some thoughts on the World Wide Web in learning and
teaching foreign languages. In Chambers, A. and Davies, G., eds. ICT and Language Learning, A
European Perspective. Lisse, Netherlands; Abingdon: Swets and Zeitlinger Publishers.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1981. The genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsch, J.V., ed. The Concept of
Activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
Warschauer, M., 1997. Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern
Language Journal, 81/4:470–481.
Warschauer, M., 2005. Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In Egbert, J.L. and Petrie, G.M., eds.
CALL Research Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29
3
Theory and practice in materials
development
Ivor Timmis
Introduction
As the chapters in this volume show, materials development for language teaching has come
a long way in establishing itself as an independent field of academic study (see Tomlinson,
Hadley, and Hadley, and Harwood this volume). Over the last 20 years in particular, a body
of specialist literature has emerged around materials development, notable milestones on
the way being McGrath (2002); Tomlinson (e.g. 2011, 2013a, 2013b); Harwood (2010) and
Mishan and Timmis (2015); Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018). Such work has been valuable
in establishing materials development as an academic field because it has been concerned
with principled materials development, and, as Tomlinson (2001:66) explains, the relation-
ship between principles and practice: ‘Materials development is both a field of study and
a practical undertaking. As a field it studies the principles and procedures of the design,
implementation and evaluation of language teaching materials.’
This relationship between materials development practice and theory is also stressed by
McGrath (2002:217), who argues that ‘materials represent the first stage in which principles
are turned into practice.’ Seen in this way, materials are, then, the instantiation of principles
drawn from the broad fields of second language acquisition theory and language teaching
theory. In the literature on materials development, including but not limited to that above,
we can find both general proposals for the application of theory to materials development,
and proposals for the application of theory to specific domains of materials development
such as materials for teaching grammar (see Ur this volume) or materials for teaching speak-
ing (see Thornbury this volume). However, despite this burgeoning literature, it is not clear
how much impact the principles they discuss have had on materials in practice, particularly
in the case of mass market coursebooks.
The aim of this chapter, then, is to shed some light on the current state of the relationship
between theory and practice in a number of domains of materials development and, in so
doing, to whet the reader’s appetite for later chapters in this volume where colleagues with
specific expertise in these areas discuss these topics in more detail and depth. Initially, the
chapter examines theory in specific domains of materials development, dealing in turn with
materials for the four skills (speaking, writing, listening, reading) followed by materials for
30 DOI: 10.4324/b22783-4
Theory and practice in materials development
vocabulary and, finally, materials for grammar. These domains have been chosen as they are
the ones most commonly covered by coursebooks and resource books, far more common,
for example, than materials which deal with pronunciation or discourse. Each of these sec-
tions includes principles for materials development supported by a rationale from the rel-
evant literature. The rationale is followed by a challenge for practice raised by the principle.
In this way, concrete implications of theory are integrated in the course of the chapter rather
than forming a separate section. The chapter concludes, however, with a reflection at a more
general level on the implications for practice of materials development theory.
Critical issues
Materials for teaching speaking
Principle 1: materials should give learners speaking practice in a range of contexts and genres.
Rationale
While speaking skills are central to the communicative approach, there has sometimes been
confusion between activities that simply offer oral practice of grammar or lexis, and activi-
ties that develop the speaking skill per se (Bygate 2001). It is perhaps because of this ambiv-
alence about what constitutes a speaking activity, as Hughes (2002) points out, that many
activities in published materials are presented devoid of social context or genre specifica-
tion. It is surprising, for example, that, while Folse (2006) lays out convincing criteria for
the design of effective speaking activities, he goes on to list ‘Twenty Successful Activities,’
most, if not all of which are context-neutral and do not require learners to consider appro-
priate style, register, or tone, e.g. Find Someone Who, Twenty Questions, Communication
Crossword Puzzles. There seems to be a mismatch in Folse (2006) between the stimulating
discussion of speaking skills theory and the suggested activities which, in my view, are not
speaking activities, though they do involve making noise in English. That is not to say such
activities have no function in the classroom – they may, for example, build confidence and
provide intensive oral practice of grammar, but they do not really meet the need to prepare
learners for the real world by providing speaking activities with lifelike processing demands
covering a range of genres, contexts, and situations. The need for activities which prepare
learners to communicate in different genres, contexts, and situations is stressed by Bygate
(2001), Hughes (2002, 2010), and Goh (2007, 2017). Indeed, Hughes (2002:54) argues that
‘Perhaps the most central question for materials dealing with spoken interaction is that of
appropriacy in context and the role of social context in language choices.’ For this to be
achieved, learners need to be made aware of the conventions of common genres such as nar-
ratives, discourse sequences such as apologies, and of the language typically used in certain
contexts such as the workplace.
Challenge
·· how can the materials writer design speaking-skills activities which, given the limi-
tations of the classroom context, encourage learners to speak in genre-sensitive and
context-sensitive ways?
Principle 2: the level of challenge of the speaking activity should be carefully calibrated
according to purpose.
31
Ivor Timmis
Rationale
There is general agreement that speaking in a second language is a complex and demanding
skill (Burns and Hill 2013; Bygate 2001; Goh 2007, 2017; Hughes 2002, 2010; Thornbury
2005). It is for this reason that Hughes (2010:207) emphasises ‘the need to match task aims
to realistic fluency and production levels.’ In a similar vein, Thornbury (2005) has ‘safety’
as one of his criteria for the design of speaking activities: activities should be designed so
that learners feel secure and confident in carrying out the task. This line of thought is sum-
marised thus by Hughes (2010:210):
In general, then, since the complexities of the speech situation and the wide range of
factors that can influence behaviour are so crucial, materials should generally, and per-
haps paradoxically, not be too ambitious in their aims in these areas.
However, given the value of ‘pushed output’ for language acquisition in general (Swain
1995), i.e. activities which stretch learners just beyond their comfort zone, we would not
want to keep all activities in the comfort zone. Thus, as Bygate (2001) observes, the level
of challenge may need to be set by carefully calibrating the parameters of accuracy, fluency,
and complexity to suit the pedagogic purpose. If the activity makes high demands on flu-
ency, for example, the demands on accuracy and complexity might be set correspondingly
lower.
Challenges
·· can materials writers offer options for teachers to carry out a given activity which
involves adjusting the level of challenge?
·· can materials writers provide a series of activities in the materials which involve appro-
priate but different kinds of challenge?
Principle 3: learners should be given ‘scaffolding’ to help them carry out the speaking
activity.
Rationale
Given the complex demands of speaking in a second language which we noted above, and
the need to build learners’ confidence, learners may need scaffolding to enable them to cope
with and gain from the speaking activity. Scaffolding is defined by Goh (2017:248) thus:
‘Scaffolding in speaking is the process by which teachers provide helping activities to ena-
ble learners to accomplish a speaking task which they would otherwise have been unable to
do well on their own.’ The idea of providing scaffolding is very clearly related to the notion
of calibrating the challenge discussed above. Scaffolding may be provided in a variety of
forms: Burns and Hill (2013), for example, point to the need for extensive pronunciation
practice relevant to the learners’ speaking needs. They also call for both controlled and freer
practice of relevant vocabulary and grammar before the activity. This call by Burns and Hill
(2013) for practice of useful language before the task accords with my experience that when
learners are merely presented with lists of useful phrases before a speaking task, without any
further processing, they gleefully ignore them once involved in the activity. The scaffolding
we provide, Goh (2007) points out, may take the form of content support, e.g. generating
ideas before the task, or communication strategies, e.g. checking understanding or asking
32
for clarification. Planning time is a further kind of pre-task scaffolding, allowing learners to
gather thoughts, ideas, and language before embarking on the activity. In my experience of
both teaching and observing lessons, even a short amount of planning time before a speak-
ing activity can make a significant difference to the quality of the subsequent output. It could
also be argued that task repetition (Bygate 2001) is a form of scaffolding in the sense that
the first iteration of the task acts as scaffolding for the second. This focus on scaffolding may
require a slight adjustment of mindset such that we ‘view activities not merely as opportuni-
ties for speaking, but as guided experiences for learning to speak’ (Goh 2007:8–9).
Challenges
·· how can materials writers prepare learners for the speaking activity in terms of lan-
guage, content, communicative strategies, and confidence?
·· can materials writers exploit the notions of rehearsal, repetition, and recycling to organ-
ise tasks to give ‘pedagogically useful connections between them?’ (Bygate 2001:18).
If so, can it be made clear to learners how each activity is integrated to contribute to
the speaking goal?
Principle 4: materials for speaking should raise awareness of features of spoken discourse.
Rationale
Much research has been carried out into the nature of spoken language in recent years,
the majority of it by corpus linguists, McCarthy and Carter (1995) being a seminal exam-
ple of such research applied to ELT. It has, however, with a few exceptions, been slow to
filter through to materials in any systematic way (Cullen and Kuo 2007; Timmis 2012,
2013). Though research need not be directly translated into practice, there is a danger if such
research is ignored that demands on the learner may be heavier than necessary if they use
written language as models to emulate (Burns and Hill 2013). This can be compounded by
assessment criteria that favour a wide lexical range and complex grammar (Hughes 2010).
While natural conversation makes heavy use of high-frequency lexical items and grammati-
cal structures, the pressure in speaking examinations can be on learners to demonstrate the
breadth of their lexical and grammatical knowledge at the same time as maintaining fluency.
It is important, then, that materials raise learners’ awareness of lexical, grammatical, and
discourse features of natural speech, some of which they may choose to use, all of which
will help receptively.
Challenges
·· can materials writers identify a core of lexical, grammatical, and discourse features of
natural speech, common to a wide range of L1 and L2 speakers, which will help learn-
ers to speak fluently?
·· can materials writers achieve this without laying themselves open to the accusation that
they are teaching socially marked language which impinges on the learner’s identity?
The ubiquitous use of ‘like,’ for example, as a discourse marker or a speech reporting
device in native speaker conversation, might qualify for the speaking syllabus on the
grounds of frequency. On the other hand, its association with young and fashionable
groups might make it unsuitable for learners who, like me, do not wish to emulate that
group, still less belong to it.
33
Ivor Timmis
Materials for teaching writing

Principle 1: materials should provide a stimulus for writing.
Rationale
Simply presenting learners with a title for an assignment may work with some learners, but,
as I know to my cost, it does not work with many learners. Materials need to provide some
kind of stimulus for the writing task. As Hyland (2013:393–394) argues, well-designed
stimuli can ‘provide content schemata and a reason to communicate, stimulating creativ-
ity, planning and engagement with others.’ Providing such a stimulus is a natural way to
integrate skills, a procedure often recommended in the literature (e.g. Hinkel 2006), as the
stimulus may be provided, for example, by watching a television documentary, listening to
a radio discussion panel or reading an internet text. In some cases, the stimulus may simply
be a visual, for example, a graph or the traditional but still common picture story. The main
function of such stimuli is to generate interest in and ideas about the writing topic, but there
may well be an opportunity in the process of carrying out these activities to help the learners
to notice language which will be useful for the writing assignment.
Challenge
·· how can materials writers ‘provide content schemata and a reason to communicate,
stimulating creativity, planning and engagement with others,’ as Hyland (2013:393–
394) recommends?
Principle 2: materials should provide scaffolding for writing.
Rationale
Learners need support in writing texts, and scaffolding may be applied to the structure, con-
tent, or language of the target text (as was the case with speaking). As Hyland (2013:392–
393) puts it, ‘[M]aterials which scaffold learners’ understandings of language provide
opportunities for discussion, guided writing, analysis and manipulation of salient structures
and vocabulary.’ The writing task in the materials, then, should be the culmination of a
principled sequence of activities, perhaps involving other skills, which support the process
of writing the target text.
Challenge
·· can materials writers provide an integrated sequence of activities which build towards a
writing task (alongside everything else they need to do in a unit of materials)?
Principle 3: materials should provide learners with models of the target genre.
Rationale
The rationale for providing model texts is summarised by Hyland (2013:392): ‘The key
idea of using models, then, is that writing instruction will be more successful if students
are aware of what target texts look like.’ We should note, however, that Hyland (2013) rec-
ommends providing a number of examples of the target text type, so that learners become
34
aware that variation is possible and that they should not slavishly copy one model. In a
similar vein, Badger and White (2000) suggest that learners could be provided with a small
corpus of examples of the target genre. This might be no more, for example, than 10 or 15
different examples of a letter of application for a job.
Challenge
·· can materials writers provide a number of examples of the target genre within the scope
of their materials?
Principle 4: materials should not be wedded to one model of teaching writing.

The provision of model texts, as discussed above, is most often associated with product
approaches to teaching writing. Product approaches typically involve comprehension of a
model text, followed by analysis of given features in the writing and controlled practice of
these features culminating in learners writing a similar text to the model. As Badger and
White (2000:154) put it:
In short, product-based approaches see writing as mainly concerned with knowledge

about the structure of language, and writing development as mainly the result of the
imitation of input, in the form of texts provided by the teacher.
There is no reason, however, why materials writers should commit to only one approach.
Materials can be eclectic in terms of approach. They can take the analysis of target texts
from the product approach while, from the process model, they can take activities which
encourage ‘students to go through a process of planning, organizing, composing and revis-
ing’ (Hedge 2005:11). From the genre model, materials can stress the notion of writing for
an audience with particular expectations in terms of style, tone, and structure (Badger and
White 2000). As Badger and White (2000:157) observe: ‘An effective methodology for
writing needs to incorporate the insights of product, process, and genre approaches.’
Challenge
·· how can materials writers integrate insights from product, process, and genre approaches
in a principled and effective way?
Materials for teaching listening

Principle 1: materials writers should strike a careful balance between developing bottom-up
and top-down strategies.
Rationale
While the need for materials which focus on both top-down and bottom-up listening strate-
gies is generally acknowledged, a consistent theme in recent literature has been the need to
re-adjust the balance in listening work to accommodate more focus on bottom-up strategies
than is currently the case in materials (Ableeva and Stranks 2013; Field 2008; Vandergrift
2007). An exclusive focus on top-down strategies fails to help learners ‘understand and con-
trol the processes leading to comprehension’ (Vandergrift 2007:191). As Siegel (2014:24)
puts it, ‘[b]ottom-up activities target learners’ abilities to process the acoustic input they
35
Ivor Timmis
receive and to extract meaning from the speech stream.’ Materials often follow a repetitive
format of ‘listening for gist’ and ‘listening for specific information’ which does little to help
learners identify what they have mis-heard, or to give them ‘scaffolded guidance’ in devel-
oping their listening skills (Siegel 2014:23). An excessive focus on bottom-up strategies,
however, does not leave learners with the attentional capacity to focus on overall meaning
(Vandergrift 2007).
Challenge
·· can materials writers break out of the listening for gist/specific information routine to
provide a principled balance between developing top-down and bottom-up strategies?
Principle 2: materials should develop, not just test listening skills.
Rationale
One way listening can be developed rather than tested is by focusing on listening strategies
and micro-skills, e.g. word discrimination or recognising. If a particular micro-skill has
been scaffolded for a given text, learners can then be asked to listen to a similar text and
‘transfer’ the micro-skill to the new text (Siegel 2014). Materials can also consider listening
texts just below the learners’ level in order to develop learners’ automatic word recognition
skills (Vandergrift 2013). Task-less and extensive listening is another option. Listening to
the recording along with the tapescript offers learners an opportunity, without pressure, to
notice words and phrases they may have mis-heard or misinterpreted.
Challenge
·· can materials writers provide opportunities for both narrow and extensive listening?
Principle 3: materials for listening skills should develop learners’ metacognitive strategies.
Rationale
Vandergrift (2007) points to the weight of research evidence supporting the value of meta-
cognitive strategies for listening work. Similarly, Siegel (2014:25) argues that the ‘use of
metacognition when listening allows for efficient and effective use of cognitive strategies,
which act directly on the input received.’ One function of such work, Mishan and Timmis
(2015:113) argue, is to develop learners’ awareness of how they listen so that they can
‘develop conscious strategies for dealing with listening.’ An example they suggest is getting
learners to think about situations they find difficult in terms of listening and deciding on
strategies they might use to deal with these situations. Metacognitive listening strategies can
be seen as a cycle which includes ‘planning, monitoring, and evaluating listening as well as
problem-solving’ (Siegel 2014:25).
Challenge
can materials writers help learners develop metacognitive strategies for listening and if so,
how?
36
Materials for teaching reading

Principle 1: materials should provide some texts within the learners’ reading comfort zone.
Rationale
For much of my career, the standard advice on teacher education courses was, ‘grade the
task, not the text,’ on the basis that learners could cope, by applying appropriate reading
strategies, with text well above their productive level. It is only a small exaggeration to say
that the advice now seems to be, at least for the purposes of reading fluency, ‘grade the text
and forget the task.’ Research into vocabulary levels needed for text comprehension is one
reason for this change of perspective. Hu and Nation (2000) have suggested that learners
need to understand 98% of the vocabulary in a text to read it comfortably, though as Maley
and Prowse (2013) argue, we need to take into account factors such as topic familiarity and
motivation rather than apply this 98% figure invariably. Another reason for this change
of perspective is that research (e.g. Walter 2007) has suggested that too much faith was
placed in learners’ ability to use compensatory reading strategies. Such strategies, Walter
has argued, can only be accessed when learners have a threshold language level. There have
even been suggestions (Macalister 2014) that learners can benefit from reading texts well
below their level. It could well be that research into reading levels has taken some of the
heat out the authenticity debate: Maley and Prowse (2013:177) are relaxed about this point
provided the text is written to be read:
Dependent on level, the text can be un-simplified, adapted or specially written, but the
key thing is that it be written to be read for itself, not used to exemplify a language
point. We should not forget that one way of creating the comfort zone is to provide texts
which the learners are interested in, whether this be fiction or non-fiction.
Challenge
·· can materials writers provide some reading texts in the comfort zone while maintaining
motivation? This constitutes a two-fold challenge: the comfort zone needs to be cali-
brated carefully to the nature of the class, and the students need to be motivated while
dealing with material which does not stretch them.
Principle 2: materials should provide opportunities for extensive reading.
Rationale
The benefits of extensive reading both for language improvement and reading fluency are
now well established (Macalister 2014; Maley and Prowse 2013). At first sight, it is not
obvious what materials writers can do in this respect given the constraints of space in the
coursebook and time on the syllabus. One solution, however, would be for learners to read
extensively outside class and for materials to include reader response activities for use in
class based on the text the class has been reading. This option does not, admittedly, allow
learners to choose texts individually, but it may serve as a bridge to learners reading exten-
sively and independently. A slightly different strategy to encourage extensive reading is to
do a small amount of the reading as an in-class activity to kickstart extensive reading outside
class (Takase 2007).
37
Ivor Timmis
Challenge
·· how can materials writers provide opportunities for extensive reading and/or ‘bridges’
to extensive reading?
Principle 3: materials should offer opportunities for speed reading and repeated reading.
Rationale
The practice of speed reading is described by Macalister (2010:3) thus: ‘Speed reading
courses usually consist of a set number of texts of a fixed length, written within a restricted
lexicon, followed by several multi-choice questions.’
The evidence is that gains in reading speed transfer to other texts (Macalister 2014).
Repeated reading, as the name suggests, involves learners reading the same text again and
again. Such reading, Macalister (2014:391) points out, ‘can be oral or silent, and done with
or without assistance (listening to a recording while reading, reading to a listener who can
assist)’. Repeated reading, Taguchi et al. (2004) report, both increases learners’ silent read-
ing rate and develops a positive attitude to reading. One of the benefits of repeated reading,
Taguchi et al. (2004) report, is that it can provide scaffolding for the transition to reading
new texts.
Challenge
·· (how) can materials writers exploit the reported benefits of speed reading and repeated
reading in their materials?
Principle 4: materials writers should match the nature of the task to the nature of the text.
Rationale
As reported by Mishan and Timmis (2015), the comprehension questions that traditionally
accompany coursebook texts have come under consistent fire on the grounds that they pro-
mote only superficial understanding of an engagement with the text. Their value is certainly
questioned by Maley and Prowse (2013:171) in a way which clearly touches on our theme
of theory and practice:
Many published reading materials are accompanied by sometimes copious and dis-
tracting activities, questions and exercises. Is this because they are valuable in helping
learners to read better or is it because educational authorities, publishers – and indeed
teachers themselves – are uncomfortable with the idea that reading by itself is sufficient
to promote reading comprehension?
It is perhaps surprising, then, that Freeman (2014) reports that in the books she reviewed,
the number of explicit comprehension questions increased in later editions of the same
book. A particular problem that Macalister (2014) highlights is that when material such as
graded readers become loaded with comprehension questions, it promotes the wrong kind of
reading for the text, i.e. material which lends itself to extensive reading is being artificially
constrained to intensive reading.
38
In some cases, there are, as Macalister (2014) reports, obvious alternatives such as infor-
mation transfer tasks with factual texts which lend themselves to further exploitation when
used, for example, to summarise parts of the text. It is not necessarily the case that there is
no place for comprehension questions: for follow-up activities such as role plays or debates,
it is actually important for learners to have a shared understanding of the text. The argument
is that comprehension questions should not be so trivially detailed as to obstruct the learn-
ers’ focus on meaning and their response to the content of the text.
Challenge
how can materials writers go beyond comprehension questions to encourage deeper pro-
cessing of texts?
Materials for teaching vocabulary

Principle 1: materials should promote both explicit and incidental vocabulary learning.
Rationale
In recent years, much has been learned about the vocabulary size of competent speakers of
a language. Schmitt (2007:827), for example, reports that ‘in order to participate in basic
everyday oral communication, knowledge of the most frequent 2,000–3,000 word families
in English provides the bulk of the lexical resources required.’ If we add to this, frequent
collocations (e.g. Shin and Nation 2008) and lexical chunks (e.g. Schmitt and Martinez
2012), we will arrive at a formidable target, though one which is difficult to specify. The size
of the vocabulary learning task indicates that neither explicit nor incidental learning alone
will be enough (Folse 2011; Schmitt 2007), particularly as research suggests that learn-
ers need to encounter a word many times for useful incidental learning to occur. Explicit
learning can occur through vocabulary exercises and tasks or even, in the early stages for
learning concrete vocabulary, which is more easily illustrated and translated than abstract
vocabulary, through learning from vocabulary lists (Folse 2011). In echoes of our earlier
discussion of reading, Schmitt (2007) suggests that both graded readers and the practice
of ‘narrow reading’ (i.e. reading multiple texts on the same topic) have an important role
to play in promoting incidental vocabulary learning. For incidental learning, learners may
need training in such strategies as guessing from context or dictionary work (Folse 2011).
For this kind of work, bilingual dictionaries, Folse (2011) argues, are more effective than
monolingual dictionaries.
Challenge
·· can materials writers plan for both explicit and incidental learning of vocabulary by
developing vocabulary learning strategies and encouraging extensive reading and
listening?
Principle 2: materials need to have a principled lexical syllabus.
Rationale
Frequency of use is an obvious criterion for deciding on the vocabulary to be included in mate-
rials and the items selected for explicit teaching. It cannot, however, be the only criterion, as it
39
Ivor Timmis
may run counter to common-sense considerations such as learners’ needs and wants, intrinsic
difficulty of the word, and pedagogic convenience (Mishan and Timmis 2015). It would make
little sense, for example, to teach months of the year according to frequency of occurrence rather
than as a closed set. Similarly, there may be words which are important for classroom use which
would not be very high on a general frequency list (e.g. homework). There is also a need to con-
sider which collocations and lexical chunks to teach (Timmis 2008).
Challenge
·· how can materials writers design a lexical syllabus which will be of maximum value to
the target learners?
Principle 3: materials should recycle vocabulary in a principled manner.
Rationale
Part of the rationale for systematically recycling vocabulary is that knowledge of a word is
multifaceted. As Schmitt (2007) points out, there is far more to knowing a word than simply
being aware of its meaning – learners need to learn, for example, features such as pronun-
ciation, collocation, register, and morphology, before they can really be said to have learnt
or acquired the word. Accumulating this knowledge has to be an incremental process with
different aspects added as the word is progressively recycled.
Another part of the rationale for systematically recycling vocabulary is that learners
have an impressive capacity to forget it. One proposal for systematic recycling of vocabu-
lary is ‘expanding rehearsal’ (Schmitt and Schmitt 1995:136) or ‘graduated interval recall’
(Sokmen 1997:154). The principle of this approach is that words are recycled multiple times
but with ever greater intervals between the recycling activities. Thus a word might be recy-
cled one day after learning, then one week after, then one month after, and so on.
Learners can also be encouraged to learn autonomously by using strategies such as
word cards (Nation 2012) or systematic vocabulary notebooks (Schmitt and Schmitt 1995).
Regular vocabulary tests also encourage learners to be consistent, persistent, and systematic
in learning vocabulary.
Challenge
·· how can materials writers best ensure effective recycling of vocabulary (e.g. revision
tests, revision units, repeated exposure to the same vocabulary)?
Materials for teaching grammar

Principle 1: materials writers should take account of corpus research and of learner needs
when devising the grammar syllabus.
Rationale
The grammar syllabus has been around so long that we have stopped asking why it is the
way it is and whether it should be so (Biber and Conrad 2010). As Byrd (1995:46) puts it:
‘often design decisions are based on traditions about grammar materials and their organiza-
tion rather than on careful rethinking of either the content or its organization.’ To arrive at a
principled grammar syllabus, we need to ask three questions:
40
1) What does the grammar structure enable the learners to do?

As Sinclair (1990) has pointed out, the grammar syllabus would probably look very
different if we saw grammar as an enabling device rather than an arbitrary set of abstract
problems to be overcome. This is particularly pertinent for learners whose main aim is
to speak the language: how great, for example, is their need for the rules of written
reported speech which feature in most coursebooks?
2) What grammatical problems do specific groups of learners typically face?
Given time constraints, it makes sense to focus on priority areas for given learners
(where these can be ascertained) rather than employing a one-size-fits-all syllabus. The
problem with a one-size-fits-all policy is that it can merge into a one-style-suits-nobody
policy. A carefully targeted rather than a comprehensive syllabus is needed, as Swan
(1994:53) argues:
Effective grammar teaching, then, focuses on the specific problems (real and poten-
tial) of specific learners. This will necessarily mean giving a somewhat fragmen-
tary and partial account of the grammar of the target language, rather than working
through a ‘complete’ grammar syllabus giving ‘complete’ rules.
3) Is the syllabus informed by what we know about language?

Corpus linguistics can tell us much that is of potential value for the design of the
grammar syllabus. The frequency of use of given structures and the lexis with which
they typically co-occur would seem to be obvious factors to bear in mind when design-
ing a grammar syllabus (Biber and Conrad 2010) alongside other factors such as learner
needs and the complexity of the structure. Römer (2004) suggests that coursebook
treatment of grammar does not closely align with corpus insights.
Challenge
·· how can materials writers break free of the traditional grammar syllabus to produce a
syllabus of maximum value to the target learners?
Principle 2: materials writers should take an approach to grammar teaching which is both
principled and eclectic.
Rationale
The research evidence does not come down clearly in favour of any single approach to
teaching grammar, as Swan (2006:122–123) underlines:
Research on methodology is inconclusive, and has not shown detectable, lasting and
wide-ranging effects for implicit versus explicit instruction, for inductive versus deduc-
tive learning or separated-out study of structure versus incidental focus on form during
communicative activity.
Research does suggest, however, that some kind of focused attention on grammar accelerates the
learning process (Norris and Ortega 2000). There may still be a place, then, for PPP, an approach
much favoured by coursebooks if maligned by many researchers and theorists. The research
41
Ivor Timmis
evidence, however, does not favour the very heavy emphasis on PPP still found in many course-
books. The approach we adopt to teaching grammar depends, among other things, on the nature
of the language point in question, as Larsen-Freeman (2015:268) points out:
participants in studies by DeKeyser (2003) and Robinson (1996) showed that stu-
dents learned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of explicit-deduc-
tive learning and more complex rules better under implicit-inductive conditions,
presumably because the latter were difficult to articulate.
The lack of convincing evidence to support specific approaches to grammar teaching points
to the need to be eclectic, as Swan (2006:129) underlines:
We should reject nothing on doctrinaire grounds: deductive teaching through expla-

nations and examples, inductive discovery activities, rule-learning, peer-teaching,
decontextualised practice, communicative practice, incidental focus-on-form during
communicative tasks, teacher correction and recasts, grammar games, corpus analy-
sis, learning rules and examples by heart … depending on the point being taught, the
learner and the context.
Eclectic, however, does not mean random. Grammar teaching is ‘a complex decision-making
process’ (Borg 1999) in which careful thought needs to be given to the age, level, cognitive
maturity, and expectations of the learners, preferences and training of the teachers, and the nature
of the language point itself, before a decision is made on the approach to adopt.
Challenge
·· how can materials writers develop an approach to grammar teaching which is both
principled and eclectic while at the same time acceptable to teachers and learners who
often have entrenched views about grammar teaching?

During the course of this chapter I have adduced from the literature a number of chal-
lenges which emerged for the materials developer who is concerned to produce theoretically
informed materials. On reviewing these challenges, I found that it was possible to identify
some common themes which might serve as recommendations, or at least guidelines, for
principled materials development. I summarise these below.
1. There is a need to plan grammar and vocabulary syllabuses carefully.

This planning should be informed by corpus research which gives us useful fre-
quency information and a richer picture of how grammatical and lexical items are actu-
ally used in natural discourse. Intuition still has a role to play, but there is a difference
between informed intuition and guesswork. In the light of research, materials writers
may need to abandon some old shibboleths about what grammatical items to teach and
in what order.
2. There is a need to plan opportunities for varied repetition.
Varied repetition can relate to tasks, to reading/listening texts, and to systematic
recycling of vocabulary and grammar. The repetition needs to be varied to sustain
42
motivation. In my experience as a teacher, and as a teacher educator observing lessons,

I have found learners to be far more tolerant of, even appreciative of, opportunities for
repetition of tasks, texts, and language if they can see the purpose.
3. There is a need to foster autonomy.
Although I called above for careful planning of the vocabulary and grammar syl-
labus, materials alone cannot cover the range of vocabulary and grammar a learner
may need, or even the amount of recycling a learner may need. Materials, then, need
to encourage independent learning strategies and provide a bridge to activities such as
extensive reading and listening for which there may not be enough class time.
4. There is a need to provide skills work which develops an awareness of genre.
This is particularly apparent in writing and speaking work where learners need to
understand style, register, and audience. This will involve being exposed to a range
of genres and a number of examples of a given genre. It is not enough just to give the
learners an essay title or instructions for a speaking activity, though I was guilty of this
many times in my career.
5. Speaking and writing activities need to be carefully scaffolded.
Personally, I like to see the speaking or writing activity as the main course in a
four- or five-course meal. On a given day, an aperitif and coffee might be included.
Scaffolding can be designed to help learners with the ideas, the language, and the struc-
ture of the particular task.
6. The balance of top-down and bottom-up strategies work needs to be adjusted a little in
favour of the latter.
Beginning with a gist listening/reading task and then moving to questions for specific
information has become an entrenched routine for reading and listening work. While les-
sons with such a structure can appear to go smoothly, one often wonders what, if anything,
the learners have actually gained. There is a need for more focused work on micro-strategies
which help learners to deal with difficulties in understanding texts.
Future directions
The application of a number of the principles above could be facilitated by the wider avail-
ability of technology. Materials writers, for example, can now easily access large corpora
such as the British National Corpus to check their intuition about word frequency or the
most frequent collocates of a given word, or differences in frequency between speech and
writing. Coursebooks in electronic form could facilitate narrow reading (and listening) by
providing a number of texts on the same topic, and also facilitate extensive reading by pro-
viding access to online graded readers (either audio or written). A further possibility would
be to provide both simplified and authentic versions of the same text, with the former act-
ing as access to the latter (Tomlinson, personal communication). A number of coursebooks
already provide accompanying mini-dictionaries, and this dimension could be expanded
with electronic versions. Speaking tasks could be set as homework to be carried out online.
It is a question of bringing technology to the service of principles.
Conclusion
What we have seen in recent years in materials development, I would argue, is a small
move towards conscious learning and explicit teaching, and thus a small move away from
43
Ivor Timmis
incidental learning and implicit teaching. There also seems to be a move towards materials
which foster autonomy. Small moves are good: if they work, they are sustainable. If they
don’t, they can be withdrawn. Personally, I like the way things are going.
Further reading
Harwood, N., ed., 2010. English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. Cambridge:
This is probably the most theoretically based book of the general volumes available on materials
development, with some very thought-provoking chapters.
Tomlinson, B., ed., 2011. Materials Development for Language Teaching, 2nd ed. Cambridge:
This book covers a range of issues in materials development from both theoretical and practical
perspectives with an interesting overview of his own principles for materials development by
Tomlinson in the opening chapter.
Tomlinson, B., ed., 2013a. Applied Linguistics and Materials Development. London: Bloomsbury.
As noted above, a distinctive feature of this book is that the authors of the chapters present samples
of materials which embody the principles they have discussed in the theoretical section.
45/2:143–79.
This article provides a detailed review of the evolution of materials development as a field and of
trends and developments which have been observed in recent years. The extensive bibliography is of
value in its own right.
Press.
This book strives to provide a close link between theory and practice so that readers can see what
theoretically informed materials actually look like. It also provides a comprehensive overview of the
various domains of materials development.
Related topics
Research in materials development: what, how, and why?, using research to inform materi-
als development, writing corpus-informed materials.
References
Ableeva, R. and Stranks, J., 2013. Listening in another language: Research and materials. In Tomlinson,
B., ed. Applied Linguistics and Materials Development. London: Bloomsbury.
Badger, R. and White, G., 2000. A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54/2:153–160.
Biber, D. and Conrad, S., 2010. Corpus Linguistics and Grammar Teaching. http://longmanhomeusa
.com/blog/corpus-linguistics-and-grammar-teaching/.
Borg, S., 1999. Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal, 53/3:157–67.
Burns, A. and Hill, D., 2013. Teaching speaking in a second language. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Applied
Linguistics and Materials Development. London: Bloomsbury.
Bygate, M., 2001. Speaking. In Carter, R. and Nunan, D., eds. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching
English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byrd, P., 1995. Issues in the writing of grammar textbooks. In Byrd, P., ed. Materials writer’s guide.
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Cullen, R. and Kuo, I-C.V., 2007. Spoken grammar and ELT course materials: A missing link? TESOL
Quarterly, 41/2:361–86.
DeKeyser, R., 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. and Long, M., eds. The Handbook
of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
44
Field, J., 2008. Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Folse, K., 2006. The Art of Teaching Speaking. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Folse, K., 2011. Applying L2 lexical research findings in ESL teaching. TESOL Quarterly,
45/2:362–369.
Freeman, D., 2014. Reading comprehension questions. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language
Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goh, C., 2007. Teaching Speaking in the Language Classroom. Singapore: SEAMO.
Goh, C., 2017. Scaffolding learning processes to improve speaking performance. Language Teaching,
50/2:247–260.
Hedge, T., 2005. Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hinkel, E., 2006. Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40/1:109–31.
Hu, M. and Nation, I., 2000. Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 13/1:403–430.
Hughes, R., 2002. Teaching and Researching Speaking. Harlow: Pearson.
Hughes, R., 2010. Materials to develop the speaking skill. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language
Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., 2013. Materials for developing writing skills. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing Materials
for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury.
Larsen-Freeman, D., 2015. Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching. Language
Teaching, 48/2:263–280.
Macalister, J., 2010. Speed reading courses and their effect on reading authentic texts: A preliminary
investigation. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22/1:104–116.
Macalister, J., 2014. Teaching reading: Research into practice. Cambridge Language Teaching,
47/3:387–397.
Maley, A. and Prowse, P., 2013. Reading. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Applied Linguistics and Materials
Development. London: Bloomsbury.
McCarthy, M. and Carter, R., 1995. Spoken grammar: What is it and how should we teach it?’ ELT
Journal, 49/3:207–17.
University Press.
Nation, P., 2012. Teaching vocabulary. In Eisenmann, M. and Summer, T., eds. Basic Issues in EFL
Teaching and Learning. Heidelberg: Winter.
Norris, J. and Ortega, L., 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative
meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50/3:417–528.
Römer, U., 2004. Comparing real and ideal language learner input: The use of an EFL textbook corpus
in corpus linguistics and language teaching. In Aston G., Bernardini, S. and Stewart, D., eds.
Corpora and Language Learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmitt, N., 2007. Current perspectives on vocabulary teaching and learning. In Cummins J. and
Davison C., eds. International Handbook of English Language Teaching. Boston, MA: Springer.
Schmitt, N. and Martinez, R., 2012. A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33/3:299–320.
Schmitt, N. and Schmitt, D., 1995. Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical underpinnings and practical
suggestions. ELT Journal, 49/2:133–143.
Shin, D. and Nation, P., 2008. Beyond single words: The most frequent collocations in spoken English.
ELT Journal, 62/4:339–48.
Siegel, J., 2014. Exploring L2 listening instruction: Examinations of practice. ELT Journal, 68/1:22–30.
Sinclair, J., ed., 1990. Collins Cobuild English Grammar. London: Collins.
Sokmen, A., 1997. Current trends in vocabulary teaching. In Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M., eds.
Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M., 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidelhofer,
B., eds. Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of H. G. Widdowson.
45
Ivor Timmis
Swan, M., 1994. Design criteria for pedagogic language rules. In Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A. and Williams,
E., eds. Grammar and the Language Teacher. New York: Prentice Hall/.
Swan, M., 2006. Teaching grammar: Does grammar teaching work? Modern English Teacher, 15/2:
5–13.
Taguchi, E., Takayasu-Maass, M. and Gorsuch, G., 2004. Developing reading fluency in EFL: How
assisted repeated reading and extensive reading affect fluency development. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 16/2:1–16.
Takase, A., 2007. Japanese high school students’ motivation for extensive L2 reading. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 19/1:1–18.
Thornbury, S., 2005. How to Teach Speaking. Harlow: Longman.
Timmis, I., 2008. The lexical approach is dead: long live the lexical dimension! Modern English
Teacher, 17/3:5–10.
Timmis, I., 2012. Spoken language research and ELT: Where are we now? ELT Journal, 66/4:514–22.
Timmis, I., 2013. Spoken language research: The applied linguistic challenge. In Tomlinson, B., ed.
Applied Linguistics and Materials Development. London: Bloomsbury.
Tomlinson, B., 2001. Materials development. In Carter, R. and Nunan, D., eds. The Cambridge Guide
to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B., ed., 2013b. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Bloomsbury.
Development for Language Learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Vandergrift, L., 2007. Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension
research. Language Teaching, 40/3: 191–210.
Vandergrift, L., 2013. Teaching listening. In Chapelle, C. ed. Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Walter, C., 2007. First- to second-language reading comprehension: Not transfer, but access.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17/1:14–37.
46
Part 2
Controversial issues in materials
development

4
Why do we need coursebooks?
Introduction
The debate on the value of global coursebooks is well-rehearsed and often highly conten-
tious: a number of applied linguists argue vociferously that we do not, in fact, need course-
books. Against such a backdrop, in this chapter, we revisit some of the key arguments made
for and against global coursebooks with the aim of synthesising, contrasting, and critically
discussing these opposing arguments and bringing them together in one place. We acknowl-
edge the long history of this debate: for example, several decades ago, Allwright (1981)
and O’Neill (1982) engaged in a public exchange in the ELT Journal regarding the value of
global coursebooks. Allwright (1981:9) is oft quoted as commenting that: ‘The whole busi-
ness of the management of language learning is far too complex to be satisfactorily catered
for by a pre-packaged set of decisions embodied in teaching materials.’
By contrast, O’Neill (1982) claims that there are ways of designing coursebooks so they
can be used by a variety of learners with different goals and taught by a range of teachers. In
his article, he questions the assumption that each group of learners is so unique that its needs
cannot be met by materials produced for another group of learners, highlighting their com-
mon need ‘to possess enough of the generative equipment of a language to use that language
as an independent creative tool’ (O’Neill 1982:110).
The above positions have perhaps contributed to a growing awareness that there is no
‘perfect fit’ between learners, teaching contexts, and coursebooks (Maley 2011:379) and
concerns regarding the suitability of global materials for specific cultural contexts (Garton
and Graves 2014; López-Barrios and Villanueva de Debat 2014). A number of universities
in the Middle East, for example, have wavered on this issue, at times opting to develop their
own in-house materials to make them more appropriate for their users in terms of cultural
content, assessment requirements, and learning outcomes, only to revert subsequently to
the use of global coursebooks due to the perceived benefits they bestow in terms of quality,
presentation, face validity, and credibility with students (cf. Al-Busaidi and Tindall 2010).
In this chapter, teacher and learner surveys regarding the use of coursebooks, reported at
conferences and in the literature, are drawn upon to represent these important but often absent
voices in the debate. What ELT professionals and coursebook users want from coursebooks
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-6 49

might differ considerably, depending upon their respective teaching and learning contexts
and a range of other variables, such as their teaching qualifications, professional and educa-
tional experience, proficiency in the target language, and reasons for learning English and
for requiring learning materials.
The chapter also considers why views on global coursebooks have become so polarised,
and the language used to represent coursebooks in the literature is explored, as this often
appears to add fuel to the flames of this debate, resulting in extreme claims and entrenched
positions that may sometimes be unfounded. Finally, a more nuanced and balanced under-
standing of the value of global coursebooks is suggested, which depends upon greater
awareness of the relevant issues postulated by both the pro- and anti-coursebooks camps,
greater empirical research into global coursebook use, and awareness of the emotive lan-
guage which is appropriated by both camps to reinforce their respective agendas.
Global coursebooks are defined in this chapter as general English coursebooks developed
by international publishers, such as Cambridge University Press, Pearson, and MacMillan,
for use in a range of contexts, such as state schools, private language schools, and universi-
ties around the world, following Jordan and Gray’s (2019) definition. It is nevertheless also
acknowledged that the blanket term ‘global coursebook’ suggests a certain homogeneity
which fails to differentiate the sheer range of coursebooks currently available, or indeed to
acknowledge the fact that some of these texts are ‘versioned’ (see Buchanan and Norton
this volume) to address the needs of a specific educational market, and constitute just one
component in a package of interactive learning resources (e.g. videos, photocopiable work-
sheets, teacher’s books, interactive presentation tools, and apps) (Hughes 2019).

Global coursebooks are said to play ‘a central role’ (Allen 2015:249) in global ELT (see also
McGrath 2006; and Richards 2001). Moore (2020:117) refers to coursebooks ‘as part of the
assumed furniture in most second-language classrooms,’ and Nunan (1988:98) claims they
are ‘omnipresent in the language classroom.’ It is hardly surprising then that most teachers
and students will expect to be supplied with a coursebook at the start of their course as a
resource to be used both in class and for self-study at home. Akbari (2008:647) elevates the
influence of the coursebook further by claiming that the concept of post-method has been
supplanted by ‘an era of textbook-defined practice,’ suggesting that the coursebook plays a
key role in shaping current methodology and lesson content.
In the following sections, arguments for and against the use of global coursebooks are
explored critically in greater detail.
Arguments for the coursebook

One of the main reasons why coursebooks are popular is that they provide structure,
coherence, and a sense of progress to all stakeholders involved in the teaching and
learning process (Hutchinson and Torres 1994; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). As
Allen (2015:249) notes:
Throughout the history of ELT, coursebooks have existed to ‘add value’ in terms of
providing a coherent syllabus and structure to the teaching and learning process, where
teachers might lack adequate training, the time/resources to develop materials of their
50
own, or in some cases, an acceptable level of proficiency in the language they are
teaching.
The global coursebook offers an accurate model of the target language and acts as a refer-
ence point in terms of grammar, lexis, and sociolinguistic and cultural content, which may
be indispensable for teachers who are not L1 speakers and lack confidence in providing an
accurate model and appropriate examples themselves. Mishan and Timmis (2015:45) claim
that the coursebook is ‘a time-saver for the busy teacher and a guide for the inexperienced
one.’ Swan (2012:41) also makes the point that not all teachers have the time, inclination,
or expertise to create their own learning materials: ‘producing full-scale language courses is
a complex, demanding, and highly-skilled job … to expect a practising teacher to do this is
like expecting the first violinist to compose the orchestra’s repertoire in his or her spare time.’
Allwright (1981:5) makes a distinction between the ‘deficiency’ and ‘difference’ view of
materials. The ‘DEFICIENCY view’ (emphasis in the original) is that: ‘we need teaching
materials to save learners from our deficiencies as teachers, to make sure, as far as possible,
that the syllabus is properly covered and that exercises are well thought out.’ He claims that
this could lead to two extreme positions: (1) the ‘best’ teachers opt out of using published
materials as they do not need or want them; and (2) the creation of ‘teacher-proof’ materials
for those who need to be able to teach off the page. Allwright (1981:6) contrasts this with
the ‘DIFFERENCE view’ which posits that ‘we need teaching materials as ‘carriers’ of
decisions best made by someone other than the classroom teacher … because the expertise
required of materials writers is importantly different from that required of classroom teach-
ers.’ The implication of the difference view may be to reduce the role of teacher to that of
classroom manager, or indeed, adopting a more positive perspective, to free the teacher to
focus on language learning in the classroom. It is also possible that the deficit and difference
views are tenable simultaneously when applied to a particular teaching context: that is, they
may be enacted to varying degrees by teachers at different stages in their careers, depending
on their proficiency in the target language, or even within individual lessons, depending on
the focus.
Global coursebooks provide a standard in the sense that they can help novice teachers
develop awareness of what constitutes ‘a lesson’ and appreciate how much and what lan-
guage to cover during a lesson; as well as gaining an understanding of what level means
(e.g. what language a ‘B1’ level learner typically already knows and needs to know).
Inexperienced teachers are said to need coursebooks to develop a repertoire of teaching
activities and insights into how to implement them, and to gain confidence in the classroom
(Gill 2000). For such reasons, Hutchinson and Torres (1994:315) claim that coursebooks
have ‘a vital and positive part to play in the everyday job of teaching and learning English’
and can even help teachers learn teaching. They view the coursebook as ‘an agent of change’
(Hutchinson and Torres 1994:323) and argue that far from de-skilling teachers, ‘if anything,
the more developed the textbook, the greater the skill required of the user’ (Hutchinson and
Torres 1994:325). Use of a coursebook can thus be recast as re-skilling and not de-skilling
the teacher, and, along with the accompanying teacher’s book, can play an integral role in a
teacher’s professional development. Indeed, in recent years, the role of the teacher’s book
has been augmented to include teacher training within its remit, as well as providing advice
about classroom management techniques and ideas for extension activities (Mishan and
Timmis 2015).
For other stakeholders, such as school administrators and management, a coursebook can
fulfil slightly different roles. It can potentially provide face validity for a course by showing
51
prospective students and parents the content to be covered, which can be both a useful
marketing tool and can provide reassurance to course participants who have specific learn-
ing goals. The teaching and learning context undoubtedly plays a significant role in deter-
mining the value of global coursebooks, suggesting that this topic should not be debated
in a vacuum, as is so often the case. For example, it is relevant to consider educational
policy at national and school level, the language proficiency and qualifications of teachers,
the language proficiency of learners, the examination and assessment requirements, and
the availability of resources beyond the coursebook. If teachers share classes, it should be
acknowledged that the coursebook can provide a record of what has been covered in previ-
ous classes, and, in this respect, the coursebook offers continuity and consistency to some
extent in terms of approach and practice. This can also be useful if students wish to prepare
before class, as many students do, or if they miss a class, as they are able to catch up by
studying a particular lesson on their own (O’Neill 1982). By providing a core framework,
coursebooks can be helpful both in terms of managing student expectations and student and
teacher workloads. Hughes (2019), for example, suggests that teaching without a course-
book might be a contributing factor to teacher burnout. It should also be acknowledged
that global coursebooks are produced and edited professionally (Dodgson 2019) and their
high-quality presentation and appearance are attractive and engaging for learners (Garton
and Graves 2014).
In addition, Hughes (2019) notes that recently published, global coursebooks offer a vari-
ety of opportunities for students to be exposed to rich linguistic input, ‘notice’ language, and
engage in meaning-focussed tasks and projects. She also points out that university-based
publishers, such as Cambridge and Oxford University Press, are non-profit charities with an
educational mission. As a result, these publishers explore research into pedagogy that can
improve the quality of the materials they produce and offer support to teachers in the form
of webinars and other professional development activities.
The above discussion reflects well-rehearsed arguments regarding the value of global
coursebooks propounded in the literature. One issue, however, is the lack of empirical evi-
dence to support some of these views, as research into the classroom use and impact of
global coursebooks is limited. One exception to this is the longitudinal study conducted
by Hadley (2014) over a six-year period in a Japanese university. Hadley’s study found
that ‘far from being detrimental, the GT [global textbook] appears to have played a major
role in the students’ improvement’ (Hadley 2014:230). More classroom-based research is
clearly needed, however, to explore the value of global coursebooks in greater depth and
in a range of contexts. We return to this issue at the end of the chapter (see section ‘Future
Directions’).
Another issue is that arguments for the use of global coursebooks do not always represent
the views of teachers and learners. A number of surveys have, however, been conducted on
this topic, and some of the findings are reported briefly in the next section.
Surveys of coursebook users

Buchanan and Norton (2014) asked 85 teachers what they thought of global coursebooks,
how they used them, and what they wanted from them. Descriptions of coursebooks in
this study were based upon McGrath’s (2002:8) list of metaphors for coursebooks (see
below), and the following responses to the first research question were elicited, with teach-
ers describing their coursebook as: a guidebook 20%; a scaffold 18%; a springboard 14%; a
52
recipe 11%; a supermarket 8%; a compass 8%; a survival kit 6%; other 6%; a crutch 4%; a
straightjacket 4%; a holy book 2%.
Teachers also told us that they liked the following things about coursebooks, echoing
many of the points previously documented in the literature: the syllabus and organisation;
the fact that they provide consistency and standards; they are convenient and time-saving;
they provide a variety and balance of topics, texts, and communicative tasks; they include
cultural content and graded texts with an appropriate level of challenge; they are a source of
information and a useful reference book; they present language in context.
In response to our research question about coursebook use, 38% of teachers were required
by their workplace to use a coursebook every lesson whilst 62% did not have to; and 19%
usually taught each exercise in the order it appeared in the book whilst 81% did not.
With regard to the final research question in our small-scale study, regarding what teach-
ers want from coursebooks, the following responses were reported: flexibility (a ‘pick and
mix’ approach), a choice of texts (including some longer texts), high-quality illustrations,
cut-up activities, realistic audios (which include features of connected and unscripted
speech), high-frequency lexis, drills based upon lexical phrases and discourse patterns,
ideas for project work and independent learning outside the classroom, speaking homework,
and teacher development opportunities.
Mishan and Timmis (2015) conducted a similar survey with a group of teachers working
for the British Council in Southeast Asia, who were attending a short materials development
course in Bangkok in 2011. They do not document the number of participants in their study,
but responses were very similar to the ones listed above. For example, teachers reported that
they want materials:
·· to arouse interest, provide challenge; stimulate students to engage with language and
use it; and develop an interest in non-linguistic matters;
·· to provide structure, support, a sense of progress, and lesson planning;
·· to expose students to a variety of text types, be a resource to introduce and reinforce
lexis and grammar, teach new skills and strategies;
·· to guide learners to be more autonomous;
·· to provide teachers with sound teaching principles and flexibility to personalise the
materials.
Based upon these responses, Mishan and Timmis (2015) claim that materials fulfil five key
purposes which are difficult for a teacher to sustain alone:
1. they meet a psychological need through their interesting and visually appealing content
to motivate learners, provide a semblance of orderly progression, and fulfil expecta-
tions that learning involves materials;
2. they provide exposure to language, covering a range of genres, styles, accents, etc.;
3. they offer comprehensive information about language, learner training, strategy use,
and culture;
4. they act as a stimulus for other activities by eliciting a variety of oral and written
responses from learners and functioning as a springboard for teachers; hold broader
educational value by presenting information-rich topics and fostering independent
learning;
5. they provide a model for teacher education, particularly when accompanied by a com-
prehensive teacher’s book.
53
Other surveys reported in the literature suggest that coursebook use remains high globally.
For example, Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) report on research conducted by the British
Council (2008) which revealed that 65% of the teachers questioned, based in a variety of
countries, always or frequently used a coursebook and only 6% said they never use a course-
book. Tomlinson (2010) also conducted a survey amongst teachers attending conferences in
Malaysia, the UK, and Vietnam and found that 92% of teachers use coursebooks regularly,
though many were obliged to do so by the institution and 78% were negative about the
coursebooks they were using. Again, participant numbers in the aforementioned surveys
were, unfortunately, not reported.
Arguments against the coursebook

For every argument for the coursebook, there exists a counter argument, and a fundamental
question arises as to whether global coursebooks help or hinder language learning. In this
section, some of the key arguments made against coursebooks are revisited.
Coursebooks are said to be inflexible, shallow, and to lack local relevance because they
do not cater for the real needs of users, but rather, are written for an idealised audience
(Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). Crawford (2002:81) characterises two opposing posi-
tions on global coursebooks: the ‘debilitating crutch’ view versus the ‘helpful scaffold.’ The
first of these, the anti-coursebook position, claims that coursebooks limit teachers’ capac-
ity to think professionally and respond to learners. This is claimed to lead to two poten-
tial problems: coursebooks can drive lessons rather than support them; and teachers can
teach the materials rather than the learners (Brumfit 1979; Edge and Garton 2009; Mishan
and Timmis 2015). The logical extension of this argument is that coursebooks disempower
teachers and rob them of creativity and initiative (Tomlinson 2001). Hutchinson and Torres
(1994:315) refer to this phenomenon as the coursebook producing a ‘dependency culture.’
They claim that in pre-service teacher education in the States, for example, ‘[S]tudent teach-
ers are taught that good teachers do not follow the textbook but devise their own curriculum
and materials’ (Hutchinson and Torres 1994:316). Similarly, van Lier (1996:208) states that
coursebooks limit teachers’ ability ‘to engage in innovative exploratory teaching.’
Tomlinson (2001) also believes that coursebooks are reductionist in terms of the lan-
guage points covered and the experience of language that they provide. Indeed, Tomlinson
and Masuhara (2018:27) bemoan the ‘persistent focus on explicit teaching and practice
of language forms,’ ‘the insufficiency of rich and meaningful input,’ ‘the lack of narrative
texts,’ ‘the neglect of affective and cognitive engagement,’ and ‘the scarcity of opportuni-
ties for authentic communication.’ This negative view of global coursebooks underpins
the position that ‘many ELT materials (especially global coursebooks) currently make a
significant contribution to the failure of many learners of English’ (Tomlinson 2008:3; cf.
Thornbury 2013).
Jordan and Gray (2019) harbour numerous misgivings about the use of global course-
books. They outline what they describe as four false assumptions with regard to course-
book use. The first of these relates to the role of explicit and implicit knowledge about the
target language. They criticise coursebooks on the basis that implicit knowledge (some-
times referred to as procedural knowledge), that is, knowledge of how to use the language,
as opposed to explicit knowledge (declarative knowledge), that is, knowledge about the
target language, underpins the learning process. Jordan and Gray claim that declarative
knowledge about the language does not necessarily convert to procedural knowledge which
54
ensures automaticity in language use. They believe that second language acquisition does
not involve mastering individual structures in a linear fashion, and that learners do not
always learn what they are taught, referring to Pienemann’s (1987) learnability hypothesis.
Jordan and Gray (2019) also criticise global coursebooks for exploring language at the sen-
tence level rather than at the discourse level and suggest that they contain cultural biases.
Another oft espoused anti-coursebook argument is that it acts as an instrument of control
(Munkundan 2009) and authority (Dendrinos 1992; Gray 2010b), particularly if the course-
book is produced by prestigious publishers, such as Oxford or Cambridge. Indeed, some
teachers are said to reify the coursebook (Richards 1998:131):
Teachers in some parts of the world … tend to assume that any item included in a
textbook must be an important learning item for students, and that explanations (e.g. of
grammar rules or idioms) and cultural information provided by the author are true and
should not be questioned; they assume that they do not have the authority or knowledge
to adapt the textbook.
This concern suggests the importance of teachers engaging critically with their coursebook
and reflecting upon the value of particular activities for their learners, given the course aims
and objectives and learner needs and interests. It is also noteworthy that students rarely get
to choose the class coursebook, as this is invariably decided by the school management,
administrators, or teachers.
Critical perspectives on global coursebooks have also revealed serious political and ideo-
logical concerns about their use and influence (Block 2002; Bori 2018; Gray 2010a,2010b;
Gray and Block 2014; Thornbury 2013; see also Bori this volume). It has been argued that
coursebooks are complicit not only in subverting social, educational, and cultural values,
but in furthering linguistic imperialism (Phillipson 1992), not least, because of their exclu-
sively monolingual content, including the predominance of native-speaker models of speak-
ing, writing, and grammatical accuracy (Thornbury 2013).
According to critical perspectives, coursebooks are ‘artefacts of a pervasive form of neo-
liberal globalization’ (Hadley 2014:210), and act as ‘tools through which ideologies such as
class privilege and gender norms are constructed and perpetuated’ (Moore 2020:117) and
heteronormative sexual identities are uncritically represented (Gray 2013). Coursebooks are
said to serve ‘the interests of powerful elites,’ and to be ‘imbued with the discourses of polit-
ical conservatism, colonialism, neoliberalism, sexism and so on’ (Thornbury 2013:210).
The commercial interests of educational publishers are also highlighted by coursebook
critics, such as Thornbury (2013:205), who claim that publishers are fundamentally driven
by profit rather than educational concerns:
far from being ‘an essential element in the curriculum’, coursebooks are not only dis-
pensable, but … fundamentally flawed, to the extent that they may actually be detri-
mental, hindering rather than helping the business of language learning (although not
of course, the language learning business!)
The conservatism of publishers, who tend to reproduce best-selling coursebooks, with simi-
lar formats and tried and tested formulae, due to their commercial success, is also castigated
as an obstacle to pedagogical innovation (Thornbury 2013).
Given the aforementioned criticisms, it is perhaps unsurprising that Thornbury is a lead-
ing proponent of Dogmé, a ‘materials light,’ ‘conversation-driven’ approach to teaching,
55
which focuses on ‘emergent language’ (Meddings and Thornbury 2009:8). Dogmé is critical
of:
the often trivial or anodyne nature of the thematic content of coursebooks and of many
of their tasks, which, through want of relevance, challenge or choice, fail to engage
learners or to stimulate the kinds of conversations that might embed optimal learning
opportunities.
(Thornbury 2013:204)
The theoretical underpinnings of Dogmé can be linked to van Lier’s (1996) work on the
importance of classroom interaction in language learning, reported in Thornbury (2013).
Overreliance upon coursebooks and pre-packaged materials is assumed to limit classroom
interaction and thereby have a potentially detrimental effect upon learning and language
acquisition.
Thornbury (2013:217) claims that although the global coursebook continues to drive
current practice, it is ‘demonised by academics and researchers.’ With the exception of
academics and researchers working in the field of critical pedagogy, however, there appears
to be limited evidence that this view is widely held. In addition, the opinions of coursebook
users are not considered. Hadley (2014) suggests that the anti-coursebook camp has failed to
convince second language learners to reject global coursebooks and they are often less dis-
satisfied with their coursebooks than their teachers (see McGrath, 2006, however, who pre-
sents contradictory findings). Hadley (2014) also acknowledges the lack of voice afforded
to students on both sides of the pro- and anti-coursebook debate. The anti-coursebook argu-
ments proffered by teachers in the survey conducted by Buchanan and Norton (2014) are
presented below.
Surveys of coursebook users

The aforementioned survey of teachers, conducted by Buchanan and Norton (2014), found
that teachers disliked the following features of global coursebooks:
·· inauthentic listening texts

·· the lack of ‘real’ English and inadequate focus on pragmatic meaning
·· they are too safe and trivial
·· they are culturally inappropriate and irrelevant
·· they are not research-informed
·· the unit structure is often repetitive
·· they include too much grammar
·· they do not harness technology effectively
·· they fail to make use of the learners’ L1
In addition, the following problems were noted. Global coursebooks:
·· date quickly
·· the layout is often too busy
·· the methodology is too similar
·· there are not enough practice activities/games
56
·· they are expensive

·· they are usually aimed at young adults
·· the representation of the world is inaccurate
Further surveys conducted with teachers and learners in Hong Kong and Sweden on mixed
and negative attitudes towards global coursebooks are reported in the next section where
we consider the range of metaphorical images ascribed to coursebooks and the way they are
represented linguistically in the literature.

In this section, the ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguments presented above are explored critically,
acknowledging that experienced and novice teachers have different requirements from their
coursebook. Graves (2019:339) makes an important point that teachers and learners are
often erroneously positioned as passive recipients in this debate, rather than active agents
who are capable of engaging with materials: ‘we may assume that materials have effects on
their users, but not that users affect materials. Because of such assumptions, we risk posi-
tioning users as lacking agency in how they perceive, critique and resist materials.’ Hughes
(2019:453) makes a similar point that ‘[c]oursebooks do not dictate how a teacher will use
them,’ although, as noted previously, the antithesis of this argument is often appropriated by
the anti-coursebook camp as evidence that coursebooks restrict teachers’ decision-making,
disempower them, and determine what goes on in the classroom. As Graves (2019) astutely
highlights, however, the value and impact of global coursebooks are not just a matter for
academics, researchers, and publishers to debate, but should include the voices of all stake-
holders, particularly teachers and learners, acknowledging their agency in mediating and
re-interpreting materials. Similar sentiments are expressed by Gray 2000:281):
by engaging with the coursebook as a bearer of messages, and encouraging our students
to view materials as more than linguistic objects, we are, as well as developing their
language skills, allowing students to voice their own opinions, and reverse the one-way
flow of information. It is at this point, I would suggest, that the global coursebook can
become a useful instrument for provoking cultural debate and, concomitantly, a genu-
ine educational tool.
One potential problem oft cited by publishers when seeking feedback from teachers and
learners is that they frequently ask for more of the same, but with a few tweaks. This may be
because they are familiar with current, global coursebooks and cannot envisage viable alter-
natives. It could also be the case, however, that publishers are complicit in co-constructing
this response by asking what to include in coursebooks, rather than whether teachers and
learners actually want a coursebook at all (cf. Hadley 2014 who discusses the data collected
by claims makers to further their own agenda).
A number of studies aiming to elicit teacher and learner views on global coursebooks
have employed metaphors and similes to help them uncover and make sense of their experi-
ence (e.g. Allen 2015; McGrath 2006). McGrath (2006:171), for example, asked 75 teach-
ers and several hundred secondary school learners in Hong Kong to complete the sentence
stem, ‘A coursebook is …’ Through this study, McGrath (2006) was able to demonstrate dif-
ferences in the metaphors ascribed to coursebooks by teachers and learners. McGrath (2006)
57
acknowledges, however, that whilst this approach to data collection was economical and led
to interesting insights, a more focused study may be helpful to explore which metaphors are
attached to specific coursebooks rather than coursebooks in general; to differentiate between
those metaphors related to content and those related to the way in which coursebooks are
used; and to understand what influenced respondents’ choices of metaphor.
In McGrath’s study, four themes were identified in relation to the teachers’ conceptions
of coursebooks: guidance (e.g. map, compass), support (e.g. scaffolding, anchor), resource
(e.g. supermarket, menu), and constraint (e.g. roadblock, straitjacket). The first three cat-
egories offer relatively positive images for coursebooks and, McGrath (2006) argues, rep-
resent varying degrees of control exercised by the coursebook. The final category, however,
suggests a rather negative, constraining conceptualisation. McGrath’s task also resulted in
more complex descriptions of coursebooks that revealed mixed feelings. For example, the
coursebook is described as a pair of shoes:
It takes time to choose one that you feel comfortable to wear for a long time. A bad pair
will kill you, give you blisters. A good one will give you confidence to run, to jump, to
fly high.
(McGrath 2006:175)
Learners’ categories similarly contained positive and negative images for the coursebook,
such as ‘guide’ and ‘rubbish’ (McGrath 2006:175). They also included more opaque, some-
times impenetrable, and particularly vivid descriptions, such as ‘a beggar (no one likes to
approach it)’; ‘a meteor (that makes you brilliant)’; and ‘an angry barking dog that frightens
me in a language I don’t understand’ (McGrath 2006:176). The learner data generated eight
categories of classification, including the four mentioned above plus authority, boredom,
worthlessness, and source of anxiety and fear. It also included more negative categorisation
than the teachers, and McGrath notes that this might be due to the inappropriateness of the
coursebook for the context, or it could be attributed to the way it is used in class. It could
also be because the teachers appreciate the support of the coursebook in terms of lesson
preparation and content, whilst this is not a major concern for learners.
Other research employing surveys has described global coursebooks metaphorically in
positive, negative, and mixed terms. Allen (2015), for example, conducted a study amongst
Swedish pre-service and in-service EFL teachers to uncover their attitudes towards and
reliance upon coursebook packages (i.e. the coursebook plus websites and digital resources
related to it). The results of Allen’s survey showed that the in-service teachers held more
negative attitudes towards the coursebook than the pre-service ones. He refers to course-
books as ‘marriages of convenience’ (2015:249), offering convenience to busy teachers
whilst acknowledging limitations, such as a narrow range of topics and out-of-date content.
The metaphors used to describe coursebooks by their end users and the language used to
represent coursebooks in the literature certainly merit closer scrutiny when accounting for
the polarised views which dominate the debate on global coursebooks. Mishan and Timmis
(2015:45) talk about ‘factionism’ and divide contributors into ‘those arguing in favour of the
coursebook’ and those who are ‘anti-coursebook.’ Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) claim
that members of the pro-coursebook camp are frequently discussing the potential benefits of
an ideal coursebook, whilst those adopting an anti-coursebook stance are often being criti-
cal of the contents and approach of specific coursebooks, as reflected in their own course-
book evaluations (Masuhara et al. 2008; Masuhara and Tomlinson 2008; Tomlinson and
Masuhara 2013).
58
Emotive language appropriated by the anti-coursebook camp to reinforce their agenda

includes verbs, such as ‘dictate,’ ‘fail,’ and ‘oblige.’ For example, Jordan and Gray
(2019:445) use the word ‘fail’ numerous times in relation to global coursebooks, which are
said to fail to take into account interlanguage development, to fail to provide rich input, to
fail to involve learners in the learning process or to provide opportunities for meaningful
interaction. In addition, coursebooks are said to ‘oblige’ teachers to work within particular
constraints: ‘[C]oursebooks oblige teachers to work within a framework where students are
presented with, and then asked to practice, dislocated items of language in a predetermined
sequence’ (Jordan and Gray 2019:445). In the aforementioned quotation, coursebooks are
personified, suggesting, as previously noted, that teachers have no agency or choice in the
way that they use them, which is clearly not the case. In addition, it is unclear what a ‘dislo-
cated’ item of language is; and it is the nature of books that pages follow in a pre-determined
sequence. Indeed, the very title of Jordan and Gray’s (2019) article, ‘We Need to Talk about
Coursebooks,’ positions them as a clear and present danger, drawing as it does upon the title
of Shriver’s (2003) novel, We Need to Talk about Kevin, a tale of a fictional school massacre.
The pro-coursebook camp, on the other hand, appropriate verbs such as, ‘promote,’
‘provide,’ and ‘include’ (Hughes 2019:448) to suggest that a collaborative and inclusive
approach to teaching and learning is found in coursebooks:
Many modern coursebooks do promote cooperative and collaborative learning, aim to

provide rich input, have an inductive or guided approach to grammar and vocabulary,
and include elements of task-based learning.
(Hughes 2019:454)
Many more examples of the use of emotive language to represent global coursebooks can
be found in the literature. The ones included above aim to raise awareness of the emotive
language which is appropriated by both camps to colour perceptions of global coursebooks.

Whilst global coursebooks may be ‘an easy target for anti-coursebook critics’ (Hughes
2019:451), it is important to acknowledge, as noted previously, that writing effective learn-
ing materials is a highly skilled and demanding task. Indeed, there is recognition in the lit-
erature that materials writing presents ‘the ultimate applied linguistic challenge’ (Ron Carter
personal communication cited in Timmis 2014:260). Developing principled, research-
informed, and innovative learning materials requires craft as a writer, professional experi-
ence as a teacher (Dubin and Olshtain 1986), and a broad and in-depth understanding of
applied linguistics which can be operationalised for this purpose. In this respect, materials
writing is at the interface between theory and practice: theory should ideally inform prac-
tice, and research into the classroom use of materials and their evaluation should illuminate
the effectiveness of the materials and thereby support and further develop theory.
In addition, the role of materials development in initial teacher training courses should
be revisited. Whilst acknowledging the already packed nature of the curriculum on teacher
training courses such as the Cambridge CELTA and Delta, the need for greater support
and training, not just in materials writing, but also in the use of coursebooks and materials
evaluation, should be given greater attention in teacher training to better prepare teachers
for these aspects of their work.
59
Future directions
Tomlinson argues that ‘[F]or the field of materials development to become more credible,
it needs to become more empirical’ (Tomlinson 2012:146). Calls for further research, how-
ever, often remain at the generic level: we have made them ourselves at the end of con-
ference presentations and publications. Whilst we agree that there is clearly the need for
greater research within the field of materials development, we perhaps need to clarify what
type of research and be more specific about how it could be conducted. This is certainly a
challenge. For example, greater research into the classroom use of different types of global
coursebooks which includes a wider range of voices would be welcome. Although there are
some studies in this area (e.g. Gok 2018), this remains rather limited, perhaps due to the
messiness of classroom research and gaining access to classrooms. Experimental or quasi-
experimental studies which aim to prove the effectiveness of materials in terms of learning
outcomes are often beset by problems, because it is difficult to control variables, such as the
quality of the teaching, the proficiency level of the learners, the extent to which the course-
book is actually followed, etc. This issue has been highlighted in the literature:
How, for example, can you claim that it was a particular textbook which was responsi-
ble for a measured long-term outcome and not the quality of the teaching, the rapport
between teacher and class or the exposure to the target language the students gained
outside the textbook?
(Tomlinson 2010:1)
Hadley (2014), in his longitudinal study, asked teachers to adhere faithfully to the course-
book, to ‘teach off the page,’ but admits that levels of adherence and engagement in the
research differed, with some teachers preferring to adopt a more eclectic approach. A major
barrier to research into materials development and use, therefore, is ‘uninformed eclecti-
cism in the way the GT is used’ (Hadley 2014:230). Even well-intentioned teachers, who
are willing to participate in classroom research and adhere to prescribed guidelines, are
likely to meet unexpected questions or learner difficulties which must be addressed on the
spot. Indeed, it can be argued that learner-responsive teaching is a highly desirable, and
perhaps underrated skill, which experienced teachers intuitively bring to their classrooms.
Any classroom research which attempts to stifle this attribute by being overly prescriptive is
at best questionable and, at worst, unrealistic and unethical. This raises the thorny issue of
how to conduct trustworthy research into materials in use.
Experienced teachers are able to read their classrooms (Ainley and Luntley 2007) more
effectively than novice teachers, have a wider repertoire of classroom activities and man-
agement techniques at their fingertips, and, for these reasons, may opt to use materials dif-
ferently compared to novice teachers. A more balanced and nuanced approach to classroom
research into materials development is, therefore, required which recognises that global
coursebooks are not monolithic and teachers and learners are not homogeneous. We need
to uncover more about how experienced and novice teachers use their coursebooks; we
also need to equip and empower teachers to feel confident about researching their own
classrooms. This would become more feasible if pre- and in-service teacher training courses
extended their remit regarding materials development and research, and if library paywalls
were removed to give teachers greater access to published research of relevance to their
professional practice. The above suggestions may go some way towards improving the
quality of classroom research and closing rather than bridging the gap between theory and
60
practice (Widdowson 2015). In addition, greater transparency is required regarding the type
of research into coursebook development that is commissioned and conducted by global
publishers to raise awareness of current trends and preoccupations in the field which are of
relevance to end-users.
Given the entrenched positions espoused above in the pro- and anti-coursebook camps,
it may be also helpful for teachers to research the feelings towards global coursebooks that
exist in their own classrooms (McGrath 2006), particularly given that curriculum enactment
can be impacted due to the ways in which materials are reinterpreted by teachers and learn-
ers (Graves 2019).
In addition, it would be interesting to research the identities of the pro- and anti-course-
book camps further to investigate more fully the reasons underlying their respective posi-
tions. For example, is there evidence of vested interests in each camp? Are members of the
pro-coursebook camp predominantly publishers or coursebook authors with commercial
motives at heart? Are members of the anti-coursebook camp predominantly L1 speakers
of English or experienced teachers who are less reliant on coursebooks for a model of the
language, clear examples, and grammatical explanations?
Conclusion
To return to the original question, why do we need coursebooks, there is no definitive answer.
To an extent, the need for coursebooks is context-dependent, but we can consider the benefits
and limitations of global coursebooks for specific audiences who wish to achieve particular,
educational goals, and take a more measured position based upon this understanding.
According to O’Neill (1982:110–111):
Textbooks can at best provide only a base or a core of materials. They are the jumping
off point for teacher and class. They should not aim to be more than that. A great deal
of the most important work in class may start with the textbook but end outside it, in
improvisation and adaptation, in spontaneous interaction in the class, and development
from that interaction. Textbooks, if they are to provide anything at all, can only provide
the prop or framework within which much of this activity occurs. Textbooks, like any
other medium, have inherent limitations. The authors of textbooks must make it clear
what those limitations are.
In this chapter, we have aimed to raise awareness of the views on global coursebooks
espoused by the pro- and anti-coursebook camps and have considered the emotive terms
adopted to represent them in the literature. We believe it is crucial to involve all stakehold-
ers, not only in this debate about the value of global coursebooks, but also in classroom-
based research to arrive at more nuanced, democratic, and richer understandings of the
affordances these learning materials potentially offer.
Further reading
Hughes, S., 2019. Coursebooks: Is there more than meets the eye? ELT Journal, 73/4:447–455.
Jordan, G. and Gray, H., 2019. We need to talk about coursebooks. ELT Journal, 73/4:438–446.
The above articles present incisive arguments in the Point/Counterpoint section of the ELT
Journal and offer a comprehensive overview of some of the pro- and anti-global coursebook positions
expounded in the literature.
61
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., 2018. The Complete Guide to Materials Development for Language
Learning. London: Wiley.
A comprehensive guide to theory and practice in materials development, with chapters on materials
development, evaluation, adaptation, and research.
Related topics
Theory and practice in materials development, research in materials development: what,
how, and why?, materials as a tool for professional development: a perspective from
publishing.
References
Ainley, J. and Luntley, M., 2007. Towards an articulation of expert classroom practice. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 23/7:1127–1138.
Akbari, R., 2008. Postmethod discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42/4:641–652.
Al-Busaidi, S. and Tindle, K., 2010. Evaluating the impact of in-house materials on language learning.
Learning: Evidence for Best Practice. London and New York: Continuum.
Allen, C., 2015. Marriages of convenience? Teachers and coursebooks in the digital age. ELT Journal,
69/3:249–263.
Allwright, R.L., 1981. What do we want teaching materials for? ELT Journal, 36/1:5–18.
Block, D., 2002. ‘McCommunication’: A problem in the frame for SLA. In Block, D. and Cameron,
D., eds. Globalization and Language Teaching. London and New York: Routledge.
Bori, P., 2018. Language Textbooks in the Era of Neoliberalism. London and New York: Routledge.
British Council, 2008. Teaching English: Coursebooks. London: British Council.
Brumfit, C., 1979. Seven last slogans. Modern English Teacher, 7/1:30–1.
Buchanan, H. and Norton, J., 2014. Global coursebooks: Helpful scaffold or debilitating crutch?
Presentation at IATEFL 2014, Harrogate, UK.
Crawford, J., 2002. The role of materials in the language classroom: Finding the balance. In Richards,
J.C. and Renandya, W.A., eds. Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dendrinos, B., 1992. The EFL Textbook and Ideology. Athens: N.C. Grivas.
Dodgson, D., 2019. 6 Reasons for Using Coursebooks (from a teacher who doesn’t usually like
them). Modern English Teacher. 9 April. [Online]. Retrieved on 23 June 2021 from: https://www
.modernenglishteacher.com/2019/6-reasons-for-using-coursebooks-from-a-teacher-who-doesn-t
-usually-like-them.
Dubin, F. and Olshtain, E., 1986. Course Design. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Edge, J. and Garton, S., 2009. From Knowledge to Experience in ELT. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Garton, S. and Graves, K., eds., 2014. International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Basingstoke
and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gill, S., 2000. Against dogma: A plea for moderation. IATEFL Issues, 154:18–19.
Gok, S., 2018. How are materials actually used in classrooms? Towards a systematic evaluation of
a locally published coursebook series for young learners in Turkey. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis,
University of Leicester.
Graves, K., 2019. Survey review: Recent books on language materials development and analysis. ELT
Journal, 73/3:337–354.
Gray, J., 2000. The ELT course book as cultural artefact: How teachers censor and adapt. ELT Journal,
54/3:274–283.
62
Gray, J., 2010a. The branding of English and the culture of the new capitalism: Representations of the
world of work in English language textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 31/5:714–733.
Gray, J., 2010b. The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism and Promotion in the ELT Global
Coursebook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gray, J., 2013. Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Gray, J. and Block, D., 2014. The case of ELT textbooks. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language
Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hutchinson, T. and Torres, E., 1994. The coursebook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48/4:315–328.
Jordan, G. and Gray, H., 2019. We need to talk about coursebooks. ELT Journal, 73/4:438–446.
López-Barrios, M. and Villanueva de Debat, E., 2014. Global vs. local: Does it matter? In Garton, S.
and Graves, K., eds. International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Basingstoke and New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Maley, A., 2011. Squaring the circle: Reconciling materials as constraint with materials as
empowerment. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials Development in Language Teaching. 2nd ed.
Masuhara, H. and Tomlinson B., 2008. Materials for general English. In Tomlinson, B., ed. English
Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review. London: Continuum.
Masuhara, H., Hann, N., Yi, Y. and Tomlinson, B., 2008. Adult EFL courses. ELT Journal,
62/3:294–312.
University Press.
McGrath, I., 2006. Teachers’ and learners’ images for coursebooks. ELT Journal, 60/2:171–180.
Meddings, L. and Thornbury, S., 2009. Teaching Unplugged: Dogme Materials for general English in
English language teaching. Peaslake: Delta.
Press.
Moore, A., 2020. Understanding heteronormativity in ELT textbooks: A practical taxonomy. ELT
Journal, 74/2:116–125.
Munkundan, J., 2009. Are there really good reasons as to why textbooks should exist? In Munkundan,
J., ed. Readings on ELT Materials III. Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia.
Nunan, D., 1988. The Learner-Centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Neill, R., 1982. Why use textbooks? ELT Journal, 36/2:104–111.
Phillipson, R., 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pienemann, M., 1987. Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. In Pfaff, C., ed. First
and Second Language Acquisition Processes. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Richards, J., 1998. Textbooks: Help or hindrance in teaching? In Richards, J., ed. Beyond Training:
Perspectives on Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., 2001. The role of instructional materials. In Richards, J., ed. Curriculum Development in
Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shriver, L., 2003. We Need to Talk About Kevin. New York: Counterpoint, Perseus Books Group.
Swan, M., 2012. Thinking about Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thornbury, S., 2013. Resisting coursebooks. In Gray, J., ed. Critical Perspectives on Language
Teaching Materials. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Timmis, I., 2014. Writing materials for publication: Questions raised and lessons learned. In Harwood,
N., ed. English Language Teaching Textbooks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
63
Tomlinson, B., 2001. Materials development. In Carter, R. and Nunan, D., eds. The Cambridge
Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tomlinson, B., 2008. English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review. London: Continuum.
Tomlinson, B., 2010. What do teachers think about EFL coursebooks? Modern English Teacher,
19/4:5–9.
Tomlinson, B., 2012. State of the art article: Materials development for language learning and teaching.
Language Teaching, 45/2:143–179.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., 2013. Adult coursebooks. ELT Journal, 67/2:233–249.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., 2018. The Complete Guide to Materials Development for Language
Learning. London: Wiley.
Van Lier, L., 1996. Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity.
Harlow: Longman.
Widdowson, H., 2015. Acceptance speech for the British Council lifetime achievement award. In
ELTons Awards Ceremony, 5 June, London, UK.
64
5
Authenticity in language teaching
materials
Christian Jones
Introduction
The notion of authenticity in language teaching materials has been with us for some con-
siderable time and can be dated back as far as 1899 (Gilmore 2007). However, authentic
materials have been particularly relevant since the beginnings of Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT). Hymes’ (1972) notion of communicative competence was and is an impor-
tant theoretical base for CLT. This notion suggests that knowledge of forms cannot be sepa-
rated from an ability to use them and that in order to communicate, a learner will need to
call upon one or all of linguistic, pragmatic, strategic, and discourse competences (Jones
et al. 2017). Early descriptions of CLT suggested a number of methodological innovations
which could be used to aid the development of communicative competence. These included
activities which are now familiar to many, such as information gaps. Such innovations (e.g.
Allwright 1979) were designed to maximise and replicate authentic communication within
classrooms as much as possible, and by doing so, it was felt they would help to develop
communicative competence. As an example, in a typical activity such as describing a pic-
ture to a partner who must listen and draw it, a learner may need each competence: the
lexis to describe it (linguistic competence), the ability to overcome gaps in their language
(strategic competence), the ability to link ideas together (discourse competence), and the
ability to provide information in an appropriate register (pragmatic competence). At the
same time as such activities were developed, it was also suggested that authentic materials
could help to replicate the ‘real world’ in the language classroom and be more motivating
for learners (e.g. Brumfit and Johnson 1979). These suggestions have been developed and
supported in the research literature up to the present day (e.g. Guariento and Morley 2001;
Losada et al. 2017; Peacock 1997; Wong et al. 1995), and recently it has also been suggested
that the use of authentic materials is aligned with many findings from second language
acquisition research (Tomlinson and Masuhara 2017). For example, it is generally accepted
that one important aspect of acquisition is that learners need exposure to a large amount of
comprehensible input (Krashen 2009), and authentic materials certainly have the potential
to provide such input.
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-7 65

Christian Jones
Debates about definitions of authentic materials have also been very apparent since the
start of CLT and are still ongoing. There is not enough space here to discuss each area of
debate so I will explore two key aspects, which Tomlinson (2017:1–3) terms ‘text authentic-
ity’ and ‘task authenticity.’
Early definitions of authentic texts (taken here to mean spoken or written texts) sug-
gested they could be defined as those produced by native speakers, for a particular com-
municative purpose within a discourse community (Little et al. 1989). Texts as diverse as
bus timetables, songs, and poems might all fit such a definition. However, it is not difficult
to take issue with one aspect of this description because many texts with a communicative
purpose are not actually produced by native speakers. Recent research (e.g. Jenkins et al.
2018) has shown the frequency with which English is used as a lingua franca in many con-
texts, meaning that authentic texts are, in reality, produced by English L1 and L2 speakers.
This suggests that a more effective definition may be one which predates this: ‘an authentic
text is a stretch of real language, produced by a real speaker or writer for a real audience
and designed to convey a real message’ (Morrow 1977:13). This is helpful as it removes the
native speaker aspect and yet allows us to suggest that an authentic text (and for the pur-
poses of this chapter I am not including non-text materials such as photographs) must have
a real communicative purpose of some kind in the discourse community in which it is pro-
duced. Even this definition is, however, not without some problems. One issue is, of course,
what we mean by ‘real.’ A writer of textbooks may write their own texts but might also
argue that they have a real purpose (to teach English) and a real audience (learners). They
may also argue that as their materials are adapted from real texts, they are also authentic.
For this reason, for the purposes of this chapter, an authentic text is defined as one which is
produced by a real speaker/writer (although the emphasis here will be on spoken texts), with
a real message and intended receiver, and not specifically designed for language learning
purposes. This definition is not given with the intention of dismissing textbooks but rather
to try to give clarity to the discussion.
For some researchers, definitions of authentic texts are less important than how learners
interact with them. Widdowson (1998), for example, suggests that the notion of authentic
materials is unworkable because learners experience such materials in a totally different way
than they would in a discourse community outside the classroom. Texts will often be cho-
sen for them, activities unavailable in the real world will be included which will help them
to understand texts, and the ‘real’ context is removed. As a result, Widdowson (1998:711)
argues that ‘the language cannot be authentic because the classroom cannot provide the
contextual conditions for it to be authenticated by the learners.’ Related arguments have also
been made by Breen (1985) in relation to the authenticity of tasks which students undertake
when interacting with a text. Breen argues that either these should be communicative or
meta-communicative (related to the process of learning) in nature. Tomlinson (2017:1–3)
suggests that an authentic task can either involve learners completing the actual task (e.g.
buying a coffee from a coffee shop), completing a replication of the task (e.g. buying a cof-
fee with real menus/props and an information gap as a class role play), or a pedagogic task
which allows the development of real world skills or strategies (e.g. groups discuss and rank
the best coffee shops based on design, price, etc.). Such arguments are very worthy of con-
sideration and ones I will include in this chapter. There are, however, some issues with this
discussion. One problem is that suggesting a task is authentic leads to negatively labelling
other tasks ‘inauthentic,’ and this can then lead to a dismissal of classroom activities which
have a useful, pedagogic purpose. For example, it is unlikely that answering comprehension
questions when listening to a text is authentic, given that it is unlikely to happen in the real
66
Authenticity in language teaching materials
world. However, such tasks can help teachers and learners to check the extent to which a
text has been understood or misunderstood and that, in itself, is useful. It is also important
to recognise, as Breen (1985) does, that the classroom is a discourse community in itself and
therefore has its own authentic types of interaction. For example, it is hard to imagine other
contexts where we might ask ‘Can you write it on the board?’ but such language has a real
communicative purpose, to a real audience, and for a real reason in a classroom.
In this chapter then, the main definition of authentic material will be related to the texts
themselves and the definition of an authentic text will be, as mentioned, a text that is pro-
duced for a real purpose, by a real speaker/writer with a real receiver, and not made spe-
cifically for language learning purposes. This definition will also be accompanied by an
awareness that we do always need to consider the way learners will interact with a text and
the extent to which this reflects the types of real interaction they need to undertake.

There are numerous issues possible to discuss in relation to authentic materials (see Gilmore
2007 for a useful summary), but the key areas I will focus on are the reasons for using
authentic materials as models of spoken English, the usefulness of these materials as models
of spoken English, and the effects of authentic materials in general.
Reasons for using authentic materials

One common argument for the use of authentic materials is that if compared to real data,
textbooks do not always offer a realistic model of spoken language in terms of its forms
and discourse features. Such comparison has been undertaken by looking at dialogues used
to illustrate particular language functions. For example, McCarthy and Carter (1994) ana-
lysed a section of the Australian soap Neighbours to examine the speech act of asking for
a favour. They found that the soap dialogue was much more complex than the relatively
simple sequences often presented in textbooks. Grant and Starks (2001) took a conversa-
tion analysis approach in examining how conversations are closed in EFL textbooks when
compared to 50 episodes of the New Zealand soap Shortland Street. They found that the
closings in the soap opera data were linguistically much more varied than the textbook
models. Research in this area has also drawn upon data from spoken corpora to make com-
parisons. Gilmore (2004) analysed seven textbook service encounter listening dialogues
(such as reserving a hotel room) in comparison to a set of authentic dialogues recorded
using the same questions used by the information receiver in the textbook dialogues and in
the same scenarios. He found that the textbook dialogues excluded many of the features of
the authentic dialogues including hesitation and overlapping turns. Cullen and Kuo (2007)
examined 24 general English textbooks at a range of levels published from 2000 to 2006
and found that many common features of spoken grammar found in spoken corpora (e.g.
Carter and McCarthy 2006) were given little attention. They divided aspects of spoken
grammar into three categories. Category A included those features which need grammati-
cal encoding such as noun phrase heads ‘This food, it’s nice’ or past progressive to report
speech ‘John was saying…’ Category B included fixed lexico-grammatical units such as
discourse markers (e.g. ‘well,’ ‘I mean’) or vague language (e.g. ‘sort of’). Category C
included non-standard forms which are frequently accepted in conversational English such
as ‘If I was rich…’ Their findings show that Category B features did receive some attention
in textbooks but Category A received almost no attention except at advanced levels and
67
Christian Jones
little attention was given to Category C. Siegel (2014) examined this area with a different
focus. Instead of looking at the language of textbook conversations, this study explored the
extent to which the topics in textbooks matched those that students actually want and need
to talk about and thus the extent to which they can be considered authentic. Topics from a
range of textbooks were collected and then compared to recordings of informal conversa-
tions between Japanese and international students on a university campus in Japan. Findings
showed some similarities (in both cases travel and places were a common topic) but also
some marked differences. Two examples of this are that the students talked noticeably less
about themselves while ‘the self’ was a common textbook topic and they talked noticeably
more about language, which was a less common textbook topic.
This research shows that there is a need to be alert to several issues. The first is that
dialogues need to reflect, as much as possible, standard features of authentic conversational
texts. This would include language and discourse features such as ellipsis, hesitation, dis-
course markers, overlapping turns, and vague language (see Carter and McCarthy 2006 for
an extensive description of spoken English). In situations where teachers are required to use
a textbook, this suggests there is a need to at least compare textbook dialogues with authen-
tic dialogues, and such comparison can be a useful exercise in developing language aware-
ness (Carter 2003). Alternatively, if the local context allows teachers to do so, it would seem
to be advisable to supplement class textbooks with authentic materials or other textbooks
which contain dialogues based upon an analysis of corpus data (e.g. McCarthy et al. 2014;
see also McCarthy and McCarten this volume). Such textbook dialogues do not follow the
definition of authentic materials used in this chapter, but they can certainly be a useful ele-
ment when building a pedagogic syllabus to advance conversation skills (McCarthy and
McCarten 2018). Additionally, as Siegel (2014) shows, learners may have particular topics
they wish to talk about which could vary greatly from conversations found in textbooks, and
it is important to be sensitive to this.
Authentic materials and useful language

Recordings of unscripted conversations (e.g. Carter and McCarthy 1997) are surprisingly
rare. This means that, in the main, the use of authentic materials which are scripted to rep-
licate conversations (e.g. soap operas) or semi-scripted (e.g. chat shows) are more likely to
be available to most teachers. It is then worth asking the extent to which such materials are
useful and contain language and discourse features identified in the previous section such
as hesitation, discourse markers, or overlapping turns. The presence of such features does
at least expose learners to the reality of most conversations they will need to understand or
take part in.
Research in this area has sought to examine authentic materials such as plays, soap ope-
ras, or situation comedies in order to investigate the features of unscripted conversation they
display. Short (1996) argues that the dialogues in many plays contain a number of features
of unscripted conversation such as ellipsis, whereas certain other features such as hesitation
devices may be absent. Unfilled pauses may be present in plays but are often included to
create a particular effect such as adding tension, whereas in conversation they are mainly
part of normal hesitation. Carter (1998) makes a similar point, suggesting that dialogues
from plays often contain many features of conversations found in spoken corpora. He argues
that they could be accessible, motivating texts when we wish to explore features of spoken
English.
68
Quaglio (2009) analysed a corpus of the American sitcom Friends in comparison with a
corpus of conversational English. His findings show that Friends was similar to unscripted
conversations in many respects and shared core lexico-grammatical features. The sitcom dif-
fered in that it featured fewer instances of vague language and narratives and more instances
of informal and emotional language. Loeb (2015) examined data from four chat shows and
found that they have distinct and predictable patterns of discourse. For example, there is a
tendency to frame questions in a personalised manner (relating them to the host and their
guest) and to suggest an air of congeniality in order to show the host and the guest and the
product they are promoting in a good light. Jones (2017) explored a corpus of the UK soap
opera EastEnders and compared the dialogues to those found in spoken corpora. A number
of the features were similar, including the use of ellipsis and discourse markers, but several
features were noticeably absent including hesitation and response tokens such as ‘right’
employed to show the listener is following the conversation. Overall, the study concluded
that soap operas could serve as a useful and motivating model of spoken English, as they are
a ‘halfway house’ between unnatural textbook dialogues and the unscripted conversations
found in spoken corpora.
These studies suggest that authentic materials such as soap operas and situation comedies
can serve as useful models of conversations. They do not contain all features of unscripted
conversation but they do contain some. In addition, provided they are culturally accessible,
the dramatic and comedic themes in such materials may be more likely to engage learners’
interest than some other authentic materials. Cook (1998) makes the valid point that some
conversations (such as a recording of two friends chatting in a changing room) may be
interesting from a research point of view but may not be of much interest to learners as they
are too far removed from their own lives. Similarly, other authentic texts such as chat shows
could engage learners but only if they are interested in the celebrity being interviewed and
have some awareness of what it is they are promoting.
Learner engagement with authentic texts is a major consideration if we wish to use them
for learning purposes (Timmis 2005, 2018; Tomlinson 2017), and it is important that we do
not assume that an authentic text is automatically more interesting than something from a
textbook. We thus need to bear in mind the interests, age, and level of the learners and the
context in which learning is taking place when choosing authentic texts. For example, the
UK soap opera might well be appropriate for adult learners studying in or coming to the UK
but is much less likely to be of use to learners using English in other contexts. Texts should,
then, engage students and be a useful model of language.
Effects of authentic materials

There have been surprisingly few studies which have sought to examine the effects of
authentic materials. Those that have been undertaken have explored this from several dif-
ferent angles. While this makes the studies varied and interesting, it also means that it is not
possible to examine the combined effects of a number of similar studies. As a result, I will
review samples of the studies in this area focusing on those which have explored authentic
materials in relation to learner motivation, perceived usefulness, and the development of
language awareness and of communicative competence.
Peacock (1997) used class observations to suggest that authentic materials increased
motivation significantly compared to textbooks in a study of Korean EFL learners at begin-
ner level. However, despite this, when surveyed and asked to self-report levels of motivation
69
Christian Jones
and interest, the learners sampled did not find authentic materials to be more interesting than
textbooks. This may seem contradictory but it shows that learners can be motivated by the
use of authentic materials (because presumably they are aware they are real samples of
English) without always finding the texts themselves more interesting.
Timmis (2005) developed materials based on engaging authentic videos and employed a
framework of cultural access tasks, global understanding tasks, noticing tasks, and language
discussion tasks. The overall aim was to use engaging materials to raise learners’ awareness
of common features of spoken language, and so the noticing and discussion tasks focused
upon features of spoken language such as ellipsis, which were used in each video. Timmis
piloted these materials with 6 teachers based in the UK and Austria and approximately 60
learners and then surveyed them for their responses. Responses from learners and teachers
were generally very positive with comments clearly indicating that materials had helped
learners to notice features of spoken language which they may previously have missed.
Timmis (2018) also developed a unit of materials taking a text-based approach to grammar
practice. Authentic texts were chosen because they were thought to be engaging and inter-
esting, and language practice tasks were then designed working with the grammar and lex-
ico-grammar in each text. The materials were evaluated either pre- or post-use by 16 native
and non-native English teachers in a variety of countries and contexts. Survey responses
indicated that teachers in general considered that such materials and the approach used were
a viable option which they could include in their teaching programmes. Both these studies
indicate that teachers and learners can see benefits in using authentic materials.
Lin (2010) took a stylistic approach when teaching Shakespeare to 22 Taiwanese under-
graduate EFL learners enrolled in a 10-week literature class. This involved discussing
aspects of language in the texts and how these are used to make meaning. Lin notes that the
standard way to test students in this context had been to check their knowledge of content
and, as a result, a specially designed test was developed to tap into the various aspects of
language awareness. This was administered before teaching began and three weeks after it
ended. Test results show that students made significant gains in their language awareness
when pre- and post-test results were compared.
Gilmore (2011) compared the effect of authentic materials compared to textbooks with 62
intermediate-level Japanese EFL learners aged between 19 and 22 studying at a Japanese uni-
versity. Participants were divided into two groups: experimental (using only authentic mate-
rials) and control (using only textbooks) and taught for three hours a week over ten months.
All participants were given a battery of eight pre- and post-tests to tap into the various aspects
of communicative competence. These included a grammar test, an oral interview, and a lis-
tening test. Post-test results showed that the experimental groups’ scores were higher than
the control group on all tests and that these differences were significant on more than half of
the measures including the listening component and the fluency component of the oral inter-
view. These results, as Gilmore suggests, show that the use of authentic materials meant that
learners were exposed to richer input and it is therefore likely that they noticed more features
of that input, which in turn helped to improve more aspects of communicative competence.
The results of studies such as these indicate the potential positive effects of authentic mate-
rials. It is not possible to state this more strongly because there have not been enough similar
studies enabling us to compare the results. Clearly, what is needed are more studies following
Gilmore’s longitudinal design in different contexts and, where possible, with students of simi-
lar levels and with similar or larger sample sizes. More qualitative teacher and student evalu-
ation of authentic materials and tasks in various contexts would also add to the work reported
by Timmis (2005, 2018). Such data would allow us to analyse the results from different
70
viewpoints and come to firmer conclusions. Overall, the research discussed in this section has
several implications for materials development, and these will be discussed in the next section.

The two main implications and also challenges arising from the research discussed in the
previous section are related to the usefulness of authentic materials and how we can create
tasks and activities which in some way mirror the types of authentic interaction learners may
have with these materials.
One measure of usefulness discussed is the extent to which the language in an authentic
text is a useful model of spoken English, if we compare it to data from a spoken corpus.
A simple way we can do this is via comparison with dialogues we can find in open-access
corpora such as the Spoken British National Corpus 2014 (hereafter Spoken BNC2014),
containing 11,422,607 words of conversations from a variety of speakers across the UK.
Here we might simply access the corpus and compare a conversation with the dialogue from
our authentic text, providing they are of a similar genre. In the example from excerpt one,
the speakers are close family and friends and are discussing what they think about spas and
saunas in relation to free-time activities.
Excerpt 1.
Sample transcript from Spoken BNC2014 (2018)
File: S23A
S0032: that ‘s just not how I like spending my
S0094: no
S0032: whatever time it is so
S0094: >> that’s a bit weird I ‘ve never been into one like at a gym or something that ‘d be weird
S0032: no that ‘s the only one only time I have like access to them
S0094: yeah
S0021: you should see some of those spas
S0094: >> no there ‘s a great one at dance camp like
S0021: mm
S0094: just like mainly nice and then you just run out into the cold showers run back in cold showers
mm ah
S0032: >> I do quite like that actually (.) jumping in between the pool and it
S0021: >> it is
S0094: >> mm
While it is difficult to suggest that this dialogue itself might make for engaging material,
we could compare it to a dialogue from an authentic text, such as a dialogue from a novel
or film, where speakers are discussing free-time activities. This would enable us to check
the extent to which the authentic text has some of these features evident in Excerpt 1 such
as backchannel to show listenership (‘yeah’, ‘mmm’), unfinished turns (‘that’s just not how
I like spending my’), and the use of frequent lexical items (‘like’ is used here as a verb and
discourse marker). It is also useful for learners to compare dialogues such as in Excerpt
1 with textbook dialogues on similar topics and to discuss differences. This can also be
undertaken by comparing dialogues from successful speakers at higher levels undertaking
71
Christian Jones
tasks which lower level learners need to perform. Jones et al. (2017), for example, analyse
data from speaking tests at different levels of proficiency and show how communicative
competence differs at each level. One example of this in relation to linguistic competence
is that learners at CEFR B1 level tend to use language to focus on the development of their
own turn whereas at B2–C1 levels they start to use words such as ‘yeah’ to respond to and
develop the turns of conversation partners. Teachers can also use smartphones to easily
make recordings of tasks performed by higher level learners which can then serve as mod-
els for lower level learners needing to perform similar tasks. One alternative to this is to
adapt dialogues from corpora, such as the example in Excerpt 1, so that they become more
accessible to learners, something which textbooks have certainly started to do. McCarthy
et al. (2014) base the dialogues and conversation strategies they teach on information from
spoken corpora. This means they may illustrate the use of discourse markers such as ‘I
mean’ in a dialogue adapted from a corpus. It is taught because the corpus shows it is a very
frequent item used by speakers to help manage their own turn, as it allows them to clarify
or elaborate their ideas.
We can also analyse texts using simple open-access corpus analysis tools. Sites such as
Compleat Lexical Tutor (hereafter Lextutor) (Cobb 2018) allow us to check any text(s) we
have and analyse the most frequent words, for example. This can help us to evaluate how
useful the language may be in a text. As an example, if we submit the text in Excerpt 1 to
the ‘vocab profile’ option in Lextutor, it shows us that all but the underlined words are from
the first 1,000 most frequent words in the British National Corpus so the dialogue does at
least contain very high-frequency items. This kind of analysis is helpful when teachers try
to assess the suitability of authentic texts for particular levels. Generally speaking, texts
which contain a higher proportion of the first 1,000 words should be easier to understand,
although of course other factors such as cultural references and topic are also important
when considering this.
As discussed previously, Breen (1985) and others (e.g. Timmis 2018) argue that as well
as containing useful language it is of primary importance that authentic materials must
engage and interest learners. If they find them engaging, this can encourage re-reading
and listening outside of class time. This means that the materials may then become useful
sources of comprehensible input (Krashen 2009), something which, as mentioned earlier, is
an important aspect of acquiring a language successfully. One way we can assist with this
is by choosing materials and tasks which reflect the kinds of interaction students undertake
outside the classroom. Mishan (2017) argues that in the current era of Web 2.0, whereby
many learners interact with smartphones and on social media, task authenticity is vital.
While I would wish to argue that the language used in authentic texts is also key, it seems
perverse not to reflect the ways learners interact as mobile-assisted language users (Jarvis
and Achilleos 2013). This might mean helping learners to respond to a text by, for example,
creating a social media post, as well as simply discussing it in class, or as Mishan (2017:20)
suggests, by adapting common activities so that they become more authentic tasks. One
suggestion she gives is that as part of getting to know other classmates via introductions,
students can create a simple meme about themselves, which can be shared with the whole
class via smartphones.
It is also important that we take into account the findings from corpora of ‘e-language’
(e.g. Knight et al. 2014) used in various forms of online communication, and more general
corpora of internet language (e.g. Davies 2018). Such data allows us to highlight the lan-
guage used in authentic texts. For example, e-corpora show the prevalence of ellipsis in
forms of communication such as text messaging. They also show high-frequency chunks
72
which represent the relative immediacy of such communication such as ‘at the moment’
and ‘last night,’ often used in social media posts (Knight et al. 2014). Should we be using
such texts as a form of authentic material, we can highlight these features and, if appropri-
ate (bearing in mind that not every text will contain ellipsis, for example), create activities
which encourage learners to use them.

Based on the discussion so far, there are three key recommendations which can be made
for practice. It is important to reiterate that authentic texts will not automatically interest
learners any more than a textbook and instead it is recommended that teachers evaluate their
choice of texts based on the points made below.
1. Draw upon your knowledge of the class when choosing engaging, authentic texts.
Breen (1985) notes the importance of knowing a class and their interests as it can
help us to find what has been termed an ‘access’ point in a text (Jones and Carter 2012),
allowing us to relate it to students’ knowledge and interests. Knowing a class will,
in turn, give indications of the sort of texts they want and need to listen to or read. If
learners are interested in a text, there is far more chance they will re-listen or re-read it
outside of class or want to read similar texts, and they can then become useful sources
of input.
2. Ensure that authentic texts contain useful language.
Much as it is important for learners to engage with a text, it is also important that it
is worth engaging with. There is little point in finding an interesting text which contains
very little in the way of useful language. As has been noted, comparisons to corpora are
helpful in this regard as they can allow us to see the frequency of language within a text
and the extent to which it reflects the discourse organisation of texts we can find in cor-
pora. A teacher’s own judgement is also helpful in deciding if the language in a text is
useful and will again depend on knowing a class and what they want and need to learn.
3. Design activities and tasks which reflect authentic interaction.
As noted, there is undoubtedly a role for the types of interaction with texts which are
mainly found in classrooms, as they have a clear pedagogic purpose. This might include
answering comprehension questions, for example. However, it is also important, as
Mishan (2017) notes, that tasks reflect the way learners need to interact outside of class
time. As an example, chatting to a friend about something you have read may need to
be practised online as well as face to face (Jones 2018).
Future directions
The discussion so far gives possible future directions for teachers and course designers in
developing and testing the effects of authentic materials. Firstly, it seems clear that as larger
and more varied corpora develop, whether these are based on spoken corpora (e.g. Jones
et al. 2017), corpora of ‘e-language’ (e.g. Knight et al. 2014), or corpora of web language
(e.g. Davies 2018), these should influence how we view authentic materials. Even if corpora
are only used as a point of comparison with engaging, authentic texts chosen for classroom
use, this is a helpful comparison. It has implications for the skills teachers need now and in
73
Christian Jones
future. It seems clear that the ability to analyse authentic texts by using corpus analysis tools
and to develop an awareness of how language differs in authentic texts and corpora are a
vital part of a teacher’s own language awareness. Increasingly, corpora and corpus analysis
tools such as the ones mentioned in this chapter are becoming available in open-access for-
mats to facilitate such developments.
Secondly, it is clear that we need to be sensitive to the language within authentic materi-
als and student interaction with material. This suggests that there is an increasing need to
include activities and tasks with materials which reflect the kinds of interaction learners will
have with texts outside of class. We should not discard useful pedagogical activities but we
should ensure that we also try to replicate real interaction as much as possible. Teachers will
increasingly need to critically evaluate materials and at least be aware of why they are ask-
ing learners to complete tasks which are not authentic.
Thirdly, the need to choose engaging, authentic texts for learners (e.g. Tomlinson 2017)
has implications for teacher training. If we accept it is important to find such texts, this
underlines the need for teachers to know as much as they can about their learners’ interests
and needs in order to be able to identify potentially engaging texts and, as Breen (1985) sug-
gests, to actively involve learners in choosing texts to be used. There is a clear argument that
some emphasis on these skills should be given in initial pre-service training, alongside how
to help learners to understand and potentially use the language in such texts.
Lastly, it is clear that in the future more research is needed to measure the long-term
effects of authentic materials and how they contribute to the development of communica-
tive competence. Studies, such as Gilmore (2011), need to be replicated in other contexts. In
addition, it would be useful to measure the effects of textbooks informed by corpora against
those not informed by corpora. We might, for example, compare how teaching the type of
corpus-informed conversation strategies and illustrative dialogues found in McCarthy et al.
(2014) impacts on the development of communicative competence in comparison to teach-
ing with authentic materials as defined in this chapter. This could be measured using the
range of communicative tests detailed in Gilmore (2011).
It would also be useful to further evaluate the kind of text-based approach advocated by
Timmis (2018). This approach suggests that teachers could use engaging authentic texts as
the basis for lessons. The argument Timmis makes is that this allows teachers the option of
engaging with a broad range of lexis and grammar within such texts, once they have been
understood and responded to, as the primary basis for their choice is that they are engaging.
Such an approach is in contrast to first deciding on a language point and then choosing a text
because it seems to have examples of this within it. Timmis (2018) asked teachers in a range
of contexts to evaluate sample materials employing this approach, and the responses indi-
cate that teachers found it plausible and potentially useful. Such studies could be repeated
with larger samples of teachers and learners in more contexts, who could compare this
approach to working with textbooks.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I have used Morrow’s definition of authentic texts as ‘a stretch of real lan-
guage, produced by a real speaker or writer for a real audience and designed to convey a
real message’ (Morrow 1977:13). I have tried to show that when analysing authentic texts,
we need to consider how useful they are as a model of language alongside their potential
for engaging learners and the authenticity of tasks and activities we use with them. While
74
it is important to note that authentic materials are not superior to textbook material simply
because they are authentic, I have tried to show that they can be used to develop communi-
cative competence and language awareness. As such, authentic texts are a useful source of
materials with real potential for engaging learners and serving as useful sources of input.
Further reading
Gilmore, A., 2011. “I Prefer Not Text”: Developing Japanese learners’ communicative competence
with authentic materials. Language Learning, 61/3:786–819.
This is a quasi-experimental study comparing the effects of authentic materials with textbooks
on Japanese university students studying English as a foreign language. It has a longitudinal design
and uses a battery of tests to measure the effects of the different materials on different aspects of
communicative competence. The study design provides an excellent model for those wishing to
conduct similar studies in other contexts.
Maley, A. and Tomlinson, B., eds. 2017. Authenticity in Materials Development for Language
Learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
This book contains a series of studies, classroom reports, and opinion pieces focused on the uses
of authentic materials and tasks in a variety of contexts. This variety, plus the fact that different
designs are used, provides the reader with a usefully broad perspective on the notion of authenticity in
materials development. Practical ideas for using authentic materials are also given.
Siegel, A., 2014. What should we talk about? The authenticity of textbook topics. ELT Journal,
68/4:363–375.
This article is an interesting and useful exploration which focuses on the topics in textbooks in
comparison with the topics students actually talk about. Using recordings between Japanese and
international students on an international campus, a detailed comparison is made and interesting
findings are then reported. The study design provides a useful model which could be replicated in
other contexts.
Related topics
Why do we need coursebooks?, selecting language for materials writing, research in materi-
als development: what, how and why?, writing corpus-informed materials.
References
Allwright, R., 1979. Language learning through communication practice. In Brumfit, C. and Johnson,
K., The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Breen, M.P., 1985. Authenticity in the language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 6/1:60–70.
Brumfit, C. and Johnson, K., eds. 1979. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Carter, R., 1998. Orders of reality: CANCODE, communication, and culture. ELT Journal, 52/1:43–56.
Carter, R., 2003. Language awareness. ELT Journal, 57/1:64–65.
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 1997. Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M., 2006. The Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide.
Cobb, T., 2018. Compleat Lexical Tutor [Online]. Retrieved on 12 Jun 2018 from: https://www
.lextutor.ca/.
Cook, G., 1998. The uses of reality: A reply to Ronald Carter. ELT Journal, 52/1:57–63.
Cullen, R. and Kuo, I.-C., 2007. Spoken grammar and ELT course materials: A missing link? TESOL
Quarterly, 41/2:361–386.
75
Christian Jones
Davies, M., 2018. The iWeb Corpus [Online]. Retrieved on 6 Jun 2018 from: https://corpus.byu.edu
/iweb/.
Gilmore, A., 2004. A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 58/4:363–374.
Gilmore, A., 2007. Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language
Teaching, 40/2:97–118.
Grant, L. and Starks, D., 2001. Screening appropriate teaching materials. Closings from textbooks and
television soap operas. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,
39/1:39 –50.
Guariento, W. and Morley, J., 2001. Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal,
55/4:347–353.
Hymes, D.H., 1972. On communicative competence. In Pride, J.B. and Holmes J., eds. Sociolinguistics:
Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Jarvis, H. and Achilleos, M., 2013. From computer assisted language learning (CALL) to mobile
assisted language use (MALU). TESL-EJ, 16/4:1–18.
Jenkins, J., Baker, W. and Dewey, M., 2018. The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca.
London: Routledge.
Jones, C., 2017. Soap operas as models of authentic conversations. Implications for materials design.
In Maley, A. and Tomlinson, B., eds. Authenticity in Materials Development for Language
Jones, C., 2018. Conclusion: Implications for pedagogy and research. In Jones, C., ed. Practice in
Second Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, C. and Carter, R., 2012. Literature and language awareness: Using literature to achieve CEFR
outcomes. Journal of Second Language Teaching and Research, 1/1:69–82.
Jones, C., Byrne, S. and Halenko, N., 2017. Successful spoken English: Findings from Learner
Corpora. London: Routledge.
Knight, D., Adolphs, S. and Carter, R., 2014. CANELC: Constructing an e-language corpus. Corpora,
9/1:29–56.
Krashen, S.D., 2009. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [Online]. Retrieved on
6 Jun 2018 from: http://www.sdkrashen.com/.
Lin, H.W., 2010. The taming of the immeasurable: An empirical assessment of language awareness.
In Paran A. and Sercu L., eds. Testing the Untestable in Language Education. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Little, D., Devitt, S. and Singleton, D.M., 1989. Learning Foreign Languages from Authentic Texts:
Theory and Practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Loeb, L., 2015. The celebrity talk show: Norms and practices. Discourse, Context & Media, 10:27–35.
Losada, C.A.C., Insuasty, E.A. and Osorio, M.F.J., 2017. The impact of authentic materials and
tasks on students’ communicative competence at a Colombian language school. Profile Issues in
Teachers Professional Development, 19/1:89–104.
McCarthy, M. and Carter, R., 1994. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching.
Harlow: Longman.
McCarthy, M. and McCarten, J. 2018. Now you're talking! Practising conversation in second language
learning. In Jones C., ed. Practice in Second Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McCarthy, M., McCarten, J. and Sandiford, H., 2014. Touchstone. In Levels 1–4. 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Mishan, F. 2017. ‘Authenticity 2.0’: Reconceptualising ‘authenticity’ in the digital era. In Maley, A.
and Tomlinson, B., eds. Authenticity in materials development for language learning. Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Morrow, K., 1977. Authentic texts and ESP. In Holden, S., ed. English for Specific Purposes. London:
Modern English Publications.
Peacock, M., 1997. The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners. ELT Journal,
51/2:144–156.
76
Quaglio, P., 2009. Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs. Natural Conversation. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Short, M., 1996. Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. London: Longman.
Spoken British National Corpus, 2014. [Online]. Retrieved on 12 June 2018 from: http://corpora.lancs
.ac.uk/bnc2014/
Timmis, I., 2005. Towards a framework for teaching spoken grammar. ELT Journal, 59:117–125.
Timmis, I., 2018. A text-based approach to grammar practice. In Jones, C. ed. Practice in Second
Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B., 2017. Introduction. In Maley, A. and Tomlinson, B., eds. Authenticity in Materials
Development for Language Learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Widdowson, H.G., 1998. Context, community, and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly,
32/4:705–716.
Wong, V., Kwok, P. and Choi, N., 1995. The use of authentic materials at tertiary level. ELT Journal,
49/4:318–322.
77
6
Selecting language for materials
writing
Graham Burton
Introduction
One of the most crucial decisions that materials designers have to make is the question of
language selection. This chapter will consider how language has been and can be selected for
English language teaching (ELT) materials. It will mainly discuss general English course-
books, the sales of which can reach hundreds of thousands per book in a single year (Gray
2002), and which therefore have a significant influence on teachers and learners around the
world. ‘Language’ here is taken primarily to mean grammar and lexis, arguably the two
most significant areas of language in the classroom, whose importance is reflected by their
prominence in documents such as the Common European Framework.
This chapter begins by examining the historical evolution of language selection in mate-
rials design. A consideration of this historical aspect is worthwhile because many of the
principles now in use in materials design and ELT more generally can be traced back to
the early 20th century, and many current issues have been a concern for materials writers
during this period. An understanding of the historical context can reveal the original motiva-
tions for what may now be considered ‘standard practice,’ and show that some apparently
innovative, modern approaches to language selection already had a role in materials design
in the past. ELT materials have been published for centuries (see Howatt and Widdowson
2004 for a discussion of materials up until the 20th century), but this chapter will consider
what Howatt and Smith (2014) call ‘Stage II’ in the history of modern language teaching
in Europe, the period starting approximately in the 1920s, characterised by ELT becoming
distinct from the teaching of other European languages, and also by the growing importance
of ELT outside of Europe. Indeed, the first geographical area of activity relevant to our
discussion is Asia.
Harold Palmer: an early innovator

ELT, in its early stages, inevitably lacked a strong theoretical base in terms of pedagogy.
In addition, despite there being a long (and infamous) tradition of English grammar taught
to English-speaking schoolchildren, there was also a lack of consensus on or knowledge
78 DOI: 10.4324/b22783-8
Selecting language for materials writing
of exactly what aspects of the English language should be taught to learners of EFL. One
of the first people to address this issue was the British teacher and scholar, Harold Palmer,
who, in his 1921 book, The Principles of Language Study, sets out the need for a peda-
gogical grammar of English. After outlining a number of potentially troublesome areas for
learners of EFL, including the position of frequency adverbs and exceptions, the use of
‘far’ and ‘a long way,’ use of the zero article, choice of past simple or present perfect, he
states that:
These [areas of grammar] are a few odd examples chosen at random out of the thou-
sands of items the sum of which constitutes the theory of the structure of the English
colloquial language. Most of them are not contained in any manual of English grammar
nor ever taught as a school subject.
(Palmer 1921:39, emphasis added)
That Palmer felt it important to explain the necessity of identifying areas of grammar likely
to be important for learners, rather than just those that had figured in traditional grammars,
makes it clear that the idea of a pedagogical grammar for EFL was only just emerging.1
In addition to identifying areas of grammar relevant to ELT, Palmer also discussed how
these might be organised and sequenced. In a widely cited passage, Palmer sets out a num-
ber of considerations to be made when deciding on how to ‘grade’ grammar points:
The grammatical material must also be graded. Certain moods and tenses are more use-
ful than others; let us therefore concentrate on the useful ones first. In a language pos-
sessing a number of cases, we will not learn off the whole set of prepositions, their uses
and requirements, but we will select them in accordance with their degree of impor-
tance. As for lists of rules and exceptions, if we learn them at all we will learn them in
strict order of necessity … [L]et us first learn [the] essentials and leave the details to a
later stage.
(Palmer 1921:115)
Elsewhere, he makes similar points on vocabulary selection and sequencing:
The vocabulary in a well-graded language-course will be arranged in such a manner

that the more useful words will be learnt before the less useful … In the ideally graded
course the student first assimilates a relatively small but exceedingly important vocabu-
lary … This small vocabulary then constitutes a sound nucleus, and this nucleus is
of twofold utility; it not only provides the student with useful words, with language-
material which he can actually use, but it serves at the same time as a sort of centre of
attraction for new language-material.
(Palmer 1921:114)
The early guiding principles for the selection and grading of grammar and vocabu-
lary, for Palmer, thus revolved around the question of ‘usefulness’ and ‘importance’;
in addition, it was also necessary to identify the ‘essentials’ or some kind of ‘nucleus,’
to be prioritised over the ‘details.’ Although such criteria seem common sense, it is not
always straightforward to define ‘usefulness,’ ‘importance,’ or ‘essentiality,’ a point to
which we will return later.
79
Graham Burton
The boom in vocabulary research

In 1923, Palmer, working in Japan as a consultant for the government on the teaching of
English, founded with colleagues the Institute for Research in English Teaching (IRET).
The institute’s remit included producing teaching materials as well as developing pedagogy
(Smith 2004). Although IRET started out as a local venture focussing on research into teach-
ing English in Japan, the focus gradually became more international, and the results of its
activities influenced ELT worldwide. In the late 1920s, materials produced by IRET started
to include ‘readers’, books with reading passages around which other language work was
based (ibid.). With this came the need for vocabulary control, and research at IRET there-
fore focussed on how to ensure that vocabulary was selected in a principled way, as Palmer
(1921) envisaged in The Principles of Language Study.
In British India, 6000 km away, Michael West, an officer in the Indian Educational
Service, had also started to investigate how vocabulary might be selected for ‘readers.’
West analysed the readers already in use in his teaching context, Bengal, concluding that
each contained too much new vocabulary, much of which was not useful (ibid.). He then
addressed these problems by writing his own four-level series, New Method (published with
Longmans, Green, later Longman), possibly the first example of research-informed ELT
materials (Howatt and Widdowson 2004). In these, new words in texts were distributed less
densely than in the existing readers, achieved by increasing the overall lengths of the texts
and decreasing the number of new words per text. He also replaced archaic words like ‘isle,’
‘nought,’ and ‘ere’ with more useful words like ‘island,’ ‘nothing,’ and ‘before.’ Subsequent
classroom research appeared to show fast and large improvements with classes that used the
new materials (ibid.) and West’s ideas remained influential for decades (ibid.).
Interest in vocabulary selection and the applications of lexicography in ELT increased in
the 1930s, spurred in part by Palmer’s meeting with West and a number of statistical lexi-
cographers in the USA, and also by the arrival in Japan and subsequent involvement in IRET
of another teacher-author, the American, Laurence Faucett. Faucett, too, was interested in
the question of vocabulary selection and text simplification, and had compiled a series of
word lists which became the organising principle for his Oxford English Course, published
by Oxford University Press. Like West, Faucett divided the course into 4 levels, and, for
each level, created a vocabulary ‘radius’ of 500 words (Smith 2004:441). This approach was
subsequently adopted by other coursebook series; for example, C. E. Eckersley’s Essential
English for Foreign Students, aimed at a very different group of learners than West and
Palmer had originally considered, adult learners of English in the UK, followed the same
system of 4 levels with 500 new words in each.
The research on vocabulary led to the 1936 Interim Report on Vocabulary Selection (also
known as the ‘Carnegie Report,’ published, in 1953, under the more familiar name General
Service List of English Words). This was a collaboration between Faucett, Palmer, West,
and the American psychologist and statistical lexicographer E. L. Thorndike. Thorndike had
himself recently produced a dictionary for elementary schools in the USA (for L1 English
children), the Thorndike-Century Junior Dictionary, which used word frequency ‘in over ten
million words of reading matter’ as a basis for selection (Thorndike 1935:iii). Approximate
frequency was also shown in entries, as was later to become common in EFL learner’s
dictionaries (see, for example, the Macmillan Dictionary and the Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English). The Interim Report contained a list of nearly 2,300 headwords,
chosen as those most useful for the production of reading texts, reflecting the focus on
readers; colloquial spoken English was ignored (Howatt and Widdowson 2004). The final
80
list was informed by a number of existing word lists developed by the authors, along with
criteria such as frequency, universality (potentially offensive words were excluded), subject
range (no specialist items were included), ‘word-building capability,’ and style (‘colloquial’
or slang words were not included) (ibid.).
Continuing evolution
After the publication of the Carnegie Report, there was a change of direction: the ques-
tion of vocabulary selection and grading was felt to have been dealt with, and the focus
returned to grammar (Hornby 1959:ix). A key innovation was the identification of ‘pat-
terns’ as a unit of teaching. Palmer was aware early on of the patterned nature of language
(Richards and Rodgers 2001:37–38), and his use of substitution tables as the basis for oral
language practice reflected this. However, the idea of patterns is most closely associated
with A. S. Hornby, whose 1954 reference guide to verb, adjective, and noun patterns, A
Guide to Patterns and Use in English, became a standard reference work for materials writ-
ers (Richards and Rodgers 2001).2
The research on verb patterns has remained influential. It continues to feature, albeit
to a relatively limited extent, in most modern coursebooks (Burton 2012), and regained a
level of prominence with the ‘pattern grammar’ of Hunston and Francis (2000), which was
a feature of the COBUILD dictionary (see Hanks 2008 for an account linking Hornby and
the work of Hunston and Francis). The idea of verb patterns can be seen as a continuation of
the move away from ‘traditional’ to ‘pedagogical’ grammar which Palmer spoke of; indeed,
Hornby appears to have deliberately avoided the word ‘grammar,’ preferring ‘structure,’ in
order to distance his model from that of old school grammars.3
Another development during this period was the ‘contrastive analysis’ (CA) hypothesis,
set out by Lado in 1957. The main idea is that many production errors in language learners
can be explained as a result of differences between the L1 and the L2, although, as Swan
(2007) notes, the oft-repeated claims that the CA hypothesis posited that all, or even most,
errors are explainable in this way are a misrepresentation of the CA position. The logical con-
sequence of this for materials design was that materials should be designed with specific L1
groups in mind, highlighting the differences between the L1 and the target language. Charles
C. Fries set out this position clearly: ‘[A] different set of teaching materials must be prepared
for each linguistic background … [The features of English] present very different problems for
those whose native language is German and those whose native language is Japanese’ (Fries
1959:44). There therefore needed to be strict synergy between the activities of the researcher
and the materials designer, with the former carrying out research directly relevant to the latter.4
While CA slowly became discredited, possibly due to its links with the similarly dis-
credited behaviourist approaches to language learning and teaching (Swan 2007), its role in
materials design has, to an extent, been preserved, even if not used as an overarching prin-
ciple. This is primarily seen in teaching materials produced specifically for particular local
markets, by both local and international publishers, which often contain sections on specific
problem areas for groups of L1 speakers, or prioritise grammar points likely to be problem-
atic for target users (see Krantz et al. this volume). The influence of CA can also be seen in
pedagogical grammars; for example Swan’s Practical English Usage (2005) contains mul-
tiple references to aspects of language of interest to ‘people who speak some languages,’ or
‘speakers of some European languages’ (see, for example, the entry on ‘actual(ly)’ on page
8, which compares the meaning of ‘actuel(lement)’ (in French), ‘aktuell’ (in German), and
‘attual(ment)e’ (in Italian) to their English cognate).
81
Graham Burton
Influence of the communicative approach

The above account of materials design in roughly the first half of the 20th century has
shown that the period was characterised by the development of a solid base of both peda-
gogic grammar and pedagogic vocabulary, what Smith describes as the ‘standardization of
English as a foreign language’ (2004:71). Materials writers in the second half of the cen-
tury therefore ‘inherited’ principled ways of selecting both grammar, including a new kind
of analysis based on patterns, and vocabulary, and many of these principles can be found
in contemporary practice. In the last 50 years, this consensus has itself been influenced
by the communicative approach. This section will discuss, after Howatt and Widdowson
(2004:326–350), three key developments related to the communicative approach that have
had an effect on the question of language selection: (1) the development of ideas on func-
tions and notions; (2) research on cohesion; and (3) the development of materials for English
for specific purposes.
The 1970s saw the introduction of teaching materials organised around notions and func-
tions (Nunan 1988; White 1988). The essential idea was to identify segments of commu-
nicative situations and ‘how they built into full-scale conversations’ (Howatt and Smith
2014:89), by identifying the notions and functions present in conversation, and working
out the kind of language typically used to realise them. Essentially, this was nothing new
as the link between formal grammatical categories such as interrogatives and functional
categories, like ‘asking questions,’ had long been clear, but such links were now applied
more widely, with categories such as ‘asking for things’ and ‘making suggestions’ identi-
fied (ibid.), and the language used to realise such categories included in teaching materials.
Titles such as Van Ek’s (1975) The Threshold Level and Wilkins’ (1976) Notional Syllabuses
supported curriculum designers and materials writers with ‘catalogues’ of such language.
One of the first coursebook series to make extensive use of notions and functions was the
highly successful Strategies series (Abbs and Freebairn 1977, 1979, 1980).
Another implication of the communicative approach was the importance of considering
language beyond the boundaries of individual sentences. This notion of discourse and cohe-
sion was set out in publications such as Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) Cohesion in English
and appears to have been quickly taken on board by materials authors; for example, course-
book series published in the late 1970s and later, such as Strategies (first edition published
in 1975), Streamline (first editions published 1978–1981), and The Cambridge English
Course (first editions published 1984–1987) all cover an extensive range of linking words
and phrases. The difference is striking when compared to slightly older series such as New
Concept English (Alexander 1967a, 1967b, 1967c, 1967d) or Kernel Lessons (O’Neill et al.
1971; O’Neill 1972, 1978), which teach almost none.
Whereas these first two developments essentially made available to materials design-
ers previously neglected areas of language, the third development, that is, the increasing
emergence of English for specific purposes (ESP), was more a question of focus. An ever-
increasing understanding of the needs of learners outside the classroom led to titles which
‘specialised’ in particular topic areas. While initial attempts at identifying such subject-
specific language could be ‘a matter of informed, or inspired, guesswork’ (Howatt and
Widdowson 2004:355), the emergence of genre analysis and the compilation of large, sub-
ject- or content-specific corpora made it possible to systematically analyse and identify
language to be prioritised in teaching materials.
To summarise this historical review, then, the first half of the 20th century laid out
the ground for a pedagogical grammar and vocabulary for ELT; previously, there was
82
no shared consensus on what grammar should be taught to learners of EFL, or how lexis
could be selected and controlled. Most of this has remained entirely relevant to contempo-
rary materials design, even if the original actors involved in the evolution are sometimes
forgotten. The following period, up to the present, has been characterised principally by
‘tweaks’ to the consensus, the identification of additional areas of language that can be
taught, and selecting language on the basis of the specific needs of learners outside the
classroom.

Glancing at contemporary coursebooks, one might have the impression that the ‘what’ of
ELT has been resolved: there is remarkable consistency in the content of most global course-
books (Gray 2002), particularly in terms of grammar (O’Keeffe and Mark 2018). However,
this section will discuss three critical and current areas of research that suggest that the ques-
tion of selecting language has not been resolved: research on acquisition order, the influence
of corpus linguistics, and most recently, the use of learner corpora.
Level assignment of grammar

As we have seen, a key question for materials designers is how to order language points
and assign them to different levels. In the first half of the 20th century, there was no estab-
lished level system for ELT; some coursebook series were published at multiple levels,
typically three or four (West’s New Method, Faucett’s Oxford English, and Eckersley’s
Essential English all had four; Hornby’s Oxford Progressive English had three), but this
related primarily to the amount of lexis introduced, rather than to any conception of over-
all language competency. In terms of grammatical structures, there was sometimes talk of
‘order of presentation’ (see, for example, Hornby 1959), but there is little sense in this
period of certain structures ‘needing to be taught’ at certain levels as there often is now. In
the second half of the century, however, a consensus emerged that courses should be built
around ‘a graded syllabus of structural patterns to ensure systematic step-by-step progress’
(Howatt and Widdowson 2004:300), which went hand in hand with the establishment of a
level system. Since then, with some minor disruptions (such as the lexical approach and
functional-notional syllabuses), the use of multi-level, structurally based syllabuses has
become standard practice in coursebook design.
Coursebook authors Jack Richards and Keith Johnson both discuss five main principles
that can be used in ordering grammatical items, and, by implication, used to assign them to
levels in a multi-level coursebook series (Johnson 2001; Richards 2001). These are:
·· simplicity and centrality

·· frequency
·· learnability
·· linguistic distance
·· communicative needs
Few of these suggested principles are new; we saw above that Palmer used the terms ‘the
essentials’ and ‘the details’ rather than ‘simplicity and centrality,’ but the idea is the same.
The problem, of course, is that these are essentially subjective judgements; there is no agreed
83
Graham Burton
upon definition of ‘complexity,’ and things that are judged as complex may not actually be
difficult to learn, and vice versa. Frequency can be used to select grammatical structures
just as it can be for vocabulary; indeed, the fact that the present simple is more frequent
than the present continuous has been used as a justification for teaching it first, even though
there may be pedagogic arguments for starting with the present continuous.5 ‘Linguistic
distance’ is connected to the contrastive analysis hypothesis, while ‘communicative need’
again brings us back to the idea of functions and notions, with a stronger focus, perhaps, on
their prioritisation according to likely need: ‘some structures will be needed early on and
cannot be postponed, despite their difficulty’ (Richards 2001:13).
The principle of ‘learnability’ relates to the hypothesis of an ‘internal syllabus,’ the idea
that learners acquire structures in a natural order, regardless of the order in which they are
taught, and that this should be reflected in teaching materials (see, for example, Dulay and
Burt 1974; Pienemann 1989). The influence of such research on materials design has been
limited and the research at times criticised; Richards argues that ‘little reliable informa-
tion on acquisition sequences has been produced that could be of practical benefit in plan-
ning a grammar syllabus’ (2001:12). This is, however, an ongoing area of research, and the
claimed existence of an internal syllabus is given as a rationale for task-based language
teaching (Long 2015), which typically favours a syllabus organised around tasks instead of
grammatical structures.
One difficulty with ordering is that no single principle can be entirely satisfactory, and
materials designers inevitably use a number of different principles. These principles are at
times inevitably in conflict, and any structural syllabus will therefore have involved the
materials designer weighing up the various principles and deciding, case by case, which to
prioritise. Similar conflicts can exist for vocabulary, with low-frequency items perhaps mer-
iting inclusion early on if they are likely to be immediately useful for the context the learners
find themselves in. The existence during the writing process of competing demands and the
need for compromise is a theme reported by a number of different materials authors (see, for
example, Bell and Gower 2011; Johnson 2001; McGrath 2013; Mares 2003; Timmis 2014).
Using corpus linguistics to inform language content

A full discussion of the role of corpus research in developing teaching materials is
beyond the scope of this chapter; however, the use of corpora in informing the content
of teaching materials has become a critical topic in recent years and merits discussion.
From early on, corpus linguists made the argument that their findings should have a key
role to play in ELT. For example, John Sinclair, in 1985, proclaimed that ‘We are teach-
ing English in ignorance of a vast amount of basic fact,’ and that, as a result of findings
from corpus linguistics, ‘we must expect substantial influence on the specification of
syllabuses, design of materials, and choice of method’ (1985:252). Here we will focus
on the influence of corpus linguistics on lexicography, vocabulary selection, and the
selection and description of grammar points.
The effect of corpus linguistics on lexicography has been profound; the first fully corpus-
based dictionary, the Collins COBUILD English Dictionary, was published in 1987, and
other ELT publishers quickly followed with their own corpus-based titles. A further contri-
bution of corpus linguistics, one that relates to and goes beyond pedagogical lexicography,
is the study of common collocations. As well as featuring in learner dictionaries, and even
in standalone products (Oxford University Press, Macmillan, and Longman all produce
84
collocations dictionaries), many coursebooks have vocabulary sections which specifically

focus on collocations, although not to the degree that some might argue is necessary.
In terms of vocabulary selection, corpora can quickly provide information on frequency
to aid the selection process. However, as we saw above, frequency is not normally the only
criterion used for selecting lexis for teaching: it was only one of several criteria used in the
compilation of the General Service List, and West argued that less frequent words should
sometimes be included in reading texts if they were ‘unavoidably necessary to the plot of the
story or article’ (1926:51). Modern corpus analysis techniques have allowed additional lev-
els of sophistication to be introduced to the vocabulary selection process; in addition to raw
frequency, Nation (2016:6) recommends considering ‘range’ (‘the number of different texts
a word occurs in’) and ‘dispersion’ (‘how evenly the occurrences of a word are spread across
different texts’) when selecting lexis. This is not to say, however, that all published materials
select vocabulary in such a principled way; for example, analyses of vocabulary selection in
coursebooks by Gouverneur (2008) and Koprowski (2005) both suggest that the vocabulary
included in the titles examined does not seem to have been chosen systematically.
In terms of pedagogical grammar, particularly that presented in coursebooks, the influ-
ence of corpus linguistics has been less notable. A number of corpus studies have brought
into question existing grammatical representations in coursebooks (see for example, Barbieri
and Eckhardt 2007; Conrad 2004; Gabrielatos 2006; Mindt 1996; and Shortall 2007), yet
grammatical descriptions in coursebooks since these studies have remained unchanged.
While the literature has suggested different reasons for this, including questions of whether
corpus data taken outside its original context is still authentic (Prodromou 2003), or whether
non-corpus data might be favoured over corpus data for pedagogical reasons (Carter 1998;
Cook 1998; Shortall 2007), there is no evidence that such considerations enter into the
decision-making process of materials designers. Burton (2012) found that many course-
book writers simply do not have the time or training to use corpora, access to corpora,
or, in some cases, little interest or motivation in using them. And while corpus linguistics
may have something to tell us about the accuracy of current grammatical representations,
publishers, themselves commercial enterprises, are likely to be hesitant about changing or
updating grammatical descriptions which are considered by teachers around the world to be,
in the words of Sinclair, ‘the facts’ about grammar. Publishers fear that teachers can be eas-
ily alienated (Burton 2012; Littlejohn 1992), and the advantages of offering corpus-based
grammar treatments may be outweighed by the commercial imperative of providing the
market with what it wants and expects.
The use of learner corpora

One relatively recent innovation has been the development of corpora made up of language
produced by learners. These have been argued to have particular pedagogic relevance (see,
for example, Prodromou 2003; Rundell and Granger 2007; and Seidlhofer 2003), and may
be favoured, or at least considered alongside, ‘traditional’ native speaker corpora. In the
study reported in Burton (2012), 2 of the group of 13 coursebook authors referred specifi-
cally to the advantages of referring to learner corpora over native speaker corpora in devel-
oping materials. While this is not a large number, the work of only two coursebook authors
may be highly influential if their materials are widely used, and teaching materials in the
future may take into account to a greater extent the language used by expert, non-native
speakers as opposed to only that of native speakers.
85
Graham Burton
Some learner corpora are tagged for language proficiency level, meaning that corpus
searches can be carried out for language produced at particular levels; examples are the
Cambridge Learner Corpus, the EF-Cambridge Open Language Database, and the Trinity
Lancaster Corpus. An advantage of this for materials writers is that they can gain an under-
standing of the kind of language that is used by learners at different levels, and can poten-
tially make empirically based inferences on how language develops across levels. Such
information can be applied in different ways: (1) to ensure texts and other forms of input are
suitable for the level, (2) to ensure any language chosen for explicit study reflects the level
at which learners can typically use it; (3) to decide on an order of presentation of teaching
items (for example, grammar and vocabulary) across levels.
Implications and challenges for materials development and

recommendations for practice
The previous sections have shown that the question of selecting language, which is central
to materials design, is, and has been, characterised by change and evolution. This section
will attempt to draw together the ideas discussed above into four issues, discuss their impli-
cations, and make recommendations for practice.
Issue 1
EFL pedagogical grammar evolved in different places and at different times, in different cir-
cumstances, and under different conditions. At times, decisions underlying its development
have been based on research and have been documented (for example, during the era of
IRET in Japan), but in general its evolution has been mainly the work of individual practi-
tioners, with the only documentation available now being the grammar content of published
teaching materials, which rarely cite sources or influences.
Recommendation 1
Materials designers should be aware that while the predominant consensus on grammar
has benefitted from the decades of experiences of materials writers, experience which typi-
cally includes significant teaching experience, it has never been empirically tested. There
may be many aspects of the current consensus, both in terms of selection and ordering, that
could be done differently, better, or more efficiently in certain contexts. Materials designers
should therefore attempt to develop grammar syllabuses critically and consider whether
established practice is necessarily best for them. Empirically based resources, such as the
English Grammar Profile (see below), may be a useful reference.
Issue 2
There are tensions when ordering language to be taught. Competing principles, such as fre-
quency, usefulness, and complexity, often need to be reconciled with a consideration of the
specific needs of the eventual users of the materials.
Recommendation 2
Those involved in the creation of teaching materials should be conscious of these compet-
ing principles. Where possible, informed decisions on how to prioritise one over the other
should be made early on in the writing project. At the same time, materials designers should
expect that at times it may not be possible to resolve such tensions, or that the different
86
parties involved in the production process may have differing views on if and how one prin-
ciple should be prioritised over another.
Issue 3
Modern ELT practice is characterised by a consideration of the specific needs of learners.
The advent of genre analysis and corpus linguistics has made it easier for materials writers
to consider particular ‘realms’ of English, rather than a hypothetical, ‘generic’ model of the
language. The shift in focus has been one of moving from teaching an underlying system
that could lead to potential communication, to establishing more direct communicative aims
with the objective of teaching actual communication (Howatt and Widdowson 2004).
Recommendation 3
Even in courses for general English, materials designers should consider the kinds of com-
municative circumstances that their target users are likely to find themselves in and address
them in their materials, by means of the empirical selection of lexis, selection and order
of grammar points, and inclusion of functional and notional language. Many resources are
available for this, and of particular interest may be the range of specialised corpora now
available (see martinweisser.org/corpora_site/CBLLinks.html for a useful list of corpora,
including specialised corpora).
Issue 4
One of the strongest influences on authors is likely to be the nature of the ELT publishing
industry and the ELT profession in general. Publishers publish materials to meet the demands
of their target markets and have little incentive to innovate (Burton 2012); the avoidance of
risk is paramount (Littlejohn 1992). Particularly in terms of grammar, there is a well-estab-
lished ‘canon’ of pedagogical grammar, which is deemed important by the ELT community at
large (O’Keeffe and Mark 2018), and publishers generally want to reflect this in their materi-
als. This means making changes to established syllabus designs is likely to be challenging.
Recommendation 4
Materials designers should be ready to make the case, with empirical evidence, for whatever
departures from standard practice they would like to introduce. At the same time, they should
be aware that commercial imperatives, particularly the need to avoid alienating teachers or
markets used to certain practices, may overrule empirical evidence. However, compromises
are often possible, and publishers may be willing to introduce small, evolutionary rather
than revolutionary (Littlejohn 1992:206) changes. This may also require greater collabora-
tion between authors and researchers.
Future directions
Historical ELT materials suggest that the most likely course of change will involve constant
but relatively minor changes and additions to the contemporary consensus rather than major
revisions. However, even the possibility of minor additions, perhaps based on findings from
corpus research, is likely to be tempered by the fact that existing syllabuses are already
87
Graham Burton
‘full.’ There is a limited number of classroom hours available for most courses, and course-
books already attempt to fill them. Focussing on new areas of language would probably
mean that other areas currently covered would need to be dropped, and given the conserva-
tive nature of ELT publishing, attempts at such changes might be met with resistance, both
from publishers and markets.
However, one current innovation may make some of the traditional constraints on language
selection less important. Products delivered ‘digitally’, i.e. not on printed paper but published in
some kind of electronic format, offer publishers and users far more flexibility in terms of both
length and also the level system. Gray (2016) offers an overview of some such products; the
important point for this discussion is that there may be more space for innovation in content if the
canonical level system and organisation structures currently in use in coursebooks are rendered
obsolete by the flexibility offered by digital products.
As discussed above, one active area of research is the development and application of
learner corpora tagged for level. One of the first major outputs of research based on such
corpora has been the English Profile project, which has set out to provide English-specific
descriptions of the six CEFR levels (English Profile 2015), partly through analysis of the
Cambridge Learner Corpus (CLC). Two resources developed as part of the project are par-
ticularly relevant here: the English Vocabulary Profile and the English Grammar Profile.
Both are essentially catalogues of language, either of grammar points or vocabulary, with
each entry assigned to a particular CEFR level, on the basis of evidence in the CLC of
learner use. The resources are freely available through an online platform (accessible at
www.englishprofile.org); anecdotal evidence suggests that both are currently used by a
number of authors and editorial staff.
One potential criticism of analysing learner corpora in this way is the circularity
problem: the kinds of learners who sit for Cambridge language examinations, which the
CLC, for example, is largely based on, are presumably the kinds of learners who are
likely to have used mainstream coursebook materials. There is a potential risk, there-
fore, that the output reflected in the corpus simply mirrors the input the learners have
received. Swan (2014:90) similarly argues that using data from examinations in this
way may simply serve to ‘legitimize’ examiners’ priorities, ‘whether or not these are
optimally appropriate to the broader aims of the CEFR.’ Beyond developing a corpus
using data collected only from learners who have never used coursebooks, unlikely to
be practical, especially if a large corpus is required, it is not easy to see how this objec-
tion can be addressed. Perhaps more interesting is how findings from the EGP relate
to the ‘internal syllabus’ hypothesis; if the output shown in the English Profile simply
reflects the input given in coursebooks, then the idea of an internal syllabus would seem
to be unsustainable. Future research on second language acquisition using resources
such as the English Profile may therefore prove profitable.
Conclusion
This chapter has focussed principally on two key areas: the selection of grammar and the
selection of vocabulary for the production of ELT coursebooks. As discussed, it is easy to
assume, given the homogeneity of many published materials, that the question of ‘what’
to teach to learners of EFL has long been answered, and that the focus of research should
be on the ‘how’ of ELT, pedagogy, essentially, and how this might be reflected in materials
design. It would be a mistake to make this assumption, however, for two reasons. Firstly,
particularly in the case of grammar, we have inherited a consensus whose evolution has
88
been somewhat ‘piecemeal’ and generally occurred far from the gaze of empirical research.
Secondly, there are some very active areas of current research, for example, projects such as
the English Profile, which suggests that it may be time to revisit and refine the ‘what’ of ELT.
Notes
1 Palmer appears to have answered his own call for grammar materials covering language with non-
native speakers in mind with the 1924 publication of his A Grammar of Spoken English, one of the
first pedagogical grammars of the modern ELT era.
2 Examples of a ‘verb pattern’ is ‘subject + verb + that-clause,’ or ‘subject + verb + object + object
clause’ (Hanks 2008:95).
3 ‘Structures are closely related to grammar, but not to traditional grammar … Such terms as nomi-
native, accusative, and dative, necessary for Latin grammar, are of little or no value in the study
of English, and quite unnecessary in the teaching and learning of English as a foreign language’
(Hornby 1959:x–xi).
4 At the English Language Institute at the University of Michigan, where both Lado and Fries were
employed, this appears to have been the case for a period. The institute both carried out research
and ran language courses using teaching materials developed in-house, a level of cooperation
between researcher and practitioner rarely found today.
5 The pedagogic argument for teaching present continuous first is that, assuming the affirmative,
negative, and interrogative forms of ‘be’ in the present simple have already been covered, it is
easier to move from that to present continuous (meaning simply adding the -ing form), than to the
present simple, with the additional complication of third person singular forms and the use of the
auxiliary do in the negative and interrogative.
Further reading
Palmer, H., 1921. The Principles of Language-Study. New York: World Book Company. (At the time
of writing, available online at https://archive.org/details/principlesoflang00palmrich).
This book presents Palmer’s ideas on language teaching and learning in a clear and accessible way.
It is interesting to see how many of the issues discussed are still current.
Hunston, S., Francis, G. and Manning, E., 1997. Grammar and vocabulary: Showing the connections.
ELT Journal, 51/3:208–216.
This article makes a strong argument for the inclusion of ‘pattern grammar’ in ELT syllabuses.
It is also exemplative of how arguments for change can have little or no influence on consensus in
mainstream ELT, regardless of how convincing they are.
Tao, H. and McCarthy, M., 2001. Understanding non-restrictive which-clauses in spoken English,
which is not an easy thing. Language Sciences, 23/6:651–677.
This article presents corpus evidence for how a particular area of grammar, non-restrictive which-
clauses (typically called ‘non-defining relative clauses’ in ELT), is actually used in spoken English.
Such research is indicative of how findings from corpus linguistics might be used to refine existing
ELT grammatical descriptions.
O’Keeffe, A. and Mark, G., 2018. The English grammar profile of learner competence. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22/4:457–489.
This article explains the methodology used to create the English Grammar Profile, showing how
data from a learner corpus tagged for level can be used to create a resource for materials designers.
Related topics
Using research to inform materials development, writing corpus-informed materials.
89
Graham Burton
References
Abbs, B. and Freebairn, I., 1977. Starting Strategies. Harlow: Longman.
Abbs, B. and Freebairn, I., 1979. Building Strategies. Harlow: Longman.
Abbs, B. and Freebairn, I., 1980. Developing Strategies. Harlow: Longman.
Alexander, L.G., 1967a. New Concept English: Developing Skills. London: Longman.
Alexander, L.G., 1967b. New Concept English: First Things First. London: Longman.
Alexander, L.G., 1967c. New Concept English: Fluency in English. London: Longman.
Alexander, L.G., 1967d. New Concept English: Practice and Progress. London: Longman.
Barbieri, F. and Eckhartdt, S., 2007. Applying corpus-based finding to form-focused instruction: The
case of reported speech. Language Teaching Research, 11/3:319–346.
Bell, J. and Gower, R., 2011. Writing course materials for the world: A great compromise. In
Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials Development in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Burton, G., 2012. Corpora and coursebooks: Destined to be strangers forever? Corpora,
7/1:91–108.
Carter, R., 1998. Orders of reality: CANCODE, communication, and culture. ELT Journal,
50/1:43–56.
Conrad, S., 2004. Corpus linguistics, language variation, and language teaching. In Sinclair, J., ed.
How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cook, G., 1998. The uses of reality: A reply to Ronald Carter. ELT Journal, 52/1:57–63.
Dulay, H. and Burt, M., 1974. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language
Learning, 24/1:37–53.
English Profile, 2015. Reference Level Descriptions [Online]. Retrieved on 1 July 2018 from: engli
shprofile.org/the-cefr/reference-level-descriptions.
Fries, C., 1959. Preparation of teaching materials, practical grammars, and dictionaries, especially for
foreign languages. Language Learning, 9/1–2:43–50.
Gabrielatos, C., 2006. Corpus-based evaluation of pedagogical materials: If - conditionals in ELT
coursebooks and the BNC. Presentation presented at the 7th Teaching and Language Corpora
Conference 2006, Paris, France.
Gouverneur, C., 2008. The phraseological patterns of high-frequency verbs in advanced English for
general purposes. In Meunier, F. and Granger, S., eds. Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning
and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gray, J., 2002. The global coursebook in English language teaching. In Block, D. and Cameron, D.
eds. Globalization and Language Teaching. London: Routledge.
Gray, J., 2016. ELT materials: Claims, critiques and controversies. In Hall, G., ed. The Routledge
Handbook of English Language Teaching. London: Routledge.
Halliday, M. and Hasan, R., 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.
Hanks, P., 2008. Lexical patterns: From Hornby to Hunston and beyond. In Bernal, E. and de Cesaris,
J., eds. Proceedings of the XIII Euralex International Congress. 9 Sèrie Activitats 20. Barcelona:
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada.
Hornby, A., 1954. A Guide to Patterns and Use in English. London: Oxford University Press.
Hornby, A., 1959. The Teaching of Structural Words and Sentence Patterns: Stage One. London:
Howatt, A. and Smith, R., 2014. The history of teaching English as a Foreign language, from a British
and European perspective. Language and History, 57/1:75–95.
Howatt, A. and Widdowson, H., 2004. A History of English Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Hunston, S. and Francis, G., 2000. A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Johnson, K., 2001. An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. London: Routledge.
90
Koprowski, M., 2005. Investigating the usefulness of lexical phrases in contemporary coursebooks.
ELT Journal, 59/4:322–32.
Lado, R., 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Littlejohn, A., 1992. Why Are ELT Coursebooks the Way They Are? Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
Lancaster University.
Long, M., 2015. Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell .
Mares, C., 2003. Writing a coursebook. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing Materials for Language
Teaching. London: Continuum.
McDonough, J. and Shaw, C., 2003. Materials and Methods in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
London: Bloomsbury.
Mindt, D., 1996. English corpus linguistics and the foreign language teaching syllabus. In Thomas, J.
and Short, M., eds. Using corpora for language research: Studies in the honour of Geoffrey Leech.
London: Longman.
Nation, P., 2016. Making and Using Word Lists for Language Learning and Testing. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Nunan, D., 1988. Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Keeffe, A. and Mark, G., 2018. The English grammar profile of learner competence. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22/4:457–489.
O’Neill, R., 1972. Kernel Lessons Plus. London: Longman.
O’Neill, R., 1978. Kernel One. London: Longman.
O’Neill, R., Kingsbury, R. and Yeadon, T., 1971. Kernel Lessons Intermediate. London: Longman.
Palmer, H., 1921. The Principles of Language-Study. New York: World Book Company.
Pienemann, M., 1989. Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied
Linguistics, 10/1:52–79.
Prodromou, L., 2003. In search of the successful user of English. Modern English Teacher, 12/2:5–14.
Richards, J., 2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J and Rodgers, T., 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2nd ed.
Rundell, M. and Granger, S., 2007. From corpora to conﬁdence. English Teaching Professional, 50:15–18.
Seidlhofer, B., 2003. A Concept of International English and Related Issues: From ‘Real English’ to
‘Realistic English?’. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Shortall, T., 2007. The L2 Syllabus: Corpus or contrivance. Corpora, 2/2:157–85.
Sinclair, J., 1985. Selected issues. In Quirk, R. and Widdowson, H., eds. English in the World.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Smith, R., 2004. An Investigation into the Roots of ELT, with a Particular Focus on the Career and
Legacy of Harold E. Palmer. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Swan, M., 2005. Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swan, M., 2007. History is not what happened: The case of contrastive analysis. International Journal
of Applied Linguistics, 17/3:414–419.
Swan, M., 2014. English profile studies 1. Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the reference
levels of the common european framework English profile studies 2. Language functions revisited:
Theoretical and empirical bases for language construct definition across the ability range. ELT
Journal, 68/1:89–96.
Thorndike, E., 1935. The Thorndike-Century Junior Dictionary. Oxford: Scott, Foresman.
N., ed. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production. Basingstoke,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
91
Graham Burton
Van Ek, J., 1975. The Threshold Level. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved on 3 March 2020
from: http://www.ealta.eu.org/resources.htm.
West, M., 1926. Learning to Read a Foreign Language: An Experimental Study. London: Longmans,
Green.
White, R., 1988. The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation, and Management. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wilkins, D., 1976. Notional Syllabuses. London: Oxford University Press.
92
7
From global English to Global
Englishes
Questioning current approaches to ELT
materials
Alessia Cogo
Introduction
Introductions to ELT materials, such as coursebooks at various levels, often use terms such
as ‘global English,’ ‘authentic English,’ and ‘real English,’ and mostly without explaining
what they mean and how they are to be interpreted in relation to the content and approach
used in the material. This critical view of coursebooks is the departure point for this chap-
ter, which starts by showing that current ‘global,’ ‘authentic,’ and ‘real’ ELT materials are
not including the diversity of English. It then moves on to explore how Global Englishes
(henceforth GE) can provide both the research base and the approach for designing, evaluat-
ing, and adapting materials. This chapter argues that today the ELT profession is in need not
of global coursebooks, but Global Englishes coursebooks.
While the term GE has been relatively recently introduced (Jenkins 2015a, 2015b), the
area it covers has been researched for some time. The term GE, in fact, includes both the
well-established field of World Englishes (WEs) and the newer area of English as a Lingua
Franca (ELF). Although quite different in their conceptualisations of language and variety,
and the approach to the role of English in the world, these two areas have more in common
than what divides them, and both contribute to the overarching approach to materials – that
is, that ELT coursebooks should include a diversity of Englishes, that is English as a Native
Language (ENL) varieties, WEs varieties, and ELF.
When referring to ELF, however, the discussion becomes more complex as ELF is not a
variety like other WEs varieties, i.e. it is not geographically confined, as it covers the whole
expanding circle areas of English (see Kachru 1992), and it is not stable. ELF is the medium
of communication between people who come from different lingua-cultural backgrounds
and for whom English is the chosen language of communication (Jenkins 2015a; Mauranen
2012; Seidlhofer 2011). ELF speakers are often multilinguals, and for them English is one
of the resources in their linguistic repertoire, which they would use together with other lan-
guages, in bilingual or translanguaging mode (Cogo 2012; García and Wei 2014; Jenkins
2015b), that is in a fluid mixing of languages. By that token, Jenkins has started to use the
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-9 93

Alessia Cogo
term ‘English as a multilingua franca’ (2015b:74), to emphasise its multilingual nature,

as opposed to the misinterpretation of ELF being only about English. ELF, therefore, is a
socially contextualised use of language in its own right, and its significance lies not in the
particular linguistic forms that would make it a variety in the traditional sense, but how
these function in discourse, in the strategic negotiation of meaning and identity among ELF
users. That is why ELF research does not aim to identify features in order to define new
varieties, but to explore variation as contextually appropriate and functionally motivated by
communicative needs and purposes.
The nature of ELF has been linked to complexity theories (Larsen-Freeman 2016) and
described as open, unfinalisable, dynamic, variable, and inseparable from context. In this
sense, ELF is locally co-constructed in different geographical locations and domains of
expertise and, therefore, it is variable in contextually sensitive ways. So, for instance, ELF
in a geographical area is potentially different from ELF in another area; ELF for a specific
domain, such as business or academia, would be different than for another domain of exper-
tise. However, ELF is not necessarily geographically constrained, since it can exist in vir-
tual communities online. Its dynamic and variable nature is a crucial aspect of ELF, which
challenges static descriptions of language in terms of features (for instance, fixed items of
grammar to be taught and evaluated in terms of correctness towards a certain variety) and
focus, and instead emphasises processes of accommodation or strategic practices that users
employ in communication.
Research in ELF communication is based on empirical evidence coming from large-
to small-scale corpora. Extensive ELF corpora, such as the Vienna-Oxford International
Corpus of English (VOICE), the English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings (ELFA)
corpus, and the Asian Corpus of English (ACE), provide invaluable data for ELT materials
writers, or at least those who rely on corpora for designing their coursebooks. Smaller-scale
corpus research has also shown how ELF communication works by focusing on processes
of accommodation, and demonstrates how moving away from the educated native speaker
(NS) model does not necessarily result in unsuccessful communication (Cogo 2018 and
2020).
In terms of the empirical research done on linguistic description, findings related to dif-
ferent varieties of WEs, as well as pronunciation, lexico-grammar, and pragmatics of ELF,
can be relevant to materials writers. In terms of pronunciation, Jenkins (2000) and Walker
(2010) uncover the need for an emphasis on core aspects of pronunciation, i.e. those aspects
that are key to ensure intelligibility, exposure to different accents, and accommodation strat-
egies. Pragmatics research has illuminated our knowledge of the pragmatic strategies used
to pre-empt, negotiate, and solve understanding issues (Cogo and Pitzl 2016), negotiation,
accommodation (Cogo and House 2018), and communication strategies needed to achieve
effective communication (Björkman 2011). Cultural aspects have also been addressed, with
an emphasis on intercultural awareness (Baker 2018), rather than on an idealised cultural
neutrality.
Conceptualising GE in this way is challenging for both researchers and practitioners
alike. The complex nature of ELF (as dynamic, multilingual, fluid, with a focus on pro-
cesses rather than forms, contextually bound, and interculturally oriented), combined with
the diversity of Englishes from a WEs perspective, raises a number of issues for materials
writers, such as the potential difficulties related to including a diversity of linguistic refer-
ences and cultural contexts, as compared to focusing on one variety, and the long-standing
attachment to standard language ideology, which I will address in the remainder of this
chapter.
94
From global English to Global Englishes

Research in GE and its descriptive empirical work raise critical issues in applied linguistics
in general, and, for the purpose of this chapter, I will now turn to the specific issues they
raise in relation to ELT materials. Empirical findings based upon ELF research emphasise
the importance of negotiation and accommodation, rather than correctness according to a
native speaker perspective (Jenkins et al. 2018). They also show the localised diversity of
ELF usage and the fluid, dynamic, and multilingual descriptions, which are hard to fit with
the standardisation of English as a prescriptive entity normally recognised in materials.
ELF, then, moving away from native English varieties, requires that we reconceptualise
the essence of ELT materials, i.e. the English language, from a fixed and grammar-oriented
approach to a fluid and diversity-oriented perspective.
The reconceptualisation of ELT materials requires rethinking the issue of standards
in a post-normative approach. While the traditional norms of reference were the native
speaker standard/norms, conceived as stable, discrete, and constituting a specific variety
(for instance, American English and British English), in a post-modern and ELF approach,
the norms are flexible and changing, but also diverse, i.e. they include WEs and ELF per-
spectives which are dynamic by definition (Dewey 2012; Kumaravadivelu 1994). This is,
of course, quite challenging for materials and materials writers, who are generally expected
to apply ‘standards’ in their coursebooks. However, the situation requires teachers, learners,
and curriculum writers to engage with and understand the reality of English today and to
take responsibility for what norms are to be represented in materials and the classroom. This
will require the inclusion of a diversity of norms (not only the usual British and American
standards) together with a contextualisation of their use. And, possibly more importantly,
they will need to shift the emphasis from standards of correctness and norms of achievement
to processes of accommodation, intelligibility, and pragmatic competence, as elements to
aspire to and achieve. Finally, and from a more ethical perspective, the reconsideration of
standards is important as the imposition of NS standards can be highly problematic – demo-
tivating, unrealistic, and insensitive – for learners, teachers, and users alike.
This reconsideration of standards encourages us to consider post-modern issues also in
the sense of critical applied linguistics – i.e. focusing more on the critical aspects, related to
identity, social class stratification, prejudice, and discrimination. Such a shift concerns ELF
very closely in its attention to a decentralisation of power from the NS, in its raising aware-
ness of diversity, and in its challenging of prejudices against non-native speakers (NNSs)
and NNS teachers.
All those interested in this area, then, deal to a greater or lesser extent with GE awareness
and awareness-raising activities, which constitute the foundations of an ELF- or GE-oriented
pedagogy. Various studies (e.g. Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015; Sifakis 2009) have shown that
engaging teachers with ELF research can be rewarding in the sense of drawing attention to
the reality of English in the world, developing reflection on GE issues, and encouraging the
design of ELF-aware lessons. These studies focus on teacher education, and some of them
aim at a transformative perspective, which involves a change of attitude, or ‘mindset,’ and a
re-consideration of methodologies and materials (Sifakis 2007; Sifakis and Bayyurt 2018).
For example, Sifakis and Bayyurt (2018) present three consecutive stages of developing a
GE- or ELF-informed pedagogy, i.e. from exposure to GE, to raising awareness, to devel-
oping an action plan. The authors reflect on the fact that textbooks may pose challenges to
teachers who would want to raise awareness and implement changes from a GE-informed
pedagogy.
95
Alessia Cogo
Together with the emphasis on a post-normative approach (Dewey 2012), researchers

have become more ambitious in their recommendations to teachers and practitioners, by
advocating not only a ‘change in mindset,’ which focuses mainly on awareness raising, but
more practical recommendations too. For instance, Cogo and Dewey (2012:169–183) sug-
gest that teachers should not focus on areas that are problematic for learners or not commu-
nicatively useful (such as the difference in the use of prepositions ‘in’ and ‘at’). They should
focus, instead, on incorporating the global diversity of English in teaching and materials, on
effective communication rather than ENL accuracy, and on developing accommodation and
intercultural communication strategies. This does not mean that ENL should be excluded as
a point of reference. In fact, as Wen (2012) recommends, teachers should expand the range
of linguistic, cultural, and pragmatic components to be included in the curriculum and mate-
rials for an ELF-oriented pedagogy, to include native and non-native varieties and local ELF
realisations. Various collections of studies illustrate applications on different aspects of the
classroom (Bayyurt and Akcan 2015; Bowles and Cogo 2015; Sifakis and Tsantila 2018),
and very recently an entire special issue of the ELT Journal was dedicated to English as a
Lingua Franca and language teaching (Bayyurt and Dewey 2020).
Despite advances in this area, publishers and material writers have not entirely engaged
with or have found it difficult to take on board the new research in this area. The materials
offered by global publishers (and sometimes their localised versions too) are limited in
at least three ways: (1) their orientation towards NS norms; (2) their orientation towards
monolingualism; (3) their detachment from local contexts. I will now discuss these one
by one.
Coursebooks that reflect the dominance of NS norms and culture, especially Anglo-
Saxon (mainly British and American) representations of it, are numerous. Their introduc-
tions included in the back cover blurb often display key words like ‘authentic,’ ‘real,’ and
‘global,’ terms that have become effective selling points for most global publishers, but
which hide a general tendency to equate these with NS representations in terms of both
culture and language. NS models would also be used for activities and assessment exercises
which aim at ‘native-like’ mastery of pronunciation and lexico-grammatical items. These
coursebooks are sometimes based on NS corpora collections and reproduce examples of
‘real’ language as used by NSs, or the writers’ intuition about what sounds ‘natural.’ This
tendency is accompanied by a disregard for, or less emphasis on, the more important aspects
of negotiation and communication strategies which have been shown to ensure effective
communication. However, research in GE has shown that successful communication is not
so much about conformity to NS norms, but rather about being able to flexibly adapt and
accommodate, or negotiate understanding (Cogo and Pitzl 2016), and focus on certain strat-
egies (like pre-empting or solving strategies, paraphrasing, etc.) would be more useful than
excessive focus on normative aspects (see contributions in Jenkins et al. 2018).
A second issue of concern in current ELT materials is their orientation towards English
only and monolingualism, rather than diversity of English and multilingualism. ELF
research has contributed to reinforcing the post-structuralist view of language by provid-
ing empirical evidence of how languages are not separated, how ELF communication is
multilingual by nature rather than English only (Jenkins 2015b), and that language permea-
tion rather than language separation is common (Cogo 2012). While most materials operate
under the assumption that language learning is facilitated by learning one language at a
time, and also that language use works as one language at a time, evidence in multilingual-
ism and bilingualism research has shown that real language use and learning are more mixed
than we thought (Cenoz and Gorter 2011). The monolingual bias of most ELT materials, and
96
ELT in general (see Hall and Cook 2012), builds on such conceptualisations of language as
fixed and monolingual, while ELF research has shown that norms can be flexible and that
learners and users make use of all their linguistic resources to achieve effective communica-
tion (Cogo 2018).
Third, the issue of materials being detached from local contexts has been an area of
critical discussion for some time. The absence of local references is normally compensated
with the dominance of NS norms and cultures, and the debate around cultural references
and normalisation of NS cultural backgrounds is not new to TESOL and ELT researchers.
In this regard, Gray (2013) has been vocal in criticising dominant hegemonic tendencies in
terms of Anglo-Saxon linguistic and cultural representations. Coursebook writers, for their
part, have started making changes to the cultural content and displaying sensitivity to more
local aspects. Some steps are normally taken in order to avoid discussion around themes that
may be seen as offensive (for instance the famous PARSNIP – politics, alcohol, religion,
sex, narcotics, isms, and pork), but this move is more symbolic and superficial and a deeper
engagement with culture would be expected. On the side of ELF, research has shown the
need to develop intercultural awareness, as a way to incorporate more fluid, complex, and
emergent understandings of culture and question the predominantly national representations
of culture and language (Baker 2018).
Finally, it is important to point out that GE, and especially ELF, research brings a new
approach and perspective to ELT materials, but the three problems discussed here have also
been reported in other related areas, such as TESOL, ELT, and multilingual research, and,
despite the numerous recommendations from these areas, they persist.

Research in the area of GE in relation to ELT materials has covered different strands and
directions: the review of coursebooks according to specific criteria, the reflection and criti-
cal evaluation of materials in the classroom, the adaptation of textbooks, and, finally, the
creation of new material.
The review of coursebooks through content and critical discourse analysis

Content analysis and critical discourse analysis can be drawn upon to explore global and
local textbooks from a GE perspective. Recent research on coursebook material has revealed
that little has changed from an ELF perspective, especially change that goes beyond the
tokenistic inclusion of a section or unit on the global spread of English to address the impli-
cations of that spread for ELT methodology, normative approaches to language, and mono-
lingual and monocultural representations (Cogo 2015). Despite claims of ‘internationality,’
‘authenticity,’ and even, in some cases, explicit recognition of GE, most textbooks present
standard normative models, in terms of lexis, grammar, and pronunciation, as well as a
dominance of Anglophone lingua-cultural elements (Vettorel and Lopriore 2013). Some
textbooks contain more drilling and other controlled tasks and some others more guided or
communicative tasks, but the general aim is to aspire to ‘native-speaker’ competence.
Some studies focus on specific linguistic aspects and evaluate textbooks in relation to
those. In the Finnish context, Kopperoinen (2011) explores the kinds of accents used in
listening activities in two Finnish coursebook series for upper secondary schools. Her quan-
titative study shows that the overall majority are NS accents and that only 1% in one series
97
Alessia Cogo
and 3% in another series are NNS accents. This limited amount of exposure to a diversity of
accents is a common finding across research reviewing textbooks for ELT, independently of
the context where these are used. In the Italian context, Caleffi (2016) focuses on the listening
and speaking activities of recent (i.e. published from 2010 to 2013) coursebooks for upper
secondary school students and evaluates them in terms of both exposure to and reflection on
NNS accents and (for listening activities) discussion and reflection on cross-cultural topics
or fostering the use of learners’ linguistic and pragmatic resources (for speaking activities).
She finds that the coursebooks analysed make explicit mention of the international role and
the diversity of English in the world in the students’ books or teachers’ resources, but this is
not followed through in the content or approach. When, for instance, there is (normally very
little) exposure to NNS accents, this is not drawn attention to or reflected upon in the ensu-
ing tasks. Vettorel’s research (2018) focuses on communicative strategies in global course-
books used in the Italian context from the 1990s to 2015. The study shows that, apart from a
few exceptions, communication strategies, such as appeals for help, negotiation of meaning,
and different kinds of responses (like correction, repetition, etc.), have been consistently
ignored and that ELT materials should ‘move beyond more traditional views that regard
communicative strategies merely as “compensatory strategies”’ (2018:68) and include them
as strategic tools for effective communication.
A copious line of studies covers the ideological approach in ELT coursebooks, espe-
cially global ones, and encourages publishers to reconsider ENL ideologies and NS cultural
dominance. In Korea, Song (2013) examines Korean coursebooks in terms of cultural con-
tent and ideological positionings and highlights a mismatch between policies and materials.
While recent Korean curriculum policies view English as instrumental for global and cos-
mopolitan citizenship and promote cultural diversity, the materials used favour ENL cultural
representations, and even when they include intercultural texts, these are superficially rep-
resenting diversity, while, instead, they reproduce racial, cultural, and gender inequalities.
Similarly, Ke (2012) analysed the roles of English cultural representations in Taiwanese
textbooks from 1952 to 2009 and found that the intercultural lessons remain rather super-
ficial and essentialist. A closer analysis over time showed that although ENL representa-
tions are quantitatively dominant throughout the period, local representations have initially
increased and then dropped later. The decline in localisations corresponds to an increase in
intercultural references and mirrors the socio-political policies in Taiwan, which encourage
more intercultural and ‘universal,’ or decontextualised, lessons.
Similarly, studies exploring cultural representations in coursebooks also highlight the
mismatches and incongruences between the NS cultural representations and the need for
more context-sensitive cultural elements. In the Brazilian context, Nô dos Santos and
Ribeiro (2017) investigate the role of ELF in two textbooks published by global publishers
specifically for the local market state schools. The findings show that linguistic and cul-
tural representations are mainly associated with ENL varieties and cultures, and although
there has been some improvement in inclusion of the activities that focused on the status
of English today, they were mainly positioned at the end of the units. In Japan, Matsuda’s
study (2002) of 7th grade textbooks covering the period from 1997 to 2002 shows that the
majority of the non-Japanese main characters are NSs of English and they normally played
more important roles and had more word production in dialogues, while the NNS characters
remained in secondary roles and with limited linguistic production. Shin et al. (2011) ana-
lysed seven series of global textbooks and found that ENL cultural content is still largely
dominant. Si (2020) analysed business English coursebooks published and used in China,
and the study confirmed previous findings about the prevalence of NS references. However,
98
she also found attempts to include different accents (mainly European), but a lack of rep-
resentation of Chinese business people. The author concludes that ‘(T)he over-orientation
towards NESs, the mistaken portrayal of NNESs, and the rare reference to Chinese business
English users fail to demonstrate the underpinning of ELF-informed materials, i.e. English
as a language owned and developed by all English users’ (2020:163).
Reflection and critical evaluation of textbooks in the classroom

Some studies aim to raise awareness of a GE approach to ELT materials for ELT stakehold-
ers, such as teachers, students, and curriculum writers. A number of studies address the need
to include GE in teacher education. GE-oriented research has started to encourage teachers
to critically evaluate materials in relation to their own context and has provided some direc-
tions in terms of criteria. Matsuda (2012:172–177) lists questions/criteria that teachers can
ask to evaluate materials:
a) which variety of English is the material based on? Is it the variety my students should
learn?
b) does it provide adequate exposure to other varieties of English and raise enough aware-
ness about the linguistic diversity of English?
c) does it represent a variety of speakers?
d) whose cultures are represented?
e) is it appropriate for local contexts?
These questions are aimed at raising teachers’ (and possibly also students’) GE-awareness
towards the materials they are required to use or may choose to adopt. The emphasis is
on context sensitivity – the idea that teachers who may want to adopt an ELF approach to
materials may not necessarily find what they want in the global or local textbook, but should
dare to adapt their resources and look for their own answers regarding appropriate practices
in their contexts.
Some studies take a further step in that direction, by encouraging teachers to reflect on
and critically revise materials and the practices associated with them from a GE perspective.
For example, Yu (2015) explores how teachers develop a critical view of the resources used
in classrooms in Taiwan. In her qualitative case study, she explores the developing critical
engagement of teachers towards the speaking and listening materials, their recognition and
growing awareness of dominant lingua-cultural texts, and growing understanding of an ELF
approach to reconceptualise the input and possibly revisit their practices. She suggests that
critical engagement activities could be used to enable students and teachers to ‘re-interpret
the taken-for-granted learning/teaching’ (2015:50), in order to recognise the dominant texts,
reflect on them from their perspective, and, on the basis of that discussion, possibly adapt
materials or create new resources.
Adaptation of coursebooks
As Tomlinson (2010:97) maintains, ‘materials need to be written in such a way that teachers
can make use of them as a resource and not have to follow them as a script.’ The underly-
ing idea is that coursebooks are resources that teachers can draw upon and adapt for their
local context to make them appropriate. Most studies dealing with materials from a GE
99
Alessia Cogo
perspective, therefore, recognise the need to adapt coursebooks, but very few give specific
suggestions on how to do this or report on studies showing successful adaptations. I will
review some of these below.
In the Brazilian context, Siqueira and Matos (2018) evaluate three coursebooks, produced
in Brazil and selected by the Ministry of Education for teaching in public schools, and focus
on the language choices in the materials, the methodological approach, and the ideological
stance. Despite the many representations of inner circle cultures, the authors comment on
the diversity of cultural representation that is found, for instance, in the coursebook pictures
(examples of two Indian ladies on their mobile phones and another of a bustling street in
São Paulo). They suggest ways in which teachers can use these as stimuli for discussion,
comparison, and the development of an ELF-oriented perspective. Their approach therefore
is not to completely replace the EFL materials currently used, but supplement them or use
the originals as stimulus for critical classroom analysis. They argue that ‘One way to start
this “revolution” is through existing materials’ so that ‘teachers can possibly find different
resources and ways of inserting ELF-aware practices in the classroom’ (2018:152).
Lopriore and Vettorel (2018) explore the criteria that could be used for materials evalu-
ation and show how they could be applied for awareness raising, but also for teachers to
identify additional resources, adapt, and create new materials. In terms of adaptation, the
pre-service teachers in this study gave various suggestions, such as including samples of
non-standard forms in language input, possibly taken from video material broadcast in non-
English speaking countries. The aim would be ‘the exposure of learners to a range of stand-
ard and non-standard forms and chunks as used in WE and ELF and fostering reflection
through the use of noticing tasks’ (2018:301).
Examples of textbook adaptations are normally included at the end of studies reviewing
and critically revising materials, generally as final recommendations, but not systematically
addressed as empirical studies on how adaptation may work and may be implemented by
teachers. This lack of research on how material is adapted or enacted from a GE perspective
may be due to a perceived need to move completely away from NS-designed material, which
can still be subconsciously promoting NS dominance if it remains unchallenged. Another
possible explanation is the lack of teacher training in adapting materials from a GE perspec-
tive. Challenging the way in which materials represent the cultural, social, economic, and
political world in which we live may not be easy for teachers. However, encouraging teach-
ers to critically and responsibly engage with materials is not usually part of teacher training.
Finally, the adaptation argument also in itself raises the question of localisation and what
aspects of contextual localisation to include, if at all. McGrath (2013), for instance, presents
‘localisation’ arguments (that materials and teaching approaches need to be culturally famil-
iar to the learners) countered against those that view language learning as an experience that
inevitably expands or should expand one’s knowledge and horizons.
So far, I have shown how current materials fall short of including a systematic approach
to GE and most recommend adapting textbooks (see also Galloway 2018). In the following
part, I will address the work done in the direction of creating new material.
Creating new material

While a GE approach is certainly under-represented in materials, there is little development
in terms of ELF- or GE-aware purposely designed material. A few studies have addressed
the issue of creating new material for the GE-oriented classroom, while at the same time
100
warning teachers (and material writers) that before supplementing existing materials, or
creating new ones, they should carefully analyse and revisit learners’ needs for English
(Matsuda 2012).
Suggestions for creating new material often refer to online communication and web-
based resources. Vettorel (2015) and Kohn (2015) show how ELF online communication is
not only widespread but also a rich source of examples from specific genres and contexts.
Vettorel’s teacher trainees use online videos for exploring and developing pronunciation
activities, for exposure to ELF interactions, and for focusing on communication strategies
(such as paraphrasing). Similarly, Grazzi (2015) provides examples of using web-based
activities around creative writing with wikis with secondary schools in Italy. The project he
describes was an online collaboration to develop writing skills and involved training teach-
ers on the use of wikis and the implementation of fan-fiction activities with participants
from different lingua-cultural backgrounds. The writing resulting from the online collabora-
tion becomes the same material that students and teachers work on in the classroom.
Guerra and Cavalheiro (2018) explore how pre-service and in-service teachers can
implement a GE approach by creating supplementary activities and teaching materials. Like
Grazzi (2015) and Matsuda (2012), Guerra and Cavalheiro find that oral and visual sources
from the web and media may be used to create teaching materials and activities. Their aim is
for teachers ‘to be able to transition from conventional EFL to ELF aware lessons … avoid-
ing divergence from the EFL curriculum, but still enhancing the implemented ELT syllabus’
(2018:363). They suggest the use of audio-visual sources (such as interviews with famous
NNSs, such as actors, athletes, or politicians), web 2.0 tools (such as different apps), digi-
tal media (media outlets from different backgrounds, such as China Daily, TED talks, All
Japan Times, Al Jazeera), online archives (such as ELF corpora with audio/video access; or
WE varieties oral archives, such as the Speech Accent Archive), and academic books (WE
books featuring different varieties and ELF). Some of the resources are chosen to focus on
pronunciation and ‘to demonstrate the unnecessary need to sound like a NS’ (2018:365),
others to encourage collaborative writing with other learners online, for instance ‘to build
an online magazine or a specific issue’ (2018:370). The authors encourage teachers to raise
awareness of a variety of English representations, but also to exploit them for language
teaching in terms of input and skills development.
The general idea of these studies is about supplementing existing coursebooks with mate-
rials and activities that are more GE oriented rather than re-writing coursebooks completely.
Galloway and Rose (2014) also go in the direction of supplementing the existing ELT mate-
rial with more content-oriented, rather than skills-based, material by using listening jour-
nals. In the journals, students would record their choice of listening resources and the kind
of variety spoken, and they would also reflect on their familiarity with these varieties, their
motivations for choosing them, and their perceptions. The listening journals, then, can be
introduced in the classroom to provide exposure to and reflection on different accents in an
independent way, ‘with the aim of raising students’ awareness of GE (the spread of English,
the associated diversity in use of English, ELF usage, etc.) and also their confidence as
“legitimate” speakers’ (2014:388). Llurda and Mocanu (2018) encourage analysis and criti-
cal discussions of examples of ELF used in academic contexts for teacher education, in
order to make teachers reflect on the multiplicity of users, their respective communities of
practice, and the usefulness of an EFL versus an ELF approach in these contexts.
In addition, more positive work seems to be underway in terms of developing more prin-
cipled ELF materials. More teachers and ELT practitioners are engaging with the field of
ELF and creating their own material. For example, Robin Walker’s (2010) Teaching the
101
Alessia Cogo
Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca, which presents an ELF approach to pronuncia-

tion based on Jenkins’s Lingua Franca Core, and Kiczkowiak and Lowe (2019) who address
teaching ELF more broadly, including a focus on materials. And the need for a principled
approach to materials design has been addressed in a very recent publication, which lists
the principles that materials designed from an ELF perspective should follow (Kiczkowiak
2020), namely, intelligibility, rather than NS proximity; successful ELF users rather than
NSs; intercultural skills rather than fixed cultural models; communicative skills rather than
NS correctness; multilingual use rather than monolingual; raising students’ awareness of ELF.

The mismatch between the recognition of GE and the absence of an ELF-oriented approach
is a running motif in many studies analysing coursebooks, as shown in the previous sec-
tions, but these seem to converge on some general recommendations, which I summarise in
the following sections.
The need to include the diversity of English in ELT materials

At the moment, the kind of language that is typically represented in global coursebooks is
the NS varieties, more often American and British English. Overall, there is a dominance of
native English norms and culture (see Gray 2013), which results in global ELT materials not
paying enough attention to the diversity of English and intercultural or transcultural aspects.
There is clearly a mismatch between how English is actually used in the world today and
how the language is presented and represented in such materials. In other words, the area
of Global Englishes (Jenkins 2015a), that is varieties of World Englishes and transnational
communication such as English as a Lingua Franca, is not included in mainstream material.
While the debate surrounding the dominance of native English norms and native English
culture in ELT materials may not be new, Global Englishes allows for a new perspective and
approach on the role of language and culture in such materials.
There is an urgent need to address this situation and include diversity of English, espe-
cially in the global textbook.
The need to develop teacher awareness and education towards a GE

approach
There have been a considerable number of studies surveying coursebooks from a GE per-
spective, and criteria and categories have been suggested (see Matsuda 2012) to review
the coursebooks under scrutiny. What studies have demonstrated is that there is an urgent
need to educate teachers to critically evaluate their materials, through teacher education
(especially in pre- and in-service education) but also through professional development
courses. Training and education should question issues of (1) language ownership, (2) lan-
guage exposure, (3) language activities, and (4) cultural representation. The first refers to
the representations of English users in coursebooks, whether they are represented as NSs,
NNSs, or others. The second refers to the English represented in written and oral texts, and
explores whether they are taken from ENL sources or more GE-oriented written and oral
sources. The third category addresses the language activities and explores whether they
are more focused on normative grammar (from an ENL perspective) or on communicative
102
strategies, pragmatic negotiations, and accommodation, and if they include references to

multilingual contexts. The last category is an exploration of the cultural content and whether
coursebooks tend to include NNSs cultures or NSs cultures as represented by pictures of
places, people, artefacts, and also as reproduced in the content of the reading and listening
activities.
This kind of analysis should also be followed by a discussion of the reproduction of dom-
inant knowledge, cultural biases, and inequalities embedded in the texts. This may also lead
to interesting discussions of equality, diversity, and inter- or trans-culturality. The extent
to which teachers should also take a critical approach to intercultural education in order to
develop more inclusive and critical worldviews in their students is open to debate. The need
to educate teachers to adopt a critical perspective, however, is now more widely discussed
and explored (Crookes 2013).
Not only exposure – also reflection on diversity and multilingualism

An ELF approach to materials, then, not only aims to move away from an NS dominance in
language and cultural references, but also fosters reflection on sociolinguistic aspects of lan-
guage use which should become a priority in ELT materials. An ELF approach encourages
teachers and students to critically evaluate their textbooks and try to include more local and
diverse resources in their material. For example, Galloway and Rose (2018) suggest asking
students to select and present an English variety to encourage them to reflect on variations,
raise their awareness of the role of English in various parts of the world today, and challenge
attitudes towards non-standard Englishes and ELF.
Departure from an NS model to an ELF approach

Since the beginnings of research in GE, there has been a move towards mutual intelligibility
and mutual understanding, as opposed to achieving native English speaker proficiency; and
negotiation and accommodation strategies are emphasised. By this token, an ELF approach
to materials aims at exposing students to a plurality of accents and lexico-grammatical
aspects that are essential to ensure intelligibility, and offering opportunities to exploit the
communicative strategies necessary for effective communication in an increasingly multi-
lingual/multicultural environment.
The corpus research describing ELF and WEs is now vast and continues to grow.
This does not mean to say that corpora should determine what language is taught, but,
as researchers have emphasised (Mauranen 2012; Seidlhofer 2011), this should remain
a local/pedagogical decision, after consideration of the needs of the students, the con-
text, and the implications of using certain varieties in pedagogical settings. However, the
potential for using corpus evidence is considerable and should be discussed, for instance
in relation to developing data-driven activities of various kinds. These would be data-
driven activities in the sense that they would encourage learners to reflect on the diversity
and variability of language, rather than activities for learning target features (or at the
very least that decisions regarding the learning focus should be taken by local teachers
in relation to students’ needs and contextual relevance). ELF corpora concordances, for
instance, could be used as a baseline for developing awareness-raising exercises. These
would involve students analysing expressions in an attempt to reflect between different
meanings, and possible discourse and sociolinguistic interpretations. Instead of presenting
103
Alessia Cogo
data-driven activities as concordances from the corpus, which may discourage beginner
students because of the lack of contextual information in a concordance display, as key-
words tend to appear in incomplete sentences, teachers may want to engage in curating the
data by hand-picking the concordances that seem more relevant and include greater context
for classroom activities.
Future directions
In conclusion, the situation is positive and a lot of recent developments show the will-
ingness of researchers and practitioners alike to engage and develop materials for GE.
The studies explored in this chapter have shown how GE research can be drawn upon
for an ELF approach to ELT materials which values and exposes students to the diver-
sity of English. However, there is certainly a need to provide practitioners with relevant
tools to explore evidence and research findings when developing ELF-aware materials.
There is also a need for more research on how coursebooks are enacted in the classroom
and how this has worked in specific contexts, so that the voices of teachers, students,
and materials writers can be considered to shape future materials (see Harwood, and
Choi and Nunan this volume).
Most of the work and the responsibility for applying an ELF-oriented or GE-oriented
approach lies with practitioners – they are the ones who are required to review the
coursebooks according to students’ needs, who are encouraged to supplement materials
with more ELF-aware or ELF-oriented resources, or who are challenged to critically
raise questions about them or discuss them in class. They are also the ones who would
be doing the work of supplementing and/or creating new materials. All this requires
teachers to be appropriately trained, and the need for pre-service and in-service train-
ing and education in this area should not be under-estimated. Teacher education has the
potential to provide a crucial link between GE and materials development, and I join the
call (e.g. McGrath 2013) for a much greater focus on materials, especially GE-relevant
materials, in teacher education.
Conclusion
In the introduction I acknowledged that the complex nature of GE raises challenges for
materials writers and teachers’ use of materials. Although initially there was some reluc-
tance in addressing these challenges from the practitioners’ perspective, the collaboration
between researchers and practitioners has developed considerably in recent years. Various
publications have been dedicated to GE and ELT, many with relevance to materials (e.g.
Bayyurt and Akcan 2015; Bowles and Cogo 2015; Galloway 2018; Kiczkowiak and Lowe
2019; Rose and Galloway 2019; Sifakis and Tsantila 2018; Walker 2010). This research has
contributed to addressing these challenges, in terms of critically reviewing materials, engag-
ing and reviewing them in the classroom, adapting coursebooks and creating new material,
and providing recommendations for practice.
To a certain extent, it is true that ‘global coursebooks are an easy target for anti-course-
book critics’ (Hughes 2020:451), and we should be careful about making assumptions about
‘how they can and should be used’ (Hughes 2020:454). The analyses of coursebooks in
this chapter have shown that in recent years publishers have been more responsive to GE,
including more sensitivity to cultural aspects in the direction of diversity and/or localisation.
104
However, more remains to be done. When materials are used by learners and teachers they
are enacted, resisted, interpreted, and changed so that they make sense of them in their own
contexts. Collaborations with learners and teachers are the only way to develop further
understanding in this exciting area of materials development.
Further reading
Kiczkowiak, M., 2020. Seven principles for writing materials for English as a lingua franca. ELT
Journal, 74/1:1–9.
A discussion of principles guiding ELF-oriented materials development. This is essential reading
for materials writers, but also for teachers and publishers. Teachers could explore the principles to
raise awareness about materials and how they can be adapted for the classroom, and publishers can
use them to re-evaluate their materials or encourage their writers to create materials that are more GE
sensitive.
Jenkins, J., Baker, W. and Dewey, M., eds., 2018. The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua
Franca. London: Routledge.
An overview of research on ELF, where each chapter covers an aspect of this field and
implications for other areas, such as materials, ELT, and assessment. This is an authoritative and
up-to-date resource for academics, but also material writers who want to familiarise themselves
with ELF and GE.
Kiczkowiak, M and Lowe, R., 2019. Teaching English as a Lingua Franca: A Journey from EFL to
ELF. Surrey: Delta Publishing.
An introduction to English as a Lingua Franca specifically written for language teachers and teacher
educators, which provides practical activities but also focuses on certain areas, such as business ELF,
academic ELF, materials writing, and teaching.
Bayyurt, Y. and Dewey, M., guest eds. 2020. Special Issue on ELF and ELT. ELT Journal, 74/4.
A collection of articles on ELF and English language teaching, focusing on teacher education,
raising awareness in contexts of CLIL, EMI, and language assessment. The article by Siqueira is
particularly relevant for teachers and materials developers as it provides examples of expansion
activities created from pre-existing global textbooks.
https://www.globalenglishes-emi.education.ed.ac.uk/
Teaching English and teaching IN English in global contexts is ‘an online platform for researchers,
students and practitioners to collaborate and share knowledge.’ The network generates space for
exchanging experiences and ideas, providing access to teaching resources created by member teachers
and researchers in this area.
Related topics
Research in materials development: what, how and why?, representation in coursebooks: a
critical perspective, culture and materials development, learner contributions to materials in
language teaching.
References
Baker, W., 2018. English as a Lingua Franca and intercultural communication. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W.
and Dewey, M., eds. The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge.
Bayyurt, Y. and Akcan, S., eds. 2015. Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua
Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Bayyurt, Y. and Dewey, M., guest eds. 2020. Special issue on ELF and language teaching. ELT
Journal, 74/4:369–528.
105
Alessia Cogo
Bayyurt, Y. and Sifakis, N., 2015. ELF-aware in-service teacher education: A transformative
perspective. In Bowles, H. and Cogo, A., eds. International Perspectives on English as a Lingua
Franca. Pedagogical Insights. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Björkman, B., 2011. Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of achieving
communicative effectiveness? Journal of Pragmatics, 43/4:950–964.
Bowles, H. and Cogo, A., eds., 2015. International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca.
Pedagogical Insights. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Caleffi, P., 2016. ELF in the speaking and listening activities of recently published English-language
coursebooks. In Lopriore, L. and Grazzi, E., eds. Intercultural Communication. New Perspectives
from ELF. Rome: RomaTrE-Press.
Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D., 2011. A holistic approach to multilingual education: Introduction. Modern
Language Journal, 95/3:339–343.
Cogo, A., 2012. ELF and super-diversity: A case study of ELF multilingual practices from a business
context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1/2:287–313.
Cogo, A., 2015. English as a Lingua Franca: Descriptions, domains and applications. In Bowles,
H. and Cogo, A., eds. International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca. Pedagogical
Insights. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cogo, A., 2018. ELF and multilingualism. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W. and Dewey, M., eds. The Routledge
Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge.
Cogo, A., 2020. The role of translanguaging in ELF advice sessions for asylum seekers. In Mauranen,
A. and Vetchinnikova, S., eds. Language Change: The impact of English as a lingua franca.
Cogo, A. and Dewey, M., 2012. Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-Driven Investigation.
London: Continuum.
Cogo, A. and House, J., 2018. The pragmatics of ELF. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W. and Dewey, M., eds.
The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge.
Cogo, A. and Pitzl, M.-L., 2016. Pre-empting and signalling non-understanding in ELF. ELT Journal,
70/3:339–345.
Crookes, G., 2013. Critical ELT in Action. London: Routledge.
Dewey, M., 2012. Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of
English as a Lingua Franca, 1/1:141–170.
Galloway, N., 2018. ELF and ELT teaching materials. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W. and Dewey, M., eds.
The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge.
Galloway, N. and Rose, H., 2014. Using listening journals to raise awareness of Global Englishes in
ELT. ELT Journal, 68/4:386–396.
Galloway, N. and Rose, H., 2018. Incorporating global Englishes into the ELT classroom. ELT
Journal, 72/1:3–14.
García, O. and Wei, L., 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gray, J., 2013. Introduction. In Gray, J., ed. Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials.
Grazzi, E., 2015. Linking ELF and ELT in secondary school through web-mediation: The case of
fanfiction. In Bowles, H. and Cogo, A., eds. International Perspectives on English as a Lingua
Franca. Pedagogical Insights. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guerra, L. and Cavalheiro, L., 2018. When the textbook is not enough: How to shape the ELF
classroom? In Sifakis, N and Tsantila, N., eds. English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hall, G. and Cook, G., 2012. Own-language use in language teaching and learning: State of the art.
Jenkins, J., 2015a. Global Englishes. A Resource Book for Students. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
106
Jenkins, J., 2015b. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes
in Practice, 2/3:49–85.
Jenkins, J., 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jenkins, J., Baker, W. and Dewey, M., eds., 2018. The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua
Franca. London: Routledge.
Kachru, B., 1992. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Ke, I.C., 2012. From EFL to English as an international and scientific language: Analysing Taiwan's
high-school English textbooks in the period 1952–2009. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
25/2:173–187.
Kiczkowiak, M., 2020. Seven principles for writing materials for English as a lingua franca. ELT
Journal, 74/1:1–9.
Kiczkowiak, M and Lowe, R., 2019. Teaching English as a Lingua Franca: A Journey from EFL to
ELF. Surrey: Delta Publishing.
Kohn, K., 2015. A pedagogical space for ELF in the English classroom. In Bayyurt, Y. and Akcan, S., eds.
Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kopperoinen, A., 2011. Accents of English as a Lingua Franca: A study of Finnish textbooks.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 1994. The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for Second/foreign
language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 28/1:27–48.
Larsen- Freeman, D., 2016. A successful union: Linking ELF with CAS. In Lopriore, L. and Grazzi,
E., eds. Intercultural Communication: New Perspectives from ELF. Rome: RomaTrE-Press.
Llurda, E. and Mocanu, V., 2018. Changing teachers’ attitudes towards ELF. In Sifakis, N. and Tsantila,
N., eds. English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lopriore, L. and Vettorel, P., 2018. Perspectives in WE- and ELF- informed ELT materials in teacher
education. In Sifakis, N. and Tsantila, N., eds. English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts.
Matsuda, A., 2002. Representation of users and uses of English in beginning Japanese EFL textbooks.
JALT Journal, 24/2:80–98.
Matsuda, A., 2012. Teaching materials in EIL. In Alsagoff, L., McKay, S.L., Hu, G. and Renandya,
W.A., eds. Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language. New
York: Routledge.
Mauranen, A., 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge:
London: Bloomsbury.
Nô dos Santos, J. and Ribeiro, M., 2017. A Representação do Inglês como Lingua Franca no Livro
Didático do Ensino Médio (The representation of English as a Lingua Franca in Brazilian high
school textbooks). CorLetras, 18:54–73. Retrieved on 1 July 2020 from: http://periodicos.uefs.br/
index.php/acordasletras/article/view/2058/pdf
Rose, H. and Galloway, N., 2019. Global Englishes for Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Seidlhofer, B., 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shin, J. Eslami, Z.R. and Chen, W.C., 2011. Presentation of local and international culture in
current international English-language teaching textbooks. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
24/3:253–268.
Si, J., 2020. An analysis of business English coursebooks from an ELF perspective. ELT Journal,
74/2:156–165.
Sifakis, N., 2007. The education of the teachers of English as a Lingua Franca: A transformative
perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17/3:355–375.
107
Alessia Cogo
Sifakis, N., 2009. Challenges in teaching ELF in the periphery: The Greek context. ELT Journal,
63/3:230–237.
Sifakis, N. and Bayyurt, Y., 2018. ELF-aware teaching, learning and teacher development. In Jenkins,
J., Baker, W. and Dewey, M., eds. The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca.
London: Routledge.
Sifakis, S. and Tsantila, N., eds. 2018. English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Siqueira, S. and Matos, J.V.G., 2018. ELT materials for basic education in Brazil: Has the time for an
ELF-aware practice arrived? In Sifakis, S. and Tsantila, N., eds. English as a Lingua Franca for
EFL Contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Song, H., 2013. Deconstruction of cultural dominance in Korean EFL textbooks. Intercultural
Education, 24/4:382–390.
Tomlinson, B., 2010. Principles of effective materials development. In Harwood, N., ed. English
Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vettorel, P., 2015. World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca: Implications for teacher education
and ELT. Iperstoria, 6/Fall 2015:229–244.
Vettorel, P., 2018. ELF and communication strategies: Are they taken into account in ELT materials?
RELC Journal, 49/1:58–73.
Vettorel, P. and Lopriore, L., 2013. Is there ELF in ELT coursebooks? Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching, 3/4:483–504.
Walker, R., 2010. Teaching the Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wen, Q., 2012. English as a Lingua Franca: A pedagogical perspective. Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca, 1/2:371–376.
Yu, M.H., 2015. Developing critical classroom practice for ELF communication: A Taiwanese case
study of ELT materials evaluation. In Bowles, H. and Cogo, A., eds. International Perspectives on
English as a Lingua Franca. Pedagogical Insights. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
108
8
Culture and materials development
Karen Risager
Introduction
Language textbooks and many other materials for language learning – print or digital – show
us glimpses of the world: imagined situations of communication in the target language, but
also representations of the everyday life of various groups in society, food and drink, festi-
vals, portraits of people, examples of the use of social media and IT, issues related to social
and political conditions, climate and the environment, and issues of migration, as well as
examples of short stories, songs, and videos. All in all, a diverse array of multi-modally
arranged topics, scenarios, and storylines. Language textbooks offer inputs to the intercul-
tural learning of the students while at the same time helping them develop their communica-
tive skills and language awareness.
This chapter deals with the glimpses of the world: the cultural content of materials, seen
in a global perspective. Language teaching is clearly a field of global relevance, most of
all the teaching of English, but also other languages of broader international use, such as
Spanish, French, Chinese, Arabic, and German. After all, a language like German, for exam-
ple, is not only spoken in the German-speaking countries, but also by tourists, students,
business people, diplomats, pensioners, German teachers, engineers, doctors, musicians,
etc., all over the world. Moreover, German-language media content may be received – and
produced – in most parts of the world.
The chapter, and my own work, takes its point of departure in the field of language and
intercultural education (Byram 2008; Byram et al. 2016; Kramsch and Vinall 2015; Risager
2007, 2018). This field is interested in the relationships between language and culture, not in
the traditional sense of ‘one language – one nation – one culture,’ but in a sense that under-
scores the complex and dynamic processes in an interdependent world. My own approach
emphasises the importance of developing a transnational paradigm in language teaching
(Risager 2007). This implies the inclusion of transnational processes that characterise our
world: flows of people, commodities, capital, ideas, languages, etc., while at the same time
keeping in mind that national borders and national identities still exist and are indeed grow-
ing stronger in recent years. In my view, no language is culturally neutral, and the case of
English as a lingua franca is a good example of a language whose users take part in the
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-10 109

Karen Risager
global flows and continually give rise to new combinations of language and culture (Baker
2016; Risager 2016). Therefore, language learning always offers some opportunities for
intercultural learning, not only in relation to target-language countries.
In the following, I distinguish between five different approaches to the analysis and
development of language teaching materials with a focus on their representations of the
world. For each of them, I formulate a set of questions for use in materials analysis, fol-
lowed by a short list of possible approaches to intercultural learning for use in materials
development. In any case, of course, one has to consider the age and the language profi-
ciency of the students for whom the textbook has been produced.
This chapter draws mainly on Risager (2018), in which I introduce and define the five
approaches and analyse the representations of the world in six textbooks (used in Denmark)
for English, German, and French (age level 13–16), Spanish (16–17 and adults), Danish
for immigrants (adults), and Esperanto (adults). These in-depth analyses are based on criti-
cal discourse analysis, and they are discussed in the context of already existing textbook
analyses from all over the world. Thus, although the approaches below are of relevance for
all levels of language teaching, the focus is on language textbooks (coursebooks, including
teacher’s guides, learner’s guides, websites, etc.). Some parts of the textbooks may be use-
ful for collaboration with other subjects, for example topics on climate change, or food and
cooking, but it should be noted that this chapter does not deal with language teaching as part
of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) or similar arrangements.
I prefer the phrase ‘analysis and development’ to ‘evaluation and development.’
Considering the great variability of cultural content in language textbooks, it is questionable
to make too specific demands upon them, or to try to define ‘the best textbook.’ Therefore,
I prefer not to speak of evaluation criteria in this context. On the other hand, analytical
projects will rest on some values. The following analytical questions presuppose general
values in the sense that I favour textbooks that include many parts of the world, represent
many different identities (ethnicities, races, religions, etc.), and contain engaging topics. It
is a framework for analysis with traits of evaluation (McGrath 2016).
Cultural content may be conveyed both in verbal text and in visuals of all kinds: draw-
ings, photos, videos, etc. Landscapes, streets and interiors, people of different skin colours,
cultural connotations and stereotypes, colour symbolism, humour, etc., are not least trans-
mitted in visuals. An analysis of the cultural content of textbooks should not be done with-
out including the visual aspects and the relations between verbal and visual text.

How can one analyse the cultural content of textbooks and other language teaching materi-
als in a way that is concrete and simple but also theory-based? There are many theories of
culture and society, and this chapter points to five theoretical approaches that all give rise
to a number of analytical questions. The five approaches and their focuses are the following
(Risager 2018):
·· national studies which focuses on the countries included in the textbook;

·· citizenship education studies which focuses on the topics included in order to engage
students as (future) citizens;
·· Cultural studies which focuses on cultural and social identities (gender, race, religion,
social class, profession, etc.);
110
·· postcolonial studies which focuses on the representation of the past, including the colo-
nial past;
·· transnational studies which focuses on transnational processes, practices, and networks.
The five approaches imply different views of the target language:
·· national studies looks at the target language in its standard variety or varieties;
·· citizenship education studies examines the target language in linguistically diverse
societies, including minority languages (autochthonous or migrant);
·· Cultural studies explores language practices (the target language and other languages)
and their relations to identity and subjectivity in complex societies;
·· postcolonial studies addresses historical power relations and hierarchies between the
target language and other languages;
·· transnational studies examines the target language (and other languages) as transna-
tional phenomena, for example, their use as lingua francas in many different contexts.
The following sections on the five approaches all start with a series of questions which could
be asked of the learning materials and a list of possible ways of fostering intercultural learn-
ing, followed by a description, some background, and important concepts for reflection.
National studies: questions for analysis and development

·· which countries are represented (dealt with, or just mentioned, or indirectly referred
to)?
·· is the country of learning represented?
·· are there significant blind spots in the representation of the world?
·· how broad and varied are the representations (everyday life, nature, art, politics, etc.)?
·· target language: are different standard varieties represented?
·· intercultural learning: does the textbook promote the development of knowledge
(insight and understanding) about different countries in the world?
Examples of approaches to intercultural learning could be learning to gain insight and

understanding through reflection and dialogue, doing intercultural (inter-national) compari-
sons without creating or reproducing national stereotypes, studying geographical and politi-
cal maps of the world to secure a general orientation, reflecting on the genesis and roles of
national stereotypes, reflecting on the diversity of national perspectives (e.g. Africa seen
from a British perspective, or a Chinese perspective), and reflecting on the role of national
identities in the modern world.
National studies: background and some concepts for reflection

National studies, with its focus on the representation of target-language countries, was the
first way of looking at the cultural content of language textbooks, developed from the 1980s
(Ammer 1988; Byram 1993; Kramsch 1988; Risager 1991; Sercu 2000). In my critical dis-
cussion of the national tradition in the field of language and intercultural education (Risager
2007), I refer to scholars in history like Anderson (1991) and Hobsbawm (1990), who have
investigated the origin and life of ideas about the nation and the shifting roles of nationalism.
111
Karen Risager
Representations of countries may be of different kinds: in a textbook for the teaching of

English, it may, for example, be a chapter dealing with Ireland, or it may be a more cursory
reference to a certain backpacker who has been in Thailand, or an indirect reference when
the mentioning of a manga cartoon strip indirectly refers to Japan, or when Nobel’s peace
prize indirectly refers to Norway, or when parkour indirectly refers to France.
An important issue in national studies is how broadly each country is represented. What
is deemed to be the most important knowledge about the country – everyday life, tourist
sights, literature, education system, youth culture, celebrities, economy, production, land-
scape, etc.? Are some countries depicted in one way, e.g. with an emphasis on nature and
sport, and others in other ways, e.g. with an emphasis on city life and shopping? How real-
istic or how stereotyping is the picture? Is it positive or negative or more or less neutral? Is
there an awareness of diversity within the frames of the nation?
One of the crucial distinctions within the concept of nation is between a political and
an ethnic understanding of the nation. The political model takes its point of departure in
a state with a territory defined and politically dominated by a large ethnic group, while
there may be other smaller ethnic groups within the same territory. An example could be
France. The ethnic model typically posits an identity between nation and language/ethnic-
ity, and an example of this could be Catalonia. This means that the relationships between
nation and state can be quite different around the world. For example, Spain can be said to
encompass nations at different levels: a Spanish (political) nation and a number of ethnic
nations, among them Catalonia. The United States consists of one (political) nation and sev-
eral states, and the UK consists of four ‘home nations.’ Does the textbook introduce students
to such distinctions? What does ‘Britain’ mean, for example?
Another useful concept is ‘banal nationalism.’ Banal nationalism is a pattern of belief
and practice which reproduces the world as a world of nation-states (Billig 1995). It finds
expression in the many small, everyday things and statements that remind us that the world
is divided into nation-states, and that presuppose that this is common sense. Examples could
be the flag on official buildings, or the political map, where countries are clearly demarcated
from each other and in different colours. Billig emphasises that banal nationalism is not
harmless, for it functions as a mental ‘warm-up’ to ‘hot nationalism’ and can easily change
into this in connection with, for example, war propaganda.
There are several possible ways of dealing with the national in a textbook. Perhaps the
national simply functions as a common-sense frame for the entire textbook or the greater
part of it. As a part of this, it may be taken for granted that the world consists of separate
and isolated nations, and the nation is treated implicitly as an essence, i.e. as something that
exists and has always existed (i.e. banal nationalism). Another possibility would be that
the national appears as a theme that invites reflections on national identity, and it may be
indicated more or less clearly that the national is not an essence but a form of mentality and
organisation that has not always existed, and that may change. Lastly, it might be the case
that a discussion thread about the national is maintained throughout the textbook.
If we interpret the national approach in a global perspective (looking at the planet as a
whole), we may ask: which countries are included, and which countries are excluded? Are
there significant blind spots? What about Africa, Russia, Central Asia, South East Asia,
Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Nordic countries, Latin America?
Citizenship education studies: questions for analysis and development

·· is cultural diversity represented, and ethnic/religious minorities?
112
·· are political institutions represented (political parties, unions, movements, etc.)?

·· are key problems of the contemporary world represented (climate change, inequality,
etc.)?
·· target language: is linguistic diversity represented, and minority languages?
·· intercultural learning: does the textbook promote a sense of global citizenship?
Examples of approaches to intercultural learning could be furthering students’ sense of being

citizens, and future citizens, in the world (and in their own classroom) by welcoming the
expression and discussion of attitudes and interests; helping students develop critical cul-
tural awareness by supporting their engagement in debates and political issues in societies
characterised by cultural diversity; offering them opportunities to collaborate with students
(or other people) in other countries, thereby supporting their engagement in intercultural
communication, mediation, and action.
Citizenship education studies: background and some concepts for reflection

Citizenship education studies has been introduced in language and intercultural education
primarily by Michael Byram (Byram 1993, 2008; Byram et al. 2016). The central concept in
Byram’s approach in later years is ‘intercultural citizenship,’ which in the language learning
context is understood as citizenship in a multilingual world where there is a need for media-
tion (translation, interpretation) between languages/cultures, and where there is a need for
engagement and action at an international level as well as local, regional, or national. A
sister concept is ‘critical cultural awareness,’ the ability to evaluate, critically and on the
basis of explicit criteria, aspects of one’s own and other cultures and countries. Furthermore,
Byram speaks for a foreign language teaching that attempts to include instances of trans-
national communication and collaboration with students or other people living in target-
language countries, and he has described a number of such transnational projects (Byram
2008; Byram et al. 2016). Other scholars in language and intercultural education who have
explored citizenship education are, for example, Guilherme 2002, Houghton 2012, and
Osler and Starkey 2015.
Citizenship education is a field that is of great interest to all societies however different
they are in history, political and social conditions, and languages. Educational authorities,
scholars, and teachers across the world have developed ideas of how to educate people
so that they can contribute as ‘good citizens’ to their state and society, and these ideas are
very heterogeneous since they are rooted in different histories and expressed in different
languages (Himmelmann 2006). There are distinct traditions concerning the conception of
citizenship and citizenship education formulated in Chinese, Japanese, German, English
(for the United States), English (for England and Wales), and French, among others.
The field gained momentum in the years after World War II and especially during the
1990s with the increased focus on transnational migration and the development of multi-
cultural societies – itself a concept that has very different lexicalisations and connotations
in different parts of the world and in different political contexts. Thus, citizenship education
is related to the field of studies of cultural diversity and multiculturalism (Parekh 2000;
Kymlicka 2003) and of ethnic minorities and majorities.
Wolfgang Klafki is another scholar who has been working within citizenship educa-
tion (Klafki 1996). He deals with the question of defining the desirable subject matter, and
emphasises the importance of studying key problems of the contemporary world. Such key
113
Karen Risager
problems could be human rights, cultural diversity, the global environment, social inequal-
ity in the world, the peace issue, terrorism, etc.
Cultural studies: questions for analysis and development

·· what cultural identities are represented, and how (dealt with, or just mentioned) (social
class, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, education, language, etc.)?
·· what social identities are represented, and how (dealt with, or just mentioned) (celebri-
ties, refugees, workers, business people, engineers, school children, homeless, journal-
ists, etc.)?
·· how are culture and identity viewed in the textbook (essentialist/non-essentialist, static/
dynamic)?
·· target language: are language and subjectivity/identity represented (cultural and per-
sonal connotations, accent and identity, etc.)?
·· intercultural learning: does the textbook promote awareness of subjectivities and the
construction of identities?
Examples of approaches to intercultural learning could be inviting students to reflect on

their own subjectivity and cultural identities; inviting them to reflect on intersections of
identities (‘me’ as a young, secular, homosexual man of Han Chinese background, etc.);
supporting their critical awareness of processes like othering (the construction of ‘us’–
‘them’ dichotomies).
Cultural studies: background and some concepts for reflection

Cultural studies (spelled with a capital C) began in Britain in the 1950s as an interest in the
cultural practices of other groups than the ruling élite. It has developed into an international,
wide, and differentiated field of study, and generally one can say that it focuses on the role
of culture in contemporary society, on relations between culture, identity, and politics. It
shows how cultural practices of any group, organisation, or institution are influenced by and
in turn influence power relations. Cultural studies is also interested in subjectivity and his-
toricity, i.e. how we become subjects as a consequence of our social and cultural life history
and as part of larger, historical processes. A central figure is Stuart Hall, who has written a
number of very influential articles about basic concepts: identity, nationality, ethnicity, race,
and representation (e.g. Hall 1992). Another influential Cultural studies scholar is Raymond
Williams, who has written a number of works about how to understand culture in an histori-
cal and societal context (Williams 1976).
In the Cultural studies tradition, ‘culture’ is not seen as something that exists out there
and can be described as norms and values, products, and practices (an essentialist view). As
the Cultural studies tradition accentuates process and agency, it favours a view of culture
that presupposes that it is constructed in discourse (a non-essentialist view): culture is not
something that can be used to explain people’s norms and values, culture is what should
be explained. For example, why does a specific discourse about ‘culture’ exist in a certain
context, and what does this discourse do?
A similar distinction can be found in the study of identity: the focus is not on fixed
identities as group memberships, but on processes of identification of self and Other: who
identifies whom in space and time and with what effects? – not only in interactions between
114
people, but also in discourses in society about race, class, gender, age, nationality, religion,
language, etc. Some scholars focus on ‘intersectional studies,’ i.e. studies of the variability
of intersecting identities, for example poor, white males, black, female academics, young,
Muslim women, etc.
Cultural studies has been explored in different ways by a growing number of scholars
in language and intercultural education. Claire Kramsch, for example, argues for a dialogic
pedagogy in language teaching with reference to Bakhtin’s work (Bakhtin 1986, Kramsch
1993) and sees the classroom as a site of cross-cultural fieldwork during which texts and dis-
courses of different origins are being investigated and put into context. She also emphasises
the importance of studying the experiences and life histories of language learners, including
their memories, emotions, and imagination. Thus, she underscores the cultural dimensions
of the language use and language learning of the multilingual subject (Kramsch 2009).
Adrian Holliday (1999) distinguishes two paradigms of culture in language and inter-
cultural education: ‘the large culture paradigm’ associated with ethnic, national, or inter-
national entities, and ‘the small culture paradigm’ associated with emergent behaviour in
small social groupings. He suggests that small cultures should be analysed from a non-
essentialist perspective, using ethnographic and interpretative methods. Other scholars
engaged in Cultural studies in language and intercultural education are Bori 2018 (see Bori
this volume); Chapelle 2016; Curdt-Christiansen and Weninger 2015; Gray 2010, 2013a,
2013b; Gray and Block 2014; Holliday 1999; Kearney 2016; and Risager 2018. My own
work on the concept of ‘linguaculture’ (culture in language) is also related to Cultural stud-
ies (Risager 2015).
Postcolonial studies: questions for analysis and development

·· is the national and international history of target-language countries, and of the target
language, represented? (References to colonialism and imperialism? North-South and
East-West divides? ‘Us’–‘them’ dichotomies?)
·· is the national and international history of the country of learning, and of the language
of schooling, represented?
·· target language: are historical relations between the target-language/the target-language
country and the language of schooling/the country of learning represented?
·· intercultural learning: does the textbook promote historical awareness and awareness of
colonial and postcolonial history?
Examples of approaches to intercultural learning: developing historical awareness by study-

ing sources and historical maps; developing awareness of the historical origins of racism;
developing critical thinking in a global, centre-periphery perspective.
Postcolonial studies: background and some concepts for reflection

Postcolonial studies (Poddar et al. 2008) was institutionalised in Western academia during
the 1980s, particularly after the publication of the influential book Orientalism by Edward
Said (1978). The field was mainly explored by Indian-American scholars (Bhabha 1994),
and became first and foremost a research interest in the anglophone world, but the franco-
phone world also developed a practice of postcolonial studies drawing on the work of Fanon
(1961) and others.
115
Karen Risager
A somewhat different tradition has developed in relation to Latin America, under the
name of decolonial studies (Dussel 1995; Mignolo 2000). It connects more explicitly the
different dimensions of coloniality (economic, social, political, cultural) and insists on
the importance of including the early European colonisation of the Americas – the First
Modernity (Dussel 1995) – as a prerequisite for an understanding of subsequent colonial
history and its consequences for Europe and the rest of the world. Among the central focuses
of this field are studies of race and racial hierarchies, and also studies of worldviews (cos-
mologies) in different parts of the world and in different socio-cultural contexts, including
indigenous cosmologies (Mignolo 2000; Santos 2014).
A large number of postcolonial scholars have focused on the analysis of cultural prod-
ucts that illustrate or take up identity problematics in countries or regions that are in a pro-
cess of decolonisation after having been colonised for a longer or shorter period. Research
has always emphasised the importance of considering the power dimensions of knowledge
and culture in historiography and in historical awareness: who represents whom under what
circumstances? Who purports to know what about whom, and why? The texts studied may
be of any kind from fictional literature, film, or poetry, to non-fiction documents, commer-
cials, scholarly works, textbooks for different subjects, and tourist guides.
Postcolonial studies has included an interest in the development and self-image of impe-
rial or post-imperial centres, not least Britain. Such studies have focused on the specific
identity problematics of these countries in relation to decolonisation and immigration from
former colonies, problematics that demand redefinitions and redrawings of national identi-
ties and narratives. Generally the understanding within postcolonial studies is that Europe
could not have become so rich in the centuries since the early 16th century without the
exploitation of its colonies – first the Americas and later the rest of the world – and could
not have developed her civilisational identity and conviction of racial, cultural, and moral
superiority without the colonies. Thus another understanding in postcolonial studies is that
there is a close connection between racism and colonialism, and that racism today is an
after-effect of colonial and postcolonial history.
Alastair Pennycook is among those who have been most explicit in the development
of a postcolonial perspective within the field of language and intercultural education, with
specific reference to students’ attitudes to the teaching of English in various former British
colonies (Pennycook 1998). Suresh Canagarajah argues for critical studies of English lan-
guage teaching in postcolonial contexts, drawing on examples from classroom life in the
Tamil community of Sri Lanka (Canagarajah 1999). Canagarajah distinguishes between
centre nations such as Britain (or France, Belgium, Germany, etc.) and periphery nations
such as India and Nigeria. Related to this, he distinguishes between centre-based perspec-
tives and periphery-based perspectives, and argues for the importance of making periphery-
based perspectives visible in language and intercultural education. Other works that should
be mentioned in relation to postcolonial studies in language and intercultural education are
Kramsch and Vinall (2015) and Vinall (2012).
Transnational studies: questions for analysis and development

·· are transnational organisations represented (companies, associations, communities,
networks, etc.)?
·· are transnational flows of ideas, discourses, and practices represented (democracy, ter-
rorism, music, global warming, etc.)?
116
·· is transnational mobility or migration represented (travel, refugees, diasporic commu-

nities, etc.)?
·· is (potentially) transnational digital communication represented (phone, Skype, inter-
net, social media, role playing games, etc.)?
·· target language: is the target language seen as a transnational phenomenon (a ‘world
language’)?
·· intercultural learning: does the textbook promote an awareness of transnationality (and
thus also an awareness of banal nationalism)?
Examples of approaches to intercultural learning could be developing awareness of global

citizenship and global responsibility; getting experience with transnational cooperation with
students in other countries; developing awareness of local complexity by studying, e.g.
supermarkets and their products from all over the world; studying street signs drawing on
the resources of several languages.
Transnational studies: background and some concepts for reflection

Transnational studies focuses on processes and practices that transcend national borders –
without disregarding the existence and role of nations and states. Transnational studies is
interested in non-state actors like human-rights organisations (e.g. Amnesty International),
environmental organisations (e.g. Greenpeace), development organisations (e.g. Oxfam),
religious organisations (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church), multinational corporations (e.g.
Coca Cola), or transnational diaspora communities, transnational networks of cities, trans-
national terrorist networks, etc. The UN and its various sub-organisations might be included
here, although they are international (collaboration between separate nations) rather than
transnational. The EU is an example of a political entity that has international as well as
transnational traits.
Some scholars in language and intercultural education have taken up discussions related
to transnational and globalisation studies, among them Kumaravadivelu (2008) and Risager
(2006, 2007). Kumaravadivelu argues that the primary aim of language education is to raise
students’ global cultural consciousness, and among other things he takes up the question
of (English) learning materials, saying that ‘What are sorely needed are materials that can
deeply and critically engage the learners’ minds about the intricacies of cultural realism that
are shaping their identity formation’ (Kumaravadivelu 2008:189). As I argue in Risager
(2007, 2016), the awareness of transnationality in the field of language and intercultural
education means that the question of sociocultural content becomes much more open than
within the (older) national paradigm with its limitation to (homogeneous or diverse) national
cultures and literatures, and nationally framed repertoires of norms and values. Other schol-
ars that are engaged in transnational studies in language and intercultural education include
Osler and Starkey (2015), Pennycook (2007), and Starkey (1991).
Numerous scholars from various disciplines have contributed to the field of transnational
and globalisation studies since the 1990s, among them the anthropologists Hannerz (1996)
and Appadurai (1996). Appadurai proposes to describe the global situation as a fundamental
disjuncture between a number of processes, and he uses the term -scape (from landscape) to
bring forth a certain imagery of these more or less separate processes as fluid and irregular
landscapes. He distinguishes between ethnoscape, mediascape, technoscape, financescape,
and ideoscape. The first two are the ones he has given most attention:
117
Karen Risager
Ethnoscape is the landscape of persons in the world, either as moving over longer or shorter
distances for one reason or another (migrants, refugees, expats, tourists, students,
etc.), or as more sedentary. Ethnoscape is not only about actual physical mobility
but also about fantasies about wanting to move, wanting to settle, wanting to control
migrations.
Mediascape is both the specific distribution of media throughout the world and the images
of the world created by the media. Mediascape contributes to the collective imagina-
tion through the proliferation of realistic and fictional representations in a wide range
of genres and styles. Technoscape is the global configuration of all sorts of technol-
ogy, new and old, mechanical and informational. Financescape is the global landscape
of capital being moved around via stock exchanges, speculations, etc. An ideoscape
is closely related to mediascape, but is more political in its orientation as it consists
of ideologies of states and the counter-ideologies of movements explicitly oriented to
capturing state power or pieces of it. They may deal with the content and use of such
concepts as democracy, freedom, and management.

As already said, it is questionable to try to define ‘the best textbook’ in terms of cultural
content. But this does not mean that we cannot discuss what could be ‘a good textbook’ in
relation to the context. This is a question of quality, and I suggest that we approach it from
two sides (Risager 2018:219f):
On the one hand negatively: the writer(s) of the textbook must try to avoid representa-
tions of culture, society, and world that are incorrect, outdated, overly simplified, super-
ficial or stereotypical, or socially, culturally, and geographically biased. On the other
hand positively: the writer(s) should compose a textbook that is inclusive as well as
power-sensitive; it should include many countries in the world as well as transnational
processes; it should make students reflect on identities and subjectivities; and it should
make students relate to and act upon major problems, power relations, and hierarchies
in the world – balanced in relation to the specific language proficiencies, needs, and
interests of the students.
The challenge for textbook development is to take textbooks as far as possible towards the
positive side, which can be done in innumerable ways. In my own analysis (Risager 2018),
I suggest that the six textbooks under analysis, which have some merits, are looked upon as
stepping stones for enhanced intercultural learning. One of the points of departure for this is
the blind spots of these textbooks.
In relation to national studies, the analysis showed, for example, that the textbook for
English (age level 13–16; students had started English at age 9) did not mention Africa
north of South Africa, continental Europe was largely absent, the EU was not mentioned,
and the Commonwealth was not mentioned. Therefore, I would propose introducing such
topics (preferably in problem-based and project work). For example, it should be made clear
that the English language has an important role in Europe as a lingua franca in civil society
and also as a working language in EU institutions. More generally, I would suggest inviting
students to work with political and geographical maps (maps that are Europe-centred and
maps with other centres, or maps that turn the world ‘upside-down’).
118
In relation to citizenship education studies, the analysis showed that in the English text-
book, political issues in contemporary society are evaded to a large extent. Among the many
possibilities of including more contemporary issues, I would propose looking at the topic of
refugees and human rights. Amnesty International (AI), for example, has websites with lots
of textual and visual materials which represent many countries. It is interesting to compare
the websites of, for example, AI Canada, AI New Zealand, AI Ireland, and AI UK (and
for other target languages this would also be a useful task: AI France, AI Deutschland, AI
Österreich, AI México, AI España, AI Danmark, etc.). More generally, I think it is important
to invite students to use the more serious news media as much as they can, depending upon
their age and level of language proficiency.
In relation to Cultural studies, the analysis showed, for example, that Hispanics were
completely absent in the representation of the United States. Therefore, to address this blind
spot, an important supplement could be one or more topics about the role of different groups
of Hispanics and their language(s). Another blind spot was Islam, while other religions were
included: Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and aboriginal religions. It could be added that
among the branches of Christianity, Catholicism, Baptism, and Puritanism were mentioned,
but not Anglicanism. This is just one instance of the characteristic fortuitousness of the cul-
tural content in language textbooks.
In relation to postcolonial studies, it would be important to look at a few historical maps of
the world showing, for example, the British or the French empires. Although there may not be
much time to explain historical events, it is clear that the students should understand that the
widespread use of English today is due to a long history of colonialism and imperialism, not
to the specific merits of the English language being particularly ‘simple’ or ‘lexically rich.’
In relation to transnational studies, the analysis showed that in the English textbook,
transnationality was included in one chapter only, namely a chapter on globalisation.
Therefore, I would propose to supplement the English textbook with some weeks of project
work – if this is feasible – on Scotland seen in a transnational perspective (what one might
call ‘Scotland in the world and the world in Scotland’), including a discussion of the idea of
‘Scandinavian Scotland.’
Future directions
Knowledge about culture and society seems to be taken more and more seriously in lan-
guage textbooks and other materials produced in many parts of the world. A development
that would be highly desirable is to strengthen professionalism in this area. Specialists in
language and language learning should collaborate with people who are trained within other
relevant fields, such as anthropologists, sociologists, historians, journalists, fiction writers –
especially people who are interested in interculturality. In this way, it would become more
clearly visible that language subjects, even at elementary and intermediate stages of learn-
ing, can offer informative and engaging windows to the (whole) world, both in verbal text
and in visuals.
Language textbooks are cultural products. They may be compared to other cultural prod-
ucts, for example, tourist guidebooks, or documentary films from various countries. Thus,
they contribute to the general production and spread of knowledge about the world, and
one might ask: what kind of knowledge is favoured in language textbooks in comparison
to other cultural products? What do they include, what do they exclude? How are changing
markets influencing the cultural content of (printed or digital) textbooks today?
119
Karen Risager
Conclusion
This chapter deals with the cultural content of language learning materials, particularly
textbooks. It argues that language teaching is of global relevance, not only the teaching of
English, but also other languages, such as Spanish, French, Chinese, Arabic, and German.
Therefore, we need an analytical framework that takes a global perspective. It is proposed
that the framework includes five different approaches that are based in different theoretical
traditions, but complement each other in textbook analysis: national studies, citizenship
education studies, Cultural studies, postcolonial studies, and transnational studies. For each
of the approaches, a set of analytical questions is presented. In the end, it is emphasised that
since knowledge about culture and society seems to be taken more and more seriously in
language textbooks and other materials, it is desirable to strengthen professionalism in this
area by drawing on the expertise of people from other disciplines such as anthropology and
sociology.
Further Reading
Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. and Weninger, C., eds. 2015. Language, Ideology and Education: The
Politics of Textbooks in Language Education. Abingdon: Routledge.
This edited collection contains a number of chapters dealing with the role of politics and ideology
in relation to language textbooks. The authors discuss a range of theoretical and methodological
aspects, as well as the concepts of language dominance and dominant languages.
Gray, J., ed. 2013. Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
This edited collection contains a number of chapters dealing with discourses, representations,
and identities in language teaching materials for use in English, French, Spanish, and German, and
CLIL.
Risager, K., 2018. Representations of the World in Language Textbooks. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
This book presents a comprehensive framework for the analysis of representations of culture,
society, and the world in textbooks for English, French, German, Spanish, Danish, and Esperanto, for
young people and adults.
Related topics
Representation in coursebooks: a critical perspective, the analysis and evaluation of lan-
guage teaching materials.
References
Ammer, R., 1988. Das Deutschlandbild in den Lehrwerken für Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Die
Gestaltung des landeskundlichen Inhalts in den Lehrwerken der Bundesrepublik Deutschland von
1955 bis 1985 mit vergleichenden Betrachtungen zum Landesbild in den Lehrwerken der DDR.
München: Iudicium.
Anderson, B., 1991. Imagined Communities. 2nd ed. London: Verso.
Appadurai, A., 1996. Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Baker, W., 2016. Culture and language in intercultural communication, English as a lingua franca and
English language teaching: Points of convergence and conflict. In: Holmes, P. and Dervin, F., eds.
The Cultural and Intercultural Dimensions of English as a Lingua Franca. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
120
Bakhtin, M., 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bhabha, H.K., 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Billig, M., 1995. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
Bori, P., 2018. Language Textbooks in the Era of Neoliberalism. London: Routledge.
Byram, M., 1993. Criteria for textbook evaluation. In Byram, M., ed. Germany. Its Representation in
Textbooks for Teaching German in Great Britain. Frankfurt: Verlag Moritz Diesterweg.
Byram, M., 2008. From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship.
Essays and Reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., Golubeva, I., Han, H. and Wagner, M., eds. 2016. From Principles to Practice in Education
for Intercultural Citizenship. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Camase, G., 2009. The Ideological Construction of a Second Reality: A Critical Analysis of a Romanian
EFL Textbook. MA Thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, The University of Toronto.
Canagarajah, A.S., 1999. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Chapelle, C.A., 2016. Teaching Culture in Introductory Foreign Language Textbooks. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. and Weninger, C., eds. 2015. Language, Ideology and Education: The
Politics of Textbooks in Language Education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Dussel, E., 1995. The Invention of the Americas. Eclipse of ‘the Other’ and the Myth of Modernity.
New York: Continuum.
Fanon, F., 1961. Les damnés de la terre. Paris: Maspero.
Gray, J., 2010. The Construction of English. Culture, Consumerism and Promotion in the ELT Global
Gray, J., 2013a. LGBT invisibility and heteronormativity in ELT materials. In Gray, J. ed. Critical
Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gray, J., ed. 2013b. Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Gray, J. and Block, D., 2014. All middle class now? Representations of the working class in the
neoliberal era: The case of ELT textbooks. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language Teaching
Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production. Palgrave Macmillan.
Guilherme, M., 2002. Critical Citizens for an Intercultural World. Foreign Language Education as
Cultural Politics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hall, S., 1992. The question of cultural identity. In Hall, S., Held, D. and McGrew, T. eds. Modernity
and Its Futures. Cambridge: Polity Press/Blackwell/The Open University.
Hannerz, U., 1996. Transnational Connections. Culture, People, Places. London and New York:
Routledge.
Himmelmann, G., 2006. Concepts and issues in citizenship education. A comparative study of
Germany, Britain and the USA. In Alred, G., Byram, M. and Fleming, M., eds. Education for
Intercultural Citizenship. Concepts and Comparisons. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hobsbawm, E.J., 1990. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge:
Holliday, A.R., 1999. Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20/2:237–264.
Houghton, S., 2012. Intercultural Dialogue: Managing Value Judgement in Foreign Language
Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Kearney, E., 2016. Intercultural Learning in Modern Language Education: Expanding Meaning-
Making Potentials. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Klafki, W., 1996. Core problems of the modern world and the tasks of education. A vision for
international education. Education. A Biannual Collection of Recent German Contributions to the
Field of Educational Research, 53:7–18.
Kramsch, C., 1988. The cultural discourse of foreign language textbooks. In Singerman A.J., ed.
Toward a New Integration of Language and Culture. Northeast Conference Reports. Middlebury,
VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
121
Karen Risager
Kramsch, C., 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C., 2009.The Multilingual Subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. and Vinall, K., 2015. The cultural politics of language textbooks in the era of globalisation.
In Curdt-Christiansen, X.L., and Weninger, C., eds. Language, Ideology and Education. The
Politics of Textbooks in Language Education. London: Routledge.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 2008. Cultural Globalization and Language Education. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Kymlicka, W., 2003. Multicultural states and intercultural citizens. Theory and Research in Education,
1/2:147–169.
Mignolo, W., 2000. The geopolitics of knowledge and the colonial difference. South Atlantic Quarterly,
101/1:57–96.
Osler, A. and Starkey H., 2015. Education for cosmopolitan citizenship: A framework for language
learning. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3/2:30–39.
Parekh, B., 2000. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. New York:
Palgrave.
Pennycook, A., 1998. English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London: Routledge.
Pennycook, A., 2007. Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge.
Poddar, P., Patke, R. and Jensen, L., eds. 2008. A Historical Companion to Postcolonial Literatures:
Continental Europe and Its Empires. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Risager, K., 1991. Cultural references in European foreign language teaching textbooks: An evaluation
of recent tendencies. In Buttjes, D. and Byram, M., eds. Mediating Languages and Cultures.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Risager, K., 2006. Language and Culture: Global Flows and Local Complexity. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Risager, K., 2007. Language and Culture Pedagogy: From a National to a Transnational Paradigm.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Risager, K., 2015. The language-culture nexus in transnational perspective. In Sharifian, F., ed.
Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. London and New York: Routledge.
Risager, K., 2016. Lingua francas in a world of migrations. In Holmes, P. and Dervin, F. eds. The
Cultural and Intercultural Dimensions of English as a Lingua Franca. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Said, E.W., 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
Santos, B. de S., 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. Boulder, Co:
Paradigm.
Sercu, L., 2000. Acquiring Intercultural Communicative Competence from Textbooks. The Case of
Flemish Adolescents Learning German. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Starkey, H., 1991. World Studies and foreign language teaching: Converging approaches in textbook
writing. In Buttjes, D. and Byram, M., eds. Mediating Languages and Cultures. Clevedon:
Vinall, K., 2012. ¿Un legado historico? Symbolic competence and the construction of multiple
histories. L2 Journal, 4:102–123.
Williams, R., 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana Press.
122
9
Representation in coursebooks
A critical perspective
Pau Bori
Introduction
Despite the abundance of written and audiovisual language materials available in both
online and printed forms, coursebooks still play a prominent role in many language class-
rooms around the world. Coursebooks often establish ‘the basis for the syllabus, the spring-
board for other activities and discussions, guidance for new teachers, and socialization into
the practice of language teaching and learning for students’ (Chapelle 2016:2). They seem
to ‘have a magical hold on both teachers and learners most of whom just cannot do without
them’ (Kumaravadivelu 2012:21). Due to its central role in the language teaching and the
learning process, it is fair to say that the coursebook may influence the students’ percep-
tions of reality and may contribute to creating among them a particular vision of the world
(Matsuda 2012; Ndura 2004).
Critical pedagogues such as Apple (1979), Luke (1988), and De Castell et al. (1989) were
among the first to stress that the knowledge featured in the curriculum and in coursebooks in
mainstream education is never neutral, but is the product of what Williams (1973:9) terms
a selective tradition: ‘from a whole possible area of past and present, certain meanings and
practices are chosen for emphasis, certain other meanings and practices are neglected and
excluded.’ According to critical pedagogy, the knowledge selected serves particular inter-
ests (especially those of the ruling classes) in order to sustain and legitimise the existing
social and economic structures. Critical studies of mainstream educational texts paved the
way for the examination of the content of language teaching coursebooks. Gray (2016:99)
explains that research on coursebooks moved from a consideration of language teaching
materials as ‘exclusively curriculum artefacts (in which the concern is with issues such as
syllabus and methodology)’ to an understanding of materials as ‘cultural artefacts (in which
the focus is on the meanings they seek to create for teachers and students, and the conditions
of their production, circulation and consumption).’ From this second perspective, more criti-
cal research is focused on representation in language coursebooks. This body of research
has adopted interdisciplinary approaches, which include contributions from feminism and
racial studies, cultural and media studies, sociology, critical pedagogy, and, more recently,
political economy and Marxism (Gray 2016).
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-11 123

Pau Bori
The concept of representation, widely developed in media and cultural studies (Hall
1997), refers to ‘the stock of ideas, images, and linguistic choices which are deployed in
the creation of meanings, and the identifications that these seek to create in readers’ (Gray
2010a:715). Since coursebooks make sense of the world through images and words, they
present particular points of view and specific constructions of reality. Many critically ori-
ented studies have shown that the representations of reality in coursebooks are often partial,
distorted, overly simplified, and biased. Generally speaking, the objective behind this body
of critical research is to identify, analyse, and criticise injustices or partial views generated
by power structures in societies that appear in coursebooks and in that way contribute to the
battle to overcome social inequalities.
This chapter deals with critical approaches in the examination of representation in lan-
guage coursebooks. The aim here is to contribute to debunking two educational myths in
relation to language teaching materials: the notions that they are neutral and apolitical. In
other words, and in keeping with the main principles of critical pedagogy (Apple 1979),
this chapter holds that language coursebooks are not innocuous tools to learn a language
but have wide-ranging political implications as they are bearers of potentially powerful
messages to create meanings about the world. In what follows, I present a review of the
main concerns of critical research on representation in language coursebooks. The chapter
will then advocate for a turn to political economy in the studies of representation in lan-
guage materials. By political economy, I refer to the relationships between social, political,
and economic factors within a capitalist economy (Block et al. 2012). This turn can be
accomplished by looking at and analysing representation in coursebooks from a political
and economic angle, and recognising neoliberalism (the economic and political system of
the current phase of capitalism) as a central concept in our research. Neoliberalism, with its
principles of deregulation, privatisation, competition, and individualism, has a great influ-
ence on the socio-economic lives of people and cannot be ignored in research that claims to
be critically engaged. Later in this chapter, an example of critical analysis of representations
in language coursebooks from a political economy perspective is provided. Finally, future
directions in the field and the conclusions of this chapter will be presented.

Fraser (1995) famously distinguished two ways to analytically approach social injustices:
the redistribution and the recognition paradigm. The first considers that the root of injustices
is in the political and economic structures of society which exploit labour, and marginalise
and deprive many people of the basic resources that they need to survive. The second, the
recognition paradigm, maintains that the problem lies in the cultural or symbolic sphere,
and particularly on those ‘social patterns of representation, interpretation, and communica-
tion’ that involve cultural domination, misrecognition of some identities, and lack of respect
for their beliefs and particular cultural attributes (Fraser 1995:71). While the redistribution
paradigm seeks an economic restructuring in order to fairly distribute resources and wealth,
the recognition paradigm attempts to respond to social injustices by positively valorising
and recognising marginalised groups.
From the 1970s onwards, following the main trends in the social sciences and humani-
ties, critical research in applied linguistics has prioritised the recognition paradigm, also
known as identity politics, and has ignored the redistribution or material dimension with no
references to socioeconomic inequalities, social class, or the whole political and economic
system (Block et al. 2012). In a similar vein, critical research on representations in language
124
coursebooks has been mainly framed in identity terms, such as gender, race, or sexuality,
and has adopted a culturalist approach that celebrates difference and diversity (Bori 2018).
Redistribution issues, however, have not had a major importance within critical language
coursebooks studies. This trend in applied linguistics generally, and particularly in language
coursebook research, coincided with the rise of neoliberalism as the dominant ideologi-
cal paradigm since the 1970s (Block et al. 2012), with its powerful discourse which sus-
tains that economic stratification and structural inequalities are no longer relevant, mainly
because of its meritocratic narrative according to which everybody has the chance to suc-
ceed, no matter what race, ethnicity, gender, or social and economic background. Although
this may seem like a path to equality, what neoliberalism actually values is very competitive
individualism and exclusivity.
The beginnings of critical research on representations in language coursebooks can be
found in the 1970s. In that period, research on representations in coursebooks was espe-
cially concerned with gender issues in an effort by critical scholars to identify and eliminate
sexism (Hartman and Judd 1978; Schmitz 1975). Later, the scope of interest of this body of
research was extended to studies of race and ethnicity (Arizpe and Aguirre 1987; Gulliver
2010; Ndura 2004), sexual orientation (Gray 2013), and to studies about cultural representa-
tions, which paid greater attention to diverse countries where the target language is spoken
(Coffey 2013; Ramirez and Hall 1990), and especially to intercultural communication and
multiculturalism (García 2005; Shin et al. 2011). From this last perspective, it is worth
noting a recent book by Risager (2018) which presents five comprehensive approaches to
analysing cultural representations in foreign language coursebooks, based on five theoreti-
cal traditions to understand culture and society: national studies, citizenship education stud-
ies, cultural studies, postcolonial studies, and transnational studies (see also Risager this
volume).
All the research referred to above, grouped under the general umbrella of identity poli-
tics, has helped to uncover gender, racial, and cultural bias and other kinds of exclusion and
inequalities that appear in coursebooks. These studies have contributed to greater awareness
of these issues among people involved in the language teaching and learning process. As a
result, progress has been seen in many language coursebooks towards more balanced rep-
resentations of gender, race, and culture. The most significant example of the impact of this
body of research is related to gender representation in coursebooks. Not only are teachers
and students sensitised to this matter, but publishing houses and authors are also very careful
not to include sexist content in coursebooks (Kuzmanović-Jovanović and Đuričić 2015). In
this sense, to understand representation in coursebooks, the commercial considerations of
publishing houses should be taken into account. As explained by Gray (2010b), publishing
houses create global English language teaching coursebooks with the ideas of inclusivity
and inappropriacy in mind in order to successfully sell their products in world markets.
The first concerns how to prevent stereotypical representations in relation to gender or race,
while inappropriacy refers to topics which should be excluded in certain geographical areas
to avoid offending local social, political and religious sensitivities. In the Middle East, for
example, topics such as ‘alcohol,’ ‘Israel and six pointed stars,’ or ‘pork’ should not be
mentioned explicitly according to the English language industry (Gray 2010b:120) (see
also Buchanan and Norton, this volume). Another explanation for the evolution towards
more equal representation of gender, race, and culture in coursebooks might be found in
the currency gained by identity politics in mainstream discourses in recent decades. Indeed,
identity politics became dominant in liberal discourse at the time when neoliberal economic
policies were on the rise – from the 1970s and 1980s onwards. This can be explained, as
125
Pau Bori
Halliday (1990) argues, by the fact that capitalism has no problem recognising and even cel-
ebrating differences, while class division and the economic structure of the society remain
untouched. Radical scholars from various disciplines for quite a few years now have been
warning of the dangerous replacement in critical research from material and economic reali-
ties to recognition issues like race, gender, sexuality, or nationality (hooks 2000; Michaels
2006; Reed 2009). According to these authors, if the focus is only on identity politics, criti-
cal research may end up being complicit in obscuring the most important injustices in our
capitalist societies, located in the socioeconomic dimension. Since identity politics draw
attention away from unequal economic distribution toward the battle against sexism, rac-
ism, homophobia, and cultural discrimination, it situates inequality as a problem of discrim-
ination regarding certain identity groups, rather than as a result of the economic structures of
society. In saying this, I am by no means suggesting that we should give up the struggle for
gender and racial equality, as discrimination based upon sex, race, and ethnicity is still part
of our daily lives, but neither should we underestimate the positive aspects and the gains
made so far in recognising historically marginalised groups. Following Fraser (2009) and
hooks (2000), I would like to stress that in the last decades, feminist and antiracist critical
theorists have tended to ignore the critique of the capitalist economic distribution as the
core problem in our societies and this could lead to confusion over which main issues criti-
cal theory should address. It could be argued that materials developers and teachers could
benefit from thinking about these kinds of criticisms, to gain awareness not only of sensitive
matters regarding identity, but also of issues in the realm of the political economy. Indeed,
all this is especially relevant as mainstream language learning materials, probably with-
out consciously doing so, support and promote the current economic and political system
with their prioritisation of consumerism, individualism, and self-entrepreneurship, as will
be explained below.
One notable exception to the traditional focus on identity issues in discussions and
debates on representation in coursebooks is the study by Auerbach and Burgess (1985) of
the hidden curriculum in ESL materials developed for newly arrived immigrants in North
America. These two scholars argue that materials do not consider the socioeconomic situ-
ation of readers, as they only reflect the values and practices of the middle classes and
ignore any broader social circumstances that may affect the life of adult newcomers in North
America, such as competition, discrimination, and the structural demands of the economy.
Furthermore, according to this study, materials prepare students for subordinate roles in the
host society by giving them linguistic tools to obey but not criticise, complain, or disagree,
perpetuating in this way the hierarchical structure of society between dominant classes and
immigrants.
Since the 2008 global economic crisis, critical research on language coursebooks has
been showing a greater interest in themes related to political economy, which include gen-
eral considerations of contemporary capitalism. There is a limited but growing body of
investigation concerned with the impact of capitalism on the content of coursebooks, and
especially with the promotion of neoliberal values. Gray (2010a; 2012) was one of the first
authors to develop a political economy perspective to examine global ELT coursebooks. He
argues that the representation of the world of work in global coursebooks, associated with
mobility, flexibility, freedom of choice, individuality, and the full realisation of the self,
coincides with the values and practices of neoliberalism (Gray 2010a). In another study,
Gray (2012) argues that the neoliberal ideology in global ELT coursebooks is reinforced by
the rising cult of the celebrity. For Gray (2012:87), fame-related content serves to promote
the ‘aspirational content’ which is centred on the following aspects: ‘spectacular personal
126
and professional success, celebrity lifestyles, cosmopolitanism and travel.’ This author
shows how the concept of celebrity has radically changed in the ELT publishing industry
from the 1990s onwards. While well-known characters previously appeared mainly in rela-
tion to their personal success (literary prizes, gold medals) or their character (bravery, dedi-
cation, intelligence), after the 1990s with neoliberal politics ever-more firmly ensconced
in societies around the world, celebrities appear characterised mainly by their wealth or by
their business and professional success stories.
Along these lines of investigation, Babaii and Sheikhi (2018) examine neoliberal traces
in American and British ELT materials used in Iran, such as market mentality, individual-
ism, competition, consumerism, and branding. Elsewhere, Xiong and Yuan (2018) uncover
the neoliberal discourse of one of the most popular ELT series in China. Moving their focus
to recent French-language coursebooks, Block and Gray (2018) examine the ways in which
students are situated as self-branded individuals. In particular, these two authors highlight
that characters presented in the coursebooks embody certain aspects of the main features
of self-branding, such as excitement and competence. Their study concludes by arguing
that narratives around self-branding and self-care, which are aligned with the hegemonic
neoliberal discourse, play a key role in the coursebooks’ content analysed (Block and Gray
2018). In another recent study, Bori (2018) discusses the neoliberal representation of the
world in coursebooks for teaching a non-global language, Catalan, through the promotion
of an entrepreneur and consumer identity among learners.
What all these recent studies have in common is to highlight the different ways in which
neoliberalism finds expression in language coursebooks. They show the relevance of exam-
ining language materials through the analysis of the economic and material basis of society.
More in-depth work in this direction is needed to uncover the ways in which the dominant
economic and political system has penetrated all spheres of our lives, which also include
language education and the content of language coursebooks. In this way, all those involved
in the language teaching and learning process could become more aware of the promotion in
coursebooks of a set of values and practices that is in accordance with neoliberal ideology.
While it has been argued that language teaching should focus on teaching language (Swan
2012), I would claim that it has wider implications. Indeed, the prevailing trend in language
education (and by extension in many language coursebooks as shown by the critical stud-
ies from the political and economic perspective discussed above) is to teach a linguistic
repertoire that enables students to perform practical activities, most of them related to con-
sumerism and self-management. To be clear, language teaching is not at present only about
teaching language, but rather about preparing students to develop certain roles in society,
especially as consumers and self-entrepreneurs.

As indicated above, critical research on representation in language coursebooks could ben-
efit from turning attention from the original focus on identity issues to a more politically
engaged approach centred on the prevailing economic system and its ideological mani-
festations in language materials. As Block et al. (2012:2) argue, we are called to turn to
political economy in our applied linguistics research in order to ground ‘neoliberalism in
the wider economic and political developments of contemporary capitalism’ and to pro-
vide ‘the vital political and economic dimension to issues of social identity, language and
language teaching.’ In this regard, insights from Marxist theory, such as ideology, social
127
Pau Bori
class, commodification, exploitation, and economic inequalities, can bring much to applied
linguistics research, as recent studies have demonstrated. Holborow (2012; 2015), for exam-
ple, has been inspired by a Marxist understanding of ideology to show the ways in which
neoliberal meanings, such as entrepreneur, human capital, and market, have come to domi-
nate the language of social settings previously independent of the economy, as in the case
of higher education. These key words have been promoted in the education field by think
tanks such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with
the purpose of spreading neoliberal ideology (Holborow 2015). Elsewhere, Block (2014)
argues that applied linguistics would benefit from the inclusion of social class as a key con-
struct. It could then allow a better understanding of a wide range of language-related phe-
nomena in sociolinguistics, bilingualism, multilingualism, and second language acquisition
and learning research in the era of neoliberalism. Indeed, Gray and Block (2014) illustrate
the validity of social class as a key construct to examine representation in language course-
books. These authors detect the progressive disappearance of characters, practices, or topics
related to the working class in global ELT coursebooks, which happened at the same time
as neoliberalism was gaining momentum in the 1990s. Similarly, Copley (2018) provides
a comparison between current global ELT coursebooks and earlier materials from the late
1970s. One of the main insights of his study is the sharp contrast between the emphasis on
collective problems and class solidarity in earlier coursebooks and the individualisation that
appears in neoliberal coursebooks today.
In short, while great advances have been made in understanding representation in course-
books in terms of identity, much still remains to be done to link language learning materials
and their representations to the broader social, political, and economic context. What is
needed now therefore is not more sophisticated research on identity representation in lan-
guage coursebooks, but a more profound understanding of the coursebook situated within a
general framework of capitalism. Another issue of concern, particularly to materials devel-
opers, is to conceive alternative language coursebooks which challenge neoliberalism in the
classroom, offering spaces to reflect upon and question widespread neoliberal assumptions.
This is a particularly difficult challenge indeed, especially with neoliberalism as the domi-
nant ideological paradigm in education and in society as a whole, but it is certainly worth
trying. There are no universal recipes or magic solutions to develop these kinds of alterna-
tive language learning materials. However, the focus advocated by critical pedagogy on the
‘relationships between language learning and social change’ (Norton and Toohey 2004:1)
might serve as an inspiration and guide for new materials in the field, which should also
keep in mind the specific realities and traditions of the community at which the materials
are aimed, as education cannot be detached from the specific context in which it is located.

This section aims to illustrate with an example what the turn to political economy in language
materials studies discussed above might look like. The analysis presented here is a small part of
the results of many years of research about the neoliberal content of current Catalan language
coursebooks. A considerable part of this research is explained in a more detailed study which
draws upon a more extensive corpus (Bori 2018). Due to limitations of space, the analysis here
is based on two Catalan language coursebooks and will focus on the representation of housing.
This is one of the topics which frequently appears in coursebooks (together with ‘food and
drink,’ ‘health and body care,’ ‘travel,’ etc.), and is mentioned in the lists of appropriate themes
128
for language courses such as the one in the Threshold Level 1990, reproduced in the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2001).
In order to show the relevance and validity of a political economy approach to analys-
ing representation in coursebooks, the housing-related content will be examined against the
backdrop of the recent political and economic transformations in Spain in this area. In line
with the dominant neoliberal policies around the world, the Spanish state has withdrawn
from the housing sector, which now is organised according to the logic of market-based
competition (Rolnik 2013). Private banks play a key role in the Spanish residential sector,
not only for providing credit to buy a house or to construct buildings but also for getting
involved in the business of selling and renting houses. Furthermore, becoming a homeowner
has become a social ideal in Spain, while renting is often denigrated.
The examination of housing as content in learning materials is especially relevant to the
Catalan context if we bear in mind that Spain had ‘one of the highest boom and bust in the
housing and credit market’ in the world, as explained by the economist scholars Akin et al.
(2014:224). During the first years of this century, the construction of new dwellings in Spain
was higher than the total number of new-builds in France, Germany, and Italy together
(Akin et al. 2014). The economic recession, which started in 2008, meant that thousands of
Spanish families were not able to pay their mortgages due to mass unemployment and were
evicted from their homes. This context is particularly important for the content analysis of a
sample of Catalan language coursebooks from a political and economic perspective which
is discussed here.
With this background in mind, the critical examination was achieved through a detailed
scrutiny of language and visuals in the units dedicated to housing to see to what extent and
how neoliberal values and practices are portrayed in language coursebooks. In the analysis,
I took into consideration the voices of the authors, the comments the characters make, the
experiences and results explained, the activities provided in the textbook, and the visual
material that accompanies the texts. I translated all the direct citations from the course-
books from Catalan to English. The two Catalan coursebooks examined here are Nou Nivell
Elemental (Anguera et al. 2010) (which includes three volumes) and Passos 2 (Roig and
Daranas 2017). Both coursebooks are for a low intermediate level (e.g. the CEFR’s B1 level).
These materials are mainly aimed at foreign adults living in Catalonia. The great majority
of adult learners of the Catalan language are recently arrived immigrants, especially from
South and Central America, according to the data of the main centre for teaching Catalan
to non-Catalan adult speakers, the Consortium for Linguistic Normalization (CPNL 2010).
The unit dedicated to housing in Nou Nivell Elemental appears in the first volume of the
coursebook (Anguera et al. 2010:34–51). From close inspection of the text, it can be noted
that this coursebook presents a type of housing accessible only to the wealthy classes of
society. In one activity, students have to find an ideal home for different people. The real
estate announcements presented in the coursebook include houses and apartments whose
prices go from 300,000 euros up to almost 600,000 euros. Later, there are three dialogues
about buying a house in an exercise to practice Catalan pronouns. In these texts, the prob-
lems of buying a house (such as spending lots of money or taking out a mortgage) are
minimised whilst homeownership is celebrated. In one dialogue, for example, a young
woman explains to her friend that she has just bought an apartment with a mortgage.
Despite the implications of this decision, the young woman says that she did so ‘without
giving it a lot of thought.’ The friend congratulates her and suggests throwing a party to
celebrate the decision. Such comments contrast sharply with the reality for many families
in Spain who in recent years have lost their homes because they were not able to make
129
Pau Bori
their full mortgage repayments. The immigrant population, among the most important
groups of Catalan language learners, was especially affected by the housing crisis and,
in many cases, were evicted from their homes (Human Rights Watch 2014). If textbooks
want to include this kind of content, it would, at the very least, be necessary to present
other perspectives acknowledging, for example, the risks of taking out a mortgage and,
particularly, proposing activities where students could share and reflect upon their own
lived experiences.
The unit also promotes consumer organisations and real estate agencies. It provides two
texts adapted from documents belonging to the Catalan Organisation of Consumers fol-
lowed by reading comprehension questions about the texts. The first one is about the lease
agreement, and the second one explains in great detail the different kinds of real estate
purchase agreements and includes an extensive list of expenses related to selling or buying
a property. It could be argued that teaching this kind of functional language is useful for stu-
dents who want to buy or rent property. However, the case can also be made that this narrow
range of functional language prepares students to develop a consumer role in society rather
than become critical citizens, which is in fact the main goal of education according to criti-
cal pedagogy. Furthermore, by learning richer language which goes beyond these economic
transactions, students interested in renting or buying a property would be equipped to do
so. The coursebook then presents a listening dialogue between an employer of the housing
office and a person who wants to buy a house with a mortgage, where we can listen to con-
cepts such as a `variable-rate mortgage,’ ‘fixed-rate mortgages,’ ‘the differential,’ and ‘the
index the mortgage is tied to.’ Besides being above the language level of the coursebook,
this kind of language is indicative again of the textbook’s emphasis on consumption patterns
that newcomers to Catalonia should manage. Following this, there is a true/false activity
about different types of mortgage and two role-play activities related to buying or renting
property. The coursebook opts to present students with very specialised language related to
the housing market which might not be relevant to their needs, and the accompanying pho-
tograph represents an upper-class reality, which some students may find difficult to identify
with (for example, two elegantly dressed businessmen; a villa with a swimming pool). The
last text of the unit is about whether to buy or to rent a house, with advice from the Catalan
government. It is worth noting that in 2010, the year that this coursebook was published,
thousands of families lost their homes due to evictions, but the unit failed to address the
risks involved in taking out a mortgage.
Passos 2 includes a housing-based unit entitled, ‘Let’s Get Married to the Mortgage’
(Roig and Daranas 2017:89–96). The main character of the unit is Rosa, an immigrant from
Ecuador who wants to buy a house with a mortgage. Before embarking upon the more
complex mortgage issue, the coursebook familiarises learners with the banking system and
everyday banking transactions. One character explains that it is impossible to buy a house
or even clothes and schoolbooks without taking out a loan, echoing the familiar discourse of
neoliberal apologists that maintains that there is no alternative (TINA) to the current politi-
cal and economic system.
The final task requires learners to use the modal, ‘have to,’ to choose an apartment for
Rosa and her boyfriend and decide what kind of mortgage they should get. Learners have to
calculate the monthly mortgage payment for the couple using information about their sal-
ary and interest rates. Unlike Nou Nivell Elemental, in choosing a working-class immigrant
woman as the main character, Passos 2 presents a profile similar to the majority of students
of Catalan as a second language. However, since the activities do not invite learners to
consider Rosa’s background or the housing situation in Spain, an opportunity to develop
130
critical thinking is lost. For example, it would be interesting to discuss the high proportion
of immigrants and low-income homeowners who lost their homes due to mortgage default.
Although the sample size included in this analysis is small, it still illustrates the degree
to which representation in current Catalan language coursebooks aligns with the values and
practices of neoliberalism. Readers interested in a more complete overview of the topics
covered in current Catalan language materials should consult the detailed study mentioned
above (Bori 2018). Both Catalan coursebooks examined here emphasise the commodifi-
cation of housing, especially through the central role of the banks in the residential sec-
tor and the naturalisation of mortgages as the only possible solution for decent housing.
Furthermore, tasks and activities often prepare students for the roles of consumers and bank
customers in Catalan society. My point here is not to discuss whether this kind of content
resembles the reality of many people in Catalonia. What I simply want to show is that the
coursebooks opt to give great importance to homeownership and to the practice of taking
out mortgages and in that way contribute to presenting it as common-sense behaviour in our
societies.
Neoliberalism thus not only exists in macroeconomic politics, but it has infiltrated all
spheres of our contemporary lives, including language coursebooks. In my view, the core
problem with neoliberal content in coursebooks lies in neoliberalism itself which has been
characterised as the imposition of ‘the struggle of all against all’ (Bourdieu 1998). This
view values individual competition, potentially resulting in indifference towards others.
This aligns with Block’s (2017) view that language coursebooks which emphasise a neo-
liberal worldview in their content, without any activity or text which challenges the status
quo, could become accomplices in the expansion of neoliberalism. The position expressed
above acknowledges the agency of teachers and learners, to accept the political messages in
coursebooks, or resist and contest them.
Future directions
Thanks to increased awareness about gender and race equality issues, many teachers and
learners would probably be shocked if most female characters in a coursebook were depicted
doing housework and babysitting, as happened in some language learning materials in the
1970s. Many coursebooks users would also be scandalised to see exclusively white course-
book characters, as was the case in some older language learning materials. However, there
is much less consciousness and sensibility to detect the ways in which language course-
books promote and support the political and economic status quo. That is why there is an
urgent need to develop further research to explain how neoliberalism has filtered into the
content of language coursebooks.
Further high-quality research in this area is needed to analyse coursebooks for teaching
English, since it is the most studied language in the world. Coursebooks for teaching lan-
guages other than English should also be studied in order to explore the ways in which the
economic and political system is featured in language materials from different parts of the
world. It would be very interesting to compare representation in coursebooks for different
languages from a political and economic angle to examine how they deal with a particular
topic. For example, research carried out to date suggests that the neoliberal representation
of the world of work is very similar in coursebooks for teaching different languages such as
English (Gray 2010a), French (Block and Gray 2018), and Catalan (Bori 2018). However,
the neoliberal ideology underpinning house-related content may not be as pronounced in
131
Pau Bori
some language coursebooks as in the Catalan materials discussed above. It would also be
desirable to compare materials from different historical periods to examine how the rep-
resentation of capitalism has evolved over the years, as Gray (2010a) and Copley (2018)
discuss in relation to global ELT coursebooks. Research of that kind might contribute to
raising awareness among all stakeholders in language education about the need to look at
coursebooks through an economic and political prism.
Another area of research that might enrich our understanding of coursebooks could
be examining the economic bases of language policies which can influence the form and
the content of language materials. Focusing on the European context, for example, I have
recently discussed how the main language education projects of the Council of Europe are
conditioned by the prevailing capitalist economy, as they promote an adherence to princi-
ples such as individualism, employability, and flexibility towards market needs (Bori 2018).
This research could be further developed by situating other language and education policies
within their larger political and economic context to examine their impact on the develop-
ment of language learning materials and coursebooks.
Finally, as has been pointed out by Gray (2010a) and Copley (2018), it would be inter-
esting to explore students’ responses to the content of language coursebooks and the ways
in which teachers deal with them in the classroom. Few studies (Canagarajah 1993; Gray
2010b; Taylor-Mendes 2009) have investigated how learners engage with representation in
coursebooks. Classroom observations and interviews with teachers and learners could be
used to uncover the perceptions and responses of coursebook users.
Conclusion
The main motivation of this chapter has been to raise the awareness of researchers, materi-
als developers, publishers, teachers, and teacher educators about political and economic
representations in language learning coursebooks. Those interested in applying criti-
cal approaches in language education could consider the following suggestions. Firstly,
researchers could provide a new angle on critical studies of language learning coursebooks
by focusing on issues related to capitalism within a political economy framework. Secondly,
materials developers and publishers could create coursebooks which encourage critical
thinking, instead of focusing on prevailing neoliberal discourses which promote economic
mobility. And, finally, teachers, as mediators of materials, could play a key role in foster-
ing such critical thinking in the classroom. For example, an easy-to-implement questioning
sequence, even at low levels, would be the ‘but why?’ activity (Wallerstein and Auerbach
2004:40). In this activity, students are presented with a problem from the coursebook and
asked, ‘but why’ until the issue has been fully explored.
It would, of course, be presumptuous to expect that language materials or teachers
alone could challenge well-established power relations in society. This can be achieved
only by changing the very foundation of capitalism and the social relations on which it is
based. However, these times of ever-increasing social and economic inequalities in which
we live urge us to work as much as possible to turn education into a space for hope and
transformation.
Further reading
Babaii, E., and Sheikhi, M., 2018. Traces of neoliberalism in English teaching materials: A critical
discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 15/3:247–264.
132
An excellent and detailed critical discourse analysis of the neoliberal tenets of English language
coursebooks, such as individualism, consumerism, and superficial multiculturalism.
Bori, P. 2018., Language Textbooks in the Era of Neoliberalism. London: Routledge.
In this book, the author attempts to explore current language coursebooks and language education
in light of capitalism today.
Gray, J., 2012. Neoliberalism, celebrity and “aspirational content” in English language teaching
textbooks for the global market. In Block, D., Gray, J. and Holborow, M., eds. Neoliberalism and
Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge.
This was the first book to provide a detailed critique of neoliberalism, whilst offering insights into
how applied linguistic research could be enriched by a turn to political economy. Gray’s chapter is
devoted entirely to English language coursebooks.
Gray, J., ed. 2013. Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
A landmark collection of studies about language teaching materials from different critical perspectives.
Littlejohn, A., 2012. Language teaching materials and the (very) big picture. Electronic Journal of
Foreign Language Teaching, 9/1:283–97.
This paper convincingly argues for the need to focus on the wider social and historical context for
a better understanding of language teaching materials.
Related topics
Culture and materials development, the analysis and evaluation of language teaching mate-
rials, versioning coursebooks.
References
Akin, O., Montalvo, J.G., Villar, J.G., Peydró, J.L. and Raya, J.M., 2014. The real estate and credit
bubble: Evidence from Spain. SERIEs, 5:223–243.
Anguera, X., Roig, M., Tomàs, N. and Verdugo, M., 2010. Nou Nivell elemental 1. Barcelona:
Castellnou.
Apple, M.W., 1979. Ideology and Curriculum. Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Arizpe, V. and Aguirre, B., 1987. Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban ethnic groups in first- year
college-level Spanish textbooks? Modern Language Journal, 71:125–137.
Auerbach, E. and Burgess, D., 1985. The hidden curriculum of survival ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 19/3:
475–495.
Babaii, E., and Sheikhi, M., 2018. Traces of neoliberalism in English teaching materials: A critical
Block, D., 2014. Social Class in Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge.
Block, D., 2017. Neoliberalism, the neoliberal citizen and English language teaching materials: A
critical analysis. Ruta Maestra, 21:4–15.
Block, D. and Gray, J., 2018. French language textbooks as ideologically imbued cultural artefacts:
Political economy, neoliberalism and (self) branding. In Coffey, S. and Wingate, U., eds. New
Directions for Language Learning in the 21st Century. London: Routledge.
Block, D., Gray, J. and Holborow, M., 2012. Neoliberalism and Applied Linguistics. London:
Routledge.
Bori, P. 2018., Language Textbooks in the Era of Neoliberalism. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. 1998., Utopia of endless exploitation: The essence of neoliberalism. Le Monde
Diplomatique, December. Retrieved on 4 October 2019 from http://mondediplo.com/1998/12
/08bourdieu.
Canagarajah, S., 1993. American textbooks and Tamil students: A clash of discourses in the ESL
classroom. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 6/2:143–156.
133
Pau Bori
Chapelle C.A., 2016. Teaching Culture in Introductory Foreign Language Textbooks. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Coffey, S., 2013 Communicating constructions of Frenchness through language coursebooks: A
comparison. In Gray, J., ed. Critical perspectives on language teaching materials. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Copley, K., 2018. Neoliberalism and ELT coursebook content. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies,
15/1:43–62.
Council of Europe, 2001. A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CPNL, 2010. Consorci per a la Normalització Lingüística. Memòria 2010 [Consortium for Linguistic
Normalization. 2010 Report] [Online]. Retrieved on 4 October 2019 from https://www.cpnl.cat/
transparencia/memories.html.
De Castell, S., Luke, A., and Luke, C., eds. 1989. Language, authority, and criticism: Readings on the
school textbook. London: Falmer.
Fraser, N.,1995. From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a “post-socialist” age.
New Left Review, 212:68–93.
Fraser, N., 2009. Feminism, capitalism, and the cunning of history. New Left Review, 56:97–117.
García, M.C.M., 2005. International and intercultural issues in English teaching textbooks: The case
of Spain. Intercultural Education, 16/1:57–68.
Gray, J., 2010a. The branding of English and the culture of the new capitalism: Representations of the
Gray, J., 2010b. The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism and Promotion in the ELT Global
Coursebook. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Gray, J., 2012. Neoliberalism, celebrity and “aspirational content” in English language teaching
textbooks for the global market. In Block, D., Gray, J. and Holborow, M., eds. Neoliberalism and
Gray, J., 2013. LGBT invisibility and heteronormativity in ELT materials. In Gray, J., ed. Critical
Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Gray, J., 2016. ELT materials: Claims, critiques and controversies. In Hall, G., ed. The Routledge
Handbook of English Language Teaching. London: Routledge.
Gray, J. and Block, D., 2014. All middle class now? Evolving representations of the working class in
the neoliberal era: The case of ELT textbooks. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language Teaching
Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Gulliver, T., 2010. Immigrant success stories in ESL textbooks. TESOL Quarterly, 44/4:725–745.
Hall, S., ed. 1997. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage.
Halliday, M.A.K., 1990. New ways of meaning: A challenge to applied linguistics. Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 6:7–36.
Hartman, P.L. and Judd, E.L., 1978. Sexism and TESOL materials. TESOL Quarterly, 12:383–93.
Holborow, M., 2012. Neoliberal keywords and the contradictions of an ideology. In Block, D., Gray, J.
and Holborow, M., eds. Neoliberalism and Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge.
Holborow, M., 2015. Language and Neoliberalism. London: Routledge.
hooks, b., 2000. Where We Stand: Class Matters. London: Routledge.
Human Rights Watch, 2014. Shattered Dreams: Impact of Spain’s Housing Crisis on Vulnerable
Groups. Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 2012. Individual identity, cultural globalization, and teaching English as an
international language. In Alsagoff, L., McKay, S.L., Hu, G., and Renandya, W.A., eds. Principles
and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language. New York: Routledge.
Kuzmanović-Jovanović, A. and Đuričić, M., 2015. Políticas lingüísticas sensibles al género y la
deconstrucción de estereotipos de género en los manuales de ELE [Gender sensitive language
policies and deconstruction of gender stereotypes in textbooks of Spanish as a foreign language].
Verba Hispanica, 23/1:107–25.
Luke, A., 1988. Literacy, Textbooks and Ideology. London: Falmer.
134
Matsuda, A., 2012. Teaching materials in EIL. Principles and practices for teaching English as an
international language. In Alsagoff, L., McKay, S.L., Hu, G., and. Renandya, W.A., eds. Principles
and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language. New York: Routledge.
Michaels, W.B., 2006. The Trouble With Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore
Inequality. New York: Metropolitan Press.
Ndura, E., 2004. ESL and cultural bias: An analysis of elementary through high school textbooks in
the Western United States of America. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 17:143–53.
Norton, B. and Toohey, K., 2004. Critical pedagogies and language learning: An Introduction. In
Norton, B. and Toohey, K., eds. Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning. Cambridge:
Ramirez, A.G. and Hall, J.K., 1990. Language and culture in secondary level Spanish textbooks. The
Modern Language Journal, 74/1:48–65.
Reed, A., 2009. The limits of anti-racism. Left Business Observer [Online]. 121, September. Retrieved
on 4 October 2019 from http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Antiracism.html.
Risager, K., 2018. Representations of the World in Language Textbooks. London: Multilingual Matters.
Roig, N. and Daranas, M., 2017. Passos 2. Llibre de classe. Nivell Elemental. Barcelona: Octaedro.
Rolnik, R., 2013. Late neoliberalism: The financialization of homeownership and housing rights.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37/3:1058–1066.
Schmitz, B., 1975. Sexism in French language textbooks. In Lafayette, R.C., ed. The Cultural
Revolution in Foreign Language Teaching. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.
Shin, J., Eslami, Z. and Chen, W.C., 2011. Presentation of local and international culture in
current international English-language teaching textbooks. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
24/3:253–268.
Swan, M., 2012. Language teaching is teaching language. In Swan, M., ed. Thinking About Language
Teaching: Selected Articles 1982–2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor-Mendes, C., 2009. Construction of racial stereotypes in English as a foreign language (EFL)
textbooks: Images as discourse. In Kubota, R. and Lin, A., eds. Race, Culture, and Identities in
Second Language Education: Exploring Critically Engaged Practice. London: Routledge.
Wallerstein, N. and Auerbach, E., 2004. Problem-posing at Work: Popular Educator’s Guide.
Edmonton: Grass Roots Press.
Williams, R., 1973. Base and superstructure in Marxist cultural theory. New Left Review, 82:3–16.
Xiong, T. and Yuan, Z.M., 2018. "It Was Because I Could Speak English That I Got the Job”:
Neoliberal discourse in a Chinese English textbook series. Journal of Language, Identity &
Education, 17/2:103–117.
135
Part 3
Research and materials
development

10
Research in materials development
What, how, and why?
Nigel Harwood
Introduction
Why do we need to conduct systematic and rigorous research on TESOL textbooks and
materials? In short, because teaching materials are such important teaching and learning
aids in classrooms around the world (Mishan and Timmis 2015). A textbook may con-
stitute the syllabus, and the content of examinations may be based upon the book. It is
therefore important to determine whether the materials in focus are effective pedagogi-
cal instruments, particularly since the quality of TESOL textbooks has been criticised
(e.g. Conrad 2004; Harwood 2005; Lee 2006; Rühlemann 2009), as has the quality of
TESOL textbook research (e.g. Harwood 2010; Tomlinson 2012). One way of differen-
tiating the various approaches to research materials design is by using the framework
of content, consumption, and production (Harwood 2014). Research on materials can
be (1) conducted at the level of the handout or textbook page (content); (2) conducted
by exploring how the materials are used by teachers and their learners (consumption);
and (3) conducted by researching the practices and norms of the textbook industry, or
the ways in which materials writers work and the types of exercises they prioritise in
their worksheets or textbooks (production). To make the differences between these three
approaches clearer for readers less familiar with the field, as well as to introduce more
seasoned readers to work they may be unacquainted with, after a few more introductory
remarks about each of the three approaches, I review strong research-based exemplars
of each type. I close the chapter by presenting further approaches to materials and
textbook study that I hope will be built upon in the next wave of TESOL research. This
exciting body of research features a range of innovative methodological influences.
Some of these studies draw inspiration from the field of mathematics education, which
has a longer-established textbook research tradition than TESOL and is associated with
various robust designs from which we can learn much (see Harwood 2017). While pre-
vious researchers have found fault with TESOL materials and the quality of the studies
assessing their effectiveness (see Hadley and Hadley this volume), then, this chapter
underlines that good work is being done – and there is rich potential for future TESOL
materials research to be systematic, rigorous, and fit for purpose.
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-13 139

Nigel Harwood
Critical issues and topics and implications and challenges for

materials development
Studies of materials content
The most popular type of research commonly evaluates materials by focusing on the sound-
ness of the content. For instance, in Harwood (2014), I distinguished between materials
content studies which focus on language, pragmatics, and culture. The language in focus
could be, say, modal verbs and the extent to which the information and variety of language
taught by the materials align with usage of modal verbs by L1 speakers of English (Hyland
1994); or the type of accents learners are exposed to in textbook listening exercises and the
extent to which these accents represent local, regional, and international spoken varieties of
English (Kopperoinen 2011). Studies of pragmatics focus on speech acts such as complaints
(Boxer and Pickering 1995) and suggestions (Jiang 2006), again evaluating the extent to
which the language these materials teach to perform the speech acts represents real-life
usage. Finally, studies of culture may explore the philosophical messages and values being
transmitted by the materials, and Risager (2018) is an excellent resource for researchers to
appreciate the variety of perspectives and approaches which can be taken to analyse cultural
textbook content (see also Risager this volume). For instance, Gray (2010, 2012) describes
how TESOL textbooks have become more multicultural and cosmopolitan in recent years
– but also more focused on ‘celebrities’ and material wealth (see also Daghigh and Rahim
2020 and Bori this volume). And other materials content studies focusing on culture have
analysed textbooks’ portrayal of citizenship (Risager 2018), homogenisation of ‘foreign’
cultures and diversity (Canale 2016), overt and covert cultural messages (Weninger and
Kiss 2013), social class (Gray and Block 2014), and sex roles (e.g. Sunderland 2000).
Having provided a flavour of the various types of materials content studies being con-
ducted, I now focus in more detail on one study in particular by van Batenburg et al. (2020),
who explored the extent to which the speaking activities in three popular TESOL textbooks
used in schools in the Netherlands help prepare learners for ‘oral interaction in real-life
situations.’ Van Batenburg et al. evaluate the soundness of the materials with reference to
their potential (1) to develop language knowledge; (2) to develop the ability to use language
knowledge; (3) to develop interactional strategies (e.g. to ensure mutual understanding
between the speaker and interlocutor); and (4) to develop the ability to interact in specific
contexts. Similar to previous content analyses of textbook activities (see Harwood 2010,
2014 for a review), the textbooks’ treatment is found wanting and pedagogically impov-
erished. For instance, work on interaction strategies is largely conspicuous by its absence:
the textbooks largely emphasise stand-alone form-focussed tasks rather than integrating the
practice and consolidation of the target language into more complex, realistic spoken inter-
action cycles; and the activities are found to be ‘cognitively and/or linguistically unchal-
lenging.’ Furthermore, ‘the three books offer limited reflection, feedback activities nor
additional instruction and practice’ (van Batenburg et al. 2020:446).
Low-quality content analyses may ‘cherry-pick’ excerpts from textbooks without sys-
tematically evaluating the whole of the material so that readers are unable to ascertain the
representativeness of the small portion of the materials in focus (see Harwood 2010, 2014
for more detailed critiques); in contrast, van Batenburg et al. systematically analyse all of
the speaking activities in the textbooks, and do so using a principled and transparent frame-
work which draws on the second language acquisition (SLA) literature in general and on
SLA research on spoken interaction in particular. Furthermore, the analysis was done care-
fully, as evidenced by their accounts of how the framework was piloted and subsequently
140
modified as a result of piloting, and also of how inter-rater checking was carried out using
three independent raters which resulted in high levels of coder agreement. Yet van Batenburg
et al.’s research, and indeed all content analysis studies, suffers from a number of limitations
because it only focuses on the materials at the level of the printed page, rather than examin-
ing how the materials are enacted in the classroom and received by teachers and learners.
Content analyses are therefore limited to telling us about the potential merits and demerits
of materials. As van Batenburg et al. concede, teachers can skilfully adapt their materials
and textbooks to make them more pedagogically effective (or indeed less accomplished
teachers can make detrimental adaptations to reduce the materials’ worth). Van Batenburg
et al. (2020:447) report that work on spoken interaction strategies is largely absent from the
textbooks; and yet they note that one of the books ‘includes an overview of useful interac-
tion strategies, but learners are not referred to these in the materials.’ Even though learners
may not be referred to these strategies by the textbook, however, a skilful teacher could do
this, adapting the materials so that oral strategy work is to the fore, with the result that the
materials in use would be evaluated much more positively by van Batenburg et al.’s criteria.
Hence, to get a fuller, more valid sense of how effective materials are in situ, rather than
just on the page, we need to study them in context. To accomplish this, we turn to studies of
materials consumption.
Studies of materials consumption

Studies of materials consumption go beyond the page of the handout or textbook to exam-
ine how the materials are used by teachers and learners. One common approach which
focuses on teachers’ patterns of use is to analyse the adaptations teachers make to the mate-
rial with reference to an inventory of adaptation techniques (e.g. inventories by Islam and
Mares 2003 or McDonough and Shaw 2003). Menkabu and Harwood (2014), for instance,
analysed how teachers on a medical English course added, deleted, modified, and reordered
their textbook materials. And Shawer’s (2010) investigation of ten teachers’ use of materials
led him to distinguish between curriculum-makers, who seldom if ever used their textbook;
curriculum-developers, who used their textbook to an extent, but adapted and supplemented
it freely; and curriculum-transmitters, who stuck closely to the textbook script. Studies
of experienced teachers by Grammatosi (2019), Grammatosi and Harwood (2014), Gray
(2010), and Wette (2010, 2011) provide more detailed insights into how and why teachers
may heavily adapt materials they consider culturally or pedagogically inappropriate, insuf-
ficiently or excessively challenging, irrelevant to an exam-driven syllabus, or uninteresting.
Yet another type of consumption research attempts to measure the learning gains
derived from the materials in focus. For instance, researchers can measure the learning
resulting from different types of activities or exercise types, and I now exemplify this
type of study by reviewing two recent pieces of research in detail. Boers et al. (2014,
2017) focus on different exercise formats which teach students collocations and for-
mulaic language. Rather than looking at these activities on the textbook page or on the
teacher’s handout and speculating which will be more beneficial to learners, Boers et al.
(2014, 2017) are consumption studies because they have learners attempt the exercises
and measure the effectiveness of each format by means of learners’ scores on these exer-
cises. Turning to the earlier study first, Boers et al. (2014) justify their focus on verb-
noun collocations (e.g. make a mistake, rather than *do a mistake) by pointing out that
SLA research shows that acquiring collocations can be slow and tortuous, and that even
advanced learners struggle to make gains in this area. Hence materials writers may wish to
141
Nigel Harwood
try to enhance the acquisition process by working on collocations intensively, given that
‘multiple encounters with a verb-noun collocation are likely to be required’ and, without
explicit instruction and focus on the target collocation, ‘the chances of a learner meeting
the same collocation in a relatively short span of time [which would be necessary for suc-
cessful acquisition] are pretty slim’ (Boers et al. 2014:56). The question is, however, what
is the best exercise format to use?
Boers et al. (2014) searched a selection of TESOL textbooks (e.g. Cutting Edge:
Cunningham and Moor 2005), workbooks/vocabulary practice books (e.g. English
Collocations in Use: McCarthy and Dell 2005), and practitioner manuals (e.g. Teaching
Collocation: Lewis 2000) to ensure the exercise formats they tested matched the formats to
be commonly found in TESOL materials. They identified four types, as follows:
(i) the ‘connect’ exercise, requiring learners to match verbs on the left of the page/work-
sheet with the nouns on the right which they collocate with;
(ii) the ‘insert the verb’ exercise, requiring learners to complete gapped sentences with the
appropriate verb collocate;
(iii) the ‘underline the verb’ exercise, requiring learners to complete a sentence by choosing
the correct collocate between various verbs supplied by the materials writer; and
(iv) the ‘insert the collocation’ exercise, presenting learners with a series of intact verb-
noun collocations, requiring them to select the appropriate ones to complete gapped
sentences.
The fundamental difference between types (i)–(iii) and type (iv) is that the latter provides
intact collocations, whereas (i)–(iii) break up the verb and noun components of the colloca-
tions, requiring learners to rebuild them.
Using a pre-/post-test design, Boers et al. (2014) measured the learning gains result-
ing from the different exercise types in four different trials with intermediate-advanced L2
speakers of English studying in New Zealand. In all the trials, the learning gains, regardless
of the exercise type in focus, were very modest (improvements of only 5–10% in post-test
scores) – reinforcing the finding from previous SLA research that the acquisition of verb-
noun collocations is slow. No single exercise type was found to result in superior learning
gains. Although Boers et al. (2014) could not identify a superior exercise type, however,
they obtained firmer evidence that certain exercises could inadvertently do damage: those
exercise types where students are required to choose the correct collocate from a menu of
verbs which includes inappropriate choices. That is, in their pre-tests, some students suc-
cessfully produced correct collocations which they then got wrong later on, using some of
the inappropriate choices which they had been exposed to during the ‘insert the verb’ exer-
cises in their post-test production:
students actually wrote down a wrong verb in a post-test item (e.g., *do a deep breath)
after having done that exercise while their response on the same item in the pre-test
had been correct (take a deep breath). These incorrect verbs were among the options
to choose from in the exercise, which suggests interference from doing that exercise.
(Boers et al. 2014:62)
Boers et al. (2014:67) conclude that type (iv) exercises, where the collocations are retained
intact, may lead to less regression and harm; exercises which present erroneous collocations
‘create inappropriate memory traces that are hard to eradicate.’ It is also noteworthy that
142
many of the materials they surveyed in textbooks and workbooks featured exercises which
could lead to regression.
The main weakness associated with Boers et al. (2014) is the small sample sizes of learn-
ers involved in the trials (some of which only featured ten learners), and in a more recent
study, Boers et al. (2017) feature larger sample sizes and partially replicate the earlier study,
extending the scope of the language in focus to encompass not only collocations but to also
include formulaic language and idioms (e.g. cut corners; call someone’s bluff). This more
recent study also extends the earlier investigation by studying learners’ post-test understand-
ing of the collocations’ meaning, as well as their form, not only requiring learners to pro-
duce the right verb-noun combination in the post-test, but also to provide an L1 translation
of the target phrase. Boers et al. (2017) found that the exercise type which retained colloca-
tions/formulaic language intact was the most beneficial, and in the final part of their article,
Boers et al. combine their study of materials consumption, which tests how well learners do
on various exercises, with analysis of materials content, analysing ten intermediate TESOL
textbooks to determine which kind of exercises appear in the materials. I mention this to
illustrate how studies of materials content, consumption, and production are not mutually
exclusive – researchers can focus their materials analysis at more than one level within a
research project. Boers et al.’s (2017) analysis of the books identified 323 exercises, and
found that around a quarter of the exercises were of the non-intact type rather than present-
ing learners with whole collocations/formulaic sequences, a type which according to the
research evidence is potentially pedagogically damaging.
Studies such as those by Boers et al. (2014, 2017) can therefore provide us with evidence
of strengths and weaknesses of materials by measuring their effectiveness in the classroom,
but in order to appreciate how and why materials writers design their resources in the way
they do, we need to turn to our third and final type of materials research: studies of textbook
production.
Studies of materials production

Studies of materials production can interrogate the process of authoring materials from the
perspective of the writer or, in the case of textbooks, from the perspective of editors and
publishers. So materials writers may provide their rationale for designing materials in a
certain way, and accounts by Evans et al. (2010), Stoller and Robinson (2014), and Tribble
(2010) are illuminating in this regard.
Then there is the type of study which focuses in great detail on materials writers’ pro-
cesses, and this is the focus of my exemplar study for this section. Adopting a longitudi-
nal case study approach, Atkinson (2013; see also Atkinson 2020) focused on the writing
processes of two textbook writers (identified as TW1 and TW2) over an extended period
of time, studying TW1 for about a year, and TW2 for about seven months. The partici-
pants were both experienced textbook writers, teachers, and teacher trainers who trained
other teachers how to use materials. They were deemed to possess textbook writing exper-
tise based not only on their extensive experience and qualifications, but also on colleague
recommendations.
TW1 was writing a textbook as part of a team for special needs students with cognitive
learning disabilities. TW2 was writing a secondary school TESOL textbook for an African
country she had extensive knowledge of. TW1 was unconstrained by any syllabus, but for
TW2, failure to adhere to the national syllabus would have led to her book’s omission from
143
Nigel Harwood
the Ministry of Education’s approved textbook list and non-adoption in schools. Departing
from Johnson’s (2003) research design which studied textbook writing expertise under labo-
ratory conditions, Atkinson wished to study design processes in writers’ natural environ-
ments, in order to explore participants’ ‘normal writing processes’ (Atkinson 2013:124).
She therefore asked writers to think aloud as they wrote and refined their materials over
time as part of their regular routine, TW1 providing nine think alouds and TW2 providing
six. Interviews before and after each think aloud provided further insights into the writers’
processes and motivations behind their design decisions.
Both writers’ design and decision-making processes were highly complex and recursive;
the writers continually reviewed, evaluated, reshaped, and discarded draft activities they
had worked on, sometimes for many hours, TW2 likening textbook writing to ‘completing
a jigsaw puzzle’ (Atkinson 2013:224). Their teaching and writing experience and expertise
enabled the textbook writers to draw upon a wide palette of possible activities for inclusion
in their materials. For instance, here is TW1 brainstorming and evaluating potential activi-
ties and their suitability:
I could get [the learners] to listen to just one dialogue and say what they think the
phrase is in their first language … Or I could get them to match the question and to
ask the teacher and the teacher could do different faces each time … Or I could do a
… matching task with the person’s name and how they feel but it’s difficult to do that
without reading them.
(Atkinson 2013:174–175)
As the above think aloud extract suggests, it is not only a question of considering
whether the menu of activities considered will achieve the writers’ aims, but evaluating
the pedagogic and contextual feasibility of these choices. The excerpt below also illus-
trates this as TW1 ponders the learners’ low level and concludes that a less cognitively
taxing task is in order:
the question is do they need prepositions … in order to do this activity or … can they
just do it with … names of streets? … I’m not sure if the students would be able to cope
with this.
(Atkinson 2013:176)
We also learn about the value of insights provided by piloting the materials from the writers’
accounts. One of the reasons TW1 found the piloting of his textbook units so valuable was
that it helped him ‘to develop a sense of audience for [his] materials’ (Atkinson 2013:194).
The special needs context he was writing for was unfamiliar to him and different from the
contexts for the previous TESOL textbooks he had authored. The teachers piloting TW1’s
materials told him they wanted ‘simpler options and more advanced options,’ given the
very varied abilities of the special needs learners they used the materials with (Atkinson
2013:191). TW1 duly designed much more flexibility into his textbook after receiving this
feedback, providing an ‘inventory of options’ for teachers to choose from as they navi-
gated their way through the materials. Nonetheless, piloting also revealed that too many
options and choices could leave teachers feeling overwhelmed, with some pilotees failing
to appreciate that many of the activities included in the draft textbook units were merely
optional rather than compulsory. And so, in addition to retaining some optional activities,
TW1 ‘includes a “default route”’ for teachers to take (Atkinson 2013:192).
144
Another theme from Atkinson’s study is that of the compromises textbook writers must
make in the face of various commercial and contextual constraints. For instance, TW1
prefers a text-driven approach when designing units, using a lengthy text and its gram-
matical and lexical features to determine the type of language to be foregrounded in the
textbook unit. However, given that some of his target learners have only limited levels of
literacy (even in their L1), TW1’s co-authors and pilotees urge him to adopt a different
approach:
most of the partners work with … the target group … who have got learning disabilities
and they said that … you can’t rely on them being able to read even in their own … first
language so … you can’t include big reading long reading texts.
(Atkinson 2013:202)
TW1 frequently justifies this and other compromises he feels obliged to make by explaining
how his fellow writers and pilotee teachers ‘know the students better than I do’ (Atkinson
2013:202):
when you’re not writing activities for yourself you’re writing them for other people …
you have to respect … what they think.
(Atkinson 2013:203)
For her part, TW2 faced the constraint, explained above, of being obliged to adhere to the
national syllabus. TW2 is aware, for instance, that there has to be some content on AIDS
in her book for it to be approved. And not only does she duly include a unit on AIDS, she
moves it near the front of the book to underline her adherence to the syllabus. At other times,
however, TW2 tries to push against the conservatism of the Ministry’s preferred textbook
content. In the example below, she attempts to include a mention of dating in a fluency
activity, envisaging that this is a subject that the target teenage learners would genuinely
wish to talk about:
what I’m going to do is to give a situation and ask them to give advice to their partner
… Could do … a boring one about wanting to study and get a university degree but that
is rather boring … We could have a slightly risqué one of a … boy or a girl wanting to
go out with somebody they’ve seen … I’ll put it down just for fun and see how it goes
down with editors … That’ll probably come back in my face. You can’t do that … but
… I know what … form fours are thinking about most of the time … And it introduces
some kind of down to earth normal language.
(Atkinson 2013:265–266)
It is noteworthy from the excerpt above that TW2 is not only constrained by Ministry guide-
lines, but by her editors and how they interpret the Ministry guidelines, as established by
Atkinson in her follow-up interview:
why do you think … your editor would object to the … have a date … question in the
giving advice section?
TW2: … I think what they will be thinking about is whether that would pass through the
[Ministry] … and they … might say … take that out we don’t want them criticizing. But
145
Nigel Harwood
I’m thinking of the kids and thinking … that would probably interest them and make
them want to speak.
(Atkinson 2013:266)
Other constraints TW2 must accommodate include the need to include exam practice
regularly (despite ideally wishing to avoid doing so), and conforming to the publisher’s
length and layout specifications. Like TW1, TW2 must ensure her pedagogic approach
aligns closely enough to that of her teacher audience; she explains that if this principle is
violated, her book would likely not be well received:
you’ve always got to be careful that what you’re writing will be accepted in [African
country] you’re not using activities that is too way out … for a very formal school
situation … it’s very much a teacher centered … learning situation … and so if you do
things that teachers don’t agree with … they won’t use them … you’ve always got to
be thinking of the actual classroom situation … as you write. Is this activity doable and
acceptable to both teachers and pupils.
(Atkinson 2013:278)
Atkinson’s study, like other accounts such as Hadfield (2014) and Johnson (2003), pro-
vides us with insights into the complexities, constraints, and frustrations – as well as the
joys – of writing materials for commercial purposes. However, there are also grounds for
concern which emerge from these accounts, such as the constraints textbook publishers put
upon the careful piloting of materials (see Amrani 2011; Singapore Wala 2003). In Bell and
Gower’s (2011) account, for instance, we learn how the authors were obliged to cut many
practice activities from their books because of space constraints and were able to conduct
less piloting than they would have wished for due to the publishing schedule. Also, Mares
(2003) describes how he was required by publishers to order his textbook grammar syl-
labus in a similar manner to competing textbooks for commercial rather than pedagogical
reasons. And Feak and Swales (2014) describe the (occasionally fraught) negotiations with
their publisher when revising two of their textbooks. While there is an anecdotal flavour to
most of these accounts, they lead us to question certain norms and practices in the textbook
industry which have the potential to reduce the pedagogical effectiveness of the materials.
Having provided an overview of the three types of research on materials – content, con-
sumption, and production – I next present examples of innovative research not only from
TESOL but also from research on textbooks in mathematics teaching, a field associated with
some exemplary research designs, to provide an agenda for future work on materials and
textbooks.
Recommendations for practice and future directions

Investigating teachers’ textbook fidelity
Research on textbook fidelity investigates the degree to which the teacher adheres to a text-
book’s instructional philosophy and to individual activities; do teachers stick closely to the
materials or do they make small/large adaptations? Clearly if one wishes to investigate fidel-
ity, to establish a valid research design, lesson observations are needed (as opposed to the
much less methodologically satisfactory method of relying upon teachers’ after-the-event
accounts of how they used the materials via, for instance, questionnaires or interviews).
146
I discussed several TESOL studies of teachers’ adaptations above (e.g. Grammatosi and
Harwood 2014; Menkabu and Harwood 2014; Shawer 2010). However, drawing upon
mathematics research can equip TESOL researchers with potentially powerful observation
instruments to strengthen their work. For instance, Tarr et al. (2012) feature an example
of a classroom observation instrument which measures fidelity; and another very useful
source for fidelity observation instruments is Huntley (2009, 2012). These instruments are
quantitative, in that they measure the extent to which the teacher adheres to or departs from
various design features associated with the materials, and the teacher’s level of compliance
with or deviation from the textbook writer’s intended use of the activity as practised in the
classroom. But it is possible for TESOL researchers to reconfigure them as mixed-methods
instruments, additionally recording the observer’s qualitative impressions of the class and
the teacher’s materials use. Karim (2020) features a strong example of this approach. Karim
studied the extent to which Pakistani teachers of English adhered to their textbooks and
to the Ministry of Education guidelines regarding approaches and methods to teaching.
Inspired by Huntley, Karim drew up quantitative classroom observation schedules to meas-
ure teachers’ fidelity to the textbooks and the Ministry guidelines, but also audio- and video-
recorded the lessons he observed so that, post-observation, he was able to view and listen to
the lesson again and to record supplementary qualitative observation notes which provided a
richer account of the teachers’ fidelity to their resources and guidelines. In the same vein as
Karim, then, future TESOL researchers could explore whether, for instance, if a teacher was
using a TBLT textbook, a TBLT approach actually featured in class; and researchers could
determine whether and to what extent activities were omitted, added, or changed with refer-
ence to the textbook’s instructions. By complementing the observation data with a method
to get teachers to explain their justifications for fidelity/infidelity to the materials, such as
post-observation interviews, researchers could also explore the teachers’ rationale for their
patterns of materials use.
Evaluating the effectiveness of teachers’ use of materials

Many fidelity studies however only take us so far, in that they often don’t explore whether
the materials or the teachers teaching them are effective; hence there is a need for evalua-
tive studies of textbook consumption. The difficulty of doing so though cannot be denied:
how exactly are researchers to determine what constitutes effective and successful materials
consumption by the teacher? Take, for instance, a case where the observer notices that a
teacher departs from the textbook script in an unplanned manner by shortening, simplifying,
or abandoning an activity because learners are finding the materials too difficult. The class-
room observation instrument may highlight the teacher’s lack of fidelity; but the teacher’s
approach may be highly effective pedagogically and result in learning gains – more effective
than a teacher who exhibits higher levels of fidelity and who perseveres (fruitlessly) with
overly challenging materials. In previous work on textbook consumption (Grammatosi and
Harwood 2014), then, we limited ourselves to description rather than to evaluation in terms
of understanding teachers’ textbook use. Some mathematics textbook research is more
straightforwardly evaluative, however, and similar approaches could be taken in TESOL.
For instance, Leshota and Adler (2018) and Kim (2018) both have an evaluative bent and
are discussed in more detail below.
Leshota and Adler (2018) attempt to evaluate the quality of a teacher’s textbook adapta-
tions to ascertain her ability to exploit materials effectively. In other words, the researchers
147
Nigel Harwood
evaluate the teacher’s pedagogical design capacity (PDC; for more on this concept, see
Brown 2009). The study is set in South Africa and focuses by means of lesson observations
and an interview with a mathematics teacher, Mpho. During their observations of Mpho,
Leshota and Adler measured her fidelity to the textbook and evaluated the additions of sup-
plementary material and omissions from the textbook made by Mpho as robust or distrac-
tive injections and as productive or critical omissions.
For her part, Kim (2018) studied experienced mathematics teachers in the US using three
different textbooks. Two of the textbooks took a more traditional pedagogical approach to
the teaching of mathematics, whereas the third took a more innovative approach, featuring
pair and group work, and also whole-class discussions. All of the 11 teachers in Kim’s study
were accustomed to their textbooks, in that they had been using them for at least 2 years
before the research began. Like Leshota and Adler, Kim used classroom observations and
teacher interviews to ascertain the degree of textbook fidelity adhered to by the teachers
and to evaluate their adaptations. Using a different evaluative framework from Leshota and
Adler, however, Kim determined whether the teachers’ enactment of the textbook material
enhanced, maintained, or reduced student learning opportunities in comparison with the
lesson as envisaged by the textbooks’ authors. Focusing on two teachers as case studies,
Kim found that both teachers made extensive adaptations, but that these adaptations were
frequently unsuccessful and pedagogically ineffective, despite the teachers’ considerable
classroom experience. Kim aptly concludes her piece by stressing the need for continual
training and development for teachers to enable them to ‘reason with resources’ effectively
– that is, to enhance teachers’ ability to use materials and ‘help them build a capacity to
enact lessons productively’ (Kim 2018:337). On the other hand, Kim also found that in some
parts of the textbooks, the textbook authors did not always articulate how the materials were
supposed to work and the aims behind them as clearly as they should have; hence, teach-
ers’ misinterpretation of some of the materials was not entirely unsurprising, and there are
also implications for materials writers and publishers here, reminding them of the need for
explicitness and transparency for users of their resources.
Using the lesson study approach to facilitate teachers’ professional

development as materials designers and consumers
A number of well-executed studies in mathematics education (e.g. Borko and Livingston
1989; Lloyd 2008) study trainee or novice teachers’ use of the textbook, and some of these
studies find trainees using textbooks mechanically and conclude that novice teachers have
not been adequately trained to adapt their books appropriately; others study trainees or nov-
ice teachers who are more accomplished in their command of the materials. What is the
situation in TESOL? Like Kim, McGrath (2013) believes training in textbook use is largely
inadequate, and this issue needs exploration via rigorous research.
If indeed future studies conclude that McGrath is right, and that much more emphasis in
both pre- and in-service TESOL education needs to be placed on acquiring skills in using
materials, the lesson study approach offers potential for continual professional develop-
ment. Originating in Japanese mainstream education, the lesson study approach had until
recently been overlooked by TESOL teachers and researchers, but has now begun to attract
attention, as evidenced in a recent article by Arslan (2019). Arslan explains the fundamen-
tals of the approach as involving teachers working together to improve their own and their
colleagues’ practice. A teacher’s colleagues will observe his/her lesson; then the team will
148
reflect upon how the lesson went in relation to the teacher’s lesson goals, and collectively
redesign and re-teach the modified lesson. Arslan described how she implemented a les-
son study approach on a pre-service TESOL teacher training programme in Turkey, report-
ing that it led to teachers’ professional growth as they watched videotapes of their lessons
and received input from mentors and fellow trainees who were also watching their lesson.
Especially germane to our discussion of materials development is the fact that the teach-
ers’ colleagues made suggestions as to how each other’s materials could be improved. And
rather than the lesson study approach being a one-shot means of input, it can be an ongoing
process which ensures experienced and inexperienced teachers alike engage in a sustained
period of reflection about their use of their own and others’ materials, and expand their
knowledge and design repertoire of different materials and task types as part of an ongoing
programme of professional development.
Investigating the processes of materials development, publishing,

and consumption
I have previously called for ethnographic research into textbook consumption and pro-
duction (Harwood 2010). In other words, as Apple (1984:319) put it, research tracing a
textbook’s ‘writing to its selling (and then to its use).’ Such research would include input
from publishers and textbook writers which would shed light on the design process of com-
mercially produced materials and on the intended effect of the materials, also featuring
data from teachers and students as they consume the materials, to explore the extent to
which publishers’ and materials writers’ intentions match the actual textbook consumption.
Atkinson’s (2013) research reviewed above is clearly a valuable contribution to this strand
of research, and there are some additional accounts available reviewed earlier which shed
light on textbook production from the perspectives of TESOL textbook publishers, and
from the perspective of textbook writers. However, compared with the far greater volume
of research available on materials content in particular, there is still a need for additional,
methodologically strong accounts which describe Apple’s writing-selling-use trajectory –
particularly as most accounts of textbook design stop once the writers have produced their
materials and textbooks and do not investigate how their materials are consumed by stu-
dents and teachers.
In this regard, a recent doctoral thesis by Gok (2019; see also Gok this volume) is worth
highlighting. Gok studied the production and consumption of a locally published young
learner textbook series curated for a Turkish chain of private schools. Unlike some other
accounts by textbook authors which reported various constraints imposed upon them regard-
ing the content and structure of their textbook (Atkinson 2013; Bell and Gower 2011; Mares
2003; Timmis 2014), Gok’s textbook writers were given a great deal of freedom to design
the book series according to the pedagogical principles they believed in. In contrast to the
unimpressive amount of piloting publishers may allow (see Amrani 2011; Singapore Wala
2003), the textbook writers in Gok’s study conducted an extensive series of observations in
Turkish schools around the country as they were planning and producing drafts of the mate-
rials. They also elicited feedback from the teachers about the kind of textbook they wanted,
and observed their classes. The textbook authors were not familiar with the Turkish context
or the state education system, and some of the feedback from teachers at an early stage of
development was invaluable in this regard. For instance, when they saw a draft syllabus, the
Turkish teachers pointed out that trying to incorporate multiplication in the early units of
149
Nigel Harwood
the textbook was inappropriate as the students wouldn’t even have covered multiplication
in Turkish in their L1 schooling by that stage.
Despite their careful planning, however, it is clear the textbook writers faced a very dif-
ficult job: although the teachers were generally positive about the book series, it was very
difficult for the textbook authors to satisfy everyone. There were a number of areas where
teachers evaluated aspects of the book negatively, and sometimes this was because the
teachers didn’t accept the textbook writers’ principles about how English should be taught.
The textbook writers wanted the children to enjoy the stories in the book but not to work on
the language structures. The textbook authors explained to the teachers:
Just let your students enjoy the stories and learn the dialogues as chunks of language as
children learn in L1 … When you come to teach the structures in later years, they will
remember them from the stories and then it will be easier for them to learn them. At this
stage you are just laying the foundations for learning in later years.
(Gok 2019:132)
Nevertheless, some teachers wanted to work on the language structures as they were con-
cerned that there was language in the stories the children did not understand. It is to be
hoped that additional studies in the style of Gok’s work will further help to demystify and
provide constructive suggestions for enhancing the process of materials design, publication,
and consumption to the benefit of all parties involved in the process.
Studying learner-generated materials

I end this section with a highly unusual, innovative study which focuses on learners as the
producers and consumers of materials. To date, the vast majority of materials and textbook
consumption research involving the users of materials has of course focused on teachers
rather than learners (e.g. Grammatosi and Harwood 2014; Menkabu and Harwood 2014);
and so research which focuses squarely on the learners is very welcome (see Choi and
Nunan this volume). Alhajimohammed’s (2019) doctoral thesis focuses on learner-gen-
erated materials at a Saudi university operating a distance learning programme, in which
learners watch online lectures and are assigned textbook materials and exercises for self-
study in English. The lecturers’ ‘official’ materials were found to be largely inadequate by
the learners, who therefore produced their own materials which they shared with each other
via online fora. Alhajimohammed analysed fora threads and conducted interviews with
these learner materials writers and their classmates who used the materials to explore why
the learner-generated materials were so popular, finding that the learners judged each other’s
materials to be motivating, exam-relevant, and level-appropriate in comparison with the
lecturers’ materials. Whereas lecturers’ materials were seen as unstimulating and to some
extent extraneous to the content of the upcoming exams, learner material writers, who were
either current or former students, had a keen sense of the kinds of practice and guidance
their peers wished for. Further studies in this style would provide teachers, materials writ-
ers, and publishers with insightful data about learners’ preferences with regard to materials.
Conclusion
The amount of research on TESOL materials and textbooks has risen sharply since volumes
appeared by Cunningsworth (1984, 1995), McGrath (2002), and Tomlinson (1998), and it
150
could be argued that the field is currently in rude health. Furthermore, the content, consump-
tion, and production distinction provides future researchers with a framework and an agenda
for methodologically rigorous empirical research in the field. Nevertheless, there are various
criticisms we can level at some current TESOL materials research. Firstly, studies of textbook
content continue to dominate, with the associated shortcomings research of this type suffers
from described above. And many studies of materials and textbooks are associated with other
methodological weaknesses: many textbook evaluations rely on questionnaires which ask
teachers and students vague and general questions about the materials they used long after
the fact. And many more qualitatively focused studies are extremely selective in the materials
they analyse from their dataset, leading to concerns about the validity of their conclusions.
Furthermore, there remains a tendency in the field to read only the research being done by
other TESOL researchers, rather than becoming acquainted with the methodologically supe-
rior work being done in mathematics education from which we can learn much and adopt and
adapt their research designs to drive the field of TESOL materials research forward.
Finally, however sound and rigorous our research, to make a real impact on the lives of
practitioners and their learners, the findings need to be properly disseminated and heeded.
Teacher training programmes need to make research on using materials an integral part of
pre- and in-service training; and materials writers and publishers need to pay proper atten-
tion to the warnings (e.g. relating to the lack of systematic piloting and testing of textbooks
described earlier in this chapter; see also Harwood 2014; Masuhara 2011) about the way
their products are produced.
Further reading
Harwood, N., ed. 2014 English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
This volume introduces the content/consumption/production framework outlined in the current
chapter, and features research-driven accounts of each type of approach by international researchers
in the field.
London: Bloomsbury.
This volume provides a detailed survey of research in the field, including in-depth accounts of
work on textbook evaluation and adaptation.
Press.
This is a highly readable and useful overview of the field of TESOL materials, and is also a resource
for activities for teaching language and skills in the TESOL classroom.
Remillard, J.T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B.A., and Lloyd, G.M., eds. Mathematics Teachers at Work:
Connecting Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction. New York: Routledge.
This is a landmark volume of textbook consumption research from the field of mathematics
education which TESOL researchers can learn much from.
Tomlinson, B., 2012. Materials development for language teaching and learning. Language Teaching,
45/2:143–179.
This is a state-of-the-art piece on materials development by one of the best-known figures in the field.
Related topics
The discipline of materials development, theory and practice in materials development,
using research to inform materials development.
151
Nigel Harwood
References
Alhajimohammed, M., 2019. The role of learner-generated materials in an online EFL context:
An exploration of the links between emotions, L2 motivation, learner autonomy and emotional
intelligence. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield.
Amrani, F., 2011. The process of evaluation: A publisher’s view. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
Apple, M.W., 1984. The political economy of text publishing. Educational Theory, 34/4:307–319.
Arslan, F.Y., 2019. The role of lesson study in teacher learning and professional development of EFL
teachers in Turkey: A case study. TESOL Journal, 10/2:1–13.
Atkinson, D., 2013. Expertise in ELT textbook writing. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Lancaster.
Atkinson, D., 2020. Engaging in textbook writing as deliberate practice: How two expert ELT textbook
writers use metacognitive strategies while working to sustain periods of deliberate practice. Journal
of Writing Research, 11/3:477–504.
Atkinson, D., 2020. The adaptive expertise of expert ELT textbook writers. RELC Journal. s:O//dIo:
i1.o0r.g1/107.171/0770/303063386882812918989933119
University Press.
Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., Coxhead, A., and Webb, S., 2014. Gauging the effects of exercises on
verb-noun collocations. Language Teaching Research, 18/1:54–74.
Boers, F., Dang, T.C.T., and Strong, B., 2017. Comparing the effectiveness of phrase-focused
exercises: A partial replication of Boers, Demecheleer, Coxhead, and Webb (2014). Language
Teaching Research, 21/3:362–380.
Borko, H. and Livingston, C., 1989. Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics
instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26/4:473–498.
Boxer, D. and Pickering, L., 1995. Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The
case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49/1:44–58.
Brown, M.W., 2009. The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum
materials. In Remillard, J.T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B.A., and Lloyd, G.M., eds. Mathematics Teachers
at Work: Connecting Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction. New York: Routledge.
Canale, G., 2016., (Re)Searching culture in foreign language textbooks, or the politics of hide and
seek. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29/2:225–243.
Conrad, S., 2004. Corpus linguistics, language variation, and language teaching. In Sinclair, J.McH.,
ed. How To Use Corpora in Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cunningham, S. and Moor, P., 2005. New Cutting Edge Student’s Book. Harlow: Pearson.
Cunningsworth, A., 1984. Evaluating and Selecting EFL Teaching Materials. London: Heinemann.
Cunningsworth, A., 1995. Choosing Your Coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.
Daghigh, A.J. and Rahim, H.A., 2021. Neoliberalism in ELT textbooks: An analysis of locally
developed and imported textbooks used in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 29/3:493–512.
Evans, N.W, Hartshorn, K.J. and Anderson, N.J., 2010. A principled approach to content-based
materials development for reading. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language Teaching Materials:
Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Feak, C.B. and Swales, J.M., 2014. Tensions between the old and the new in EAP textbook revision:
A tale of two projects. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content,
Gok, S.O., 2019. How are materials actually used in classrooms? Towards a systematic evaluation
of a locally published coursebook series for young learners in Turkey. Unpublished PhD thesis,
Grammatosi, F., 2019. Teachers and coursebook use: The role of the coursebook and its implications
for materials development and teacher training. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Essex.
152
Grammatosi, F. and Harwood, N., 2014. An experienced teacher’s use of the textbook on an academic
English course: A case study. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content,
Gray, J., 2010. The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism and Promotion in the ELT Global
Gray, J., 2012. Neoliberalism, celebrity and ‘aspirational content’: In English language teaching
materials for the global market. In Block, D., Gray, J., and Holborow, M., eds. Neoliberalism and
Applied Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hadfield, J., 2014. Chaosmos: Spontaneity and order in the materials design process. In Harwood,
N., ed. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Harwood, N., 2005. What do we want EAP teaching materials for? Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 4/2:149–161.
Harwood, N., 2010. Issues in materials development and design. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language
Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harwood, N., 2014. Content, consumption, and production: Three levels of textbook research. In
Harwood, N., ed. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production.
Harwood, N., 2017. What can we learn from mainstream education textbook research? RELC Journal,
48/2:264–277.
Huntley, M.A., 2009. Measuring curriculum implementation. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 40/4:355–362.
Huntley, M.A., 2012. Using concerns-based adoption model theory to develop tools to examine
variations in mathematics textbook implementation. In Heck, D.J., Chval, K.B., Weiss, I.R., and
Ziebarth, S.W., eds. Approaches to Studying the Enacted Mathematics Curriculum. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Hyland, K., 1994. Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes,
13/3:239–256.
Islam, C. and Mares, C., 2003. Adapting classroom materials. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing
Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum.
Jiang, X., 2006. Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System, 34/1:36–54.
Johnson, K., 2003. Designing Language Teaching Tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Karim, S., 2020. An investigation of matches and mismatches between pedagogic policy and practice:
An English language education programme evaluation in Pakistan. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Sheffield.
Kim, O.-K., 2018. Teacher decisions on lesson sequence and their impact on opportunities for students
to learn. In Fan, L., Trouche, L., Qi, C., and Visnovska, J., eds. Research on Mathematics Textbooks
and Teachers’ Resources: Advances and Issues. Cham: Springer..
Kopperoinen, A., 2011. Accents of English as a lingua franca: A study of Finnish textbooks.
Lee, J., 2006. Subjective were and indicative was: A corpus analysis of English language teachers and
textbook writers. Language Teaching Research, 10/1:80–93.
Leshota, M. and Adler, J., 2018. Disaggregating a mathematics teacher’s pedagogical design capacity.
In Fan, L., Trouche, L., Qi, C. and Visnovska, J. eds. Research on Mathematics Textbooks and
Teachers’ Resources: Advances and Issues. Cham: Springer.
Lewis, M., 2000. Teaching Collocation. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lloyd, G.M., 2008. Curriculum use while learning to teach: One student teacher’s appropriation of
mathematics curriculum materials. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39/1:63–94.
Learning. London: Continuum.
153
Nigel Harwood
Masuhara, H., 2011. What do teachers really want from coursebooks? In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
McCarthy, M. and Dell, F., 2005. English Collocations in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McDonough, J. and Shaw, C., 2003. Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide. London:
Blackwell.
University Press.
London: Bloomsbury.
Menkabu, A. and Harwood, N., 2014. Teachers’ conceptualization and use of the textbook on a
medical English course. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content,
Press.
Remillard, J.T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B.A., and Lloyd, G.M., eds. Mathematics Teachers at Work:
Connecting Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction. New York: Routledge.
Rühlemann, C., 2009. Discourse presentation in EFL textbooks: A BNC-based study. In Renouf, A.
and Kehoe, A., eds. Corpus linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Shawer, S.F., 2010. Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers,
curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26/2:173–184.
Singapore Wala, D.A., 2003. Publishing a coursebook: Completing the materials development circle.
In Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum.
Stoller, F. and Robinson, M., 2014. An interdisciplinary textbook project: Charting the paths taken.
Sunderland, J., 2000. New understandings of gender and language classroom research: Texts, teacher
talk and student talk. Language Teaching Research, 4/2:149–173.
Tarr, J.E., McNaught, M.D, and Grouws, D.A., 2012. The development of multiple measures of
curriculum implementation in secondary mathematics classrooms: Insights from a 3-year curriculum
evaluation study. In Heck, D.J., Chval, K.B., Weiss, I.R., and Ziebarth, S.W., eds. Approaches to
Studying the Enacted Mathematics Curriculum. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing..
Palgrave Macmillan.
Tomlinson, B., 1998. Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tomlinson, B., 2012. Materials development for language teaching and learning. Language Teaching,
45/2:143–179.
Tribble, C., 2010. A genre-based approach to developing materials for writing. In Harwood, N., ed.
English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
van Batenburg, E.S.L., Oostdam, R.J., van Gelderen, A.J.S., Fukkink, R.G., and de Jong, N.H., 2020.
Evaluating opportunities in Dutch EFL course books for developing pre-vocational learners’ oral
interactional ability. Language Teaching Research, 24/4:434–455.
Weninger, C. and Kiss, T., 2013. Culture in English as a foreign language (EFL) textbooks: A semiotic
approach. TESOL Quarterly, 47/4:694–716.
Wette, R., 2010. Professional knowledge in action: How experienced ESOL teachers respond to
feedback from learners within syllabus and contextual constraints. System, 38/4:569–579.
Wette, R., 2011. Meeting curriculum, learning and settlement needs: Teachers’ use of materials in
courses for adult migrants. TESOL in Context, 21/1:59–77.
154
11
Using research to inform materials
development
Introduction
In some circles of applied linguistics, materials development research has an image problem.
It is portrayed as ‘something of a “black art”’ (Low 1989:153), ‘fundamentally a subjective,
rule-of-thumb activity’ (Sheldon 1988:245), and limited by the idiosyncrasies of language
teachers (Masuhara and Tomlinson 2008:23; Widdowson 1990:30). Some researchers, such
as Samuda (2005:232), have framed the whole enterprise of materials development as ‘an
essentially atheoretical activity, and thus unrewarding as an area of research.’ A number
of scholars (McGrath 2002; Reinders and White 2010; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2010)
have noted the relative scarcity of experimental studies into the effects of second language
teaching materials, especially those which seek to better inform and enhance materials
development.
Scholars over the past few years have taken up the challenge of Samuda’s posi-
tion and have called for more research into materials development (Garton and Graves
2014; Harwood 2010, 2014; McDonough et al. 2013; Richards 2001; Tomlinson 2011;
Tomlinson and Masuhara 2010). This in turn has resulted in a first flush of new studies
seeking to both explore and improve the nature of second language teaching materials
(Bahumaid 2008; Bao 2018; Maryam et al. 2016; Tatsukawa 2018). However, many of
these still focus more on evaluation than on focused empirical approaches, which we
believe have greater potential for the broad-based improvement of second language
teaching materials.
In this chapter, we respond to these issues, first by surveying the current nature
of evaluative materials development research, and then by contextualising the current
problem by considering some of the possible reasons why materials development has
been, when compared with other aspects of applied linguistics, an understudied area.
We will then present a three-year longitudinal project that took a data-driven learning
approach (Johns 1991, 1994) and used in-house materials which were developed for an
extensive reading programme at a Japanese national university. We then conclude with
the implications of the study and consider the value of this type of materials develop-
ment research for applied linguistics.
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-14 155


Our understanding of ‘materials,’ as they relate to second language education, draws upon
Harwood (2010) and is more focused in scope than Tomlinson (2012). It refers not only to
paper documents (published and in-house), but also to video, audio, computer programmes,
and to online materials. This understanding of materials, we believe, better reflects the reali-
ties taking place in many language classrooms around the world.
As we have suggested earlier, while there is quite an extensive literature on research
and materials development, there is regrettably little empirical evidence of the effects that
these materials have on the end-users (Tomlinson and Masuhara 2010). Research into the
effects of materials, and how they can be better utilised in the classroom, while relatively
sparse, does however exist, and we have divided it into two basic groups: observational and
experimental studies.
Observational studies posit the materials as the locus of inquiry. They often use check-
lists for assessing whether the materials are addressing the concerns that are important to the
teachers and learners. Also through learner interviews and through questionnaires, observa-
tional studies analyse many features of materials to determine whether they are appropriate
for the learners within their particular cultural context. How they are actually used by the
teachers and learners is also an area of interest. Experimental studies also focus on the util-
ity of the materials but seek to measure their effectiveness as a language learning resource.
Observational studies may draw upon one or more checklists created by researchers (e.g.
Littlejohn 2011; Richards 2001; Tomlinson 2010). These checklists are frequently modified
to better fit the particular concerns of individual teaching contexts. The evaluation criteria
included can be political as well as pedagogical, as in the case of Gray (2002, 2010) and
Gray and Block (2014), who critically assess global coursebooks (see Bori this volume) to
highlight their collusion in global capitalist expansion and reveal how they equip learners
with the language they need to become consumers. Ideas for materials adaptation stemming
from these observational studies typically take the form of general suggestions for creating
supplementary activities.
Observational studies can also provide insights into materials teachers have created for
their own classrooms (Calvert and Sheen 2014; Lai et al. 2016; Sanprasert 2010). Evaluation
and subsequent adaptations can be based upon questionnaires, interviews, and classroom
observations. An example of this approach can be found in Pryor (2010), who used both
observations and questionnaires to uncover what learners both liked and felt was useful
about the in-house teaching materials they were using.
Experimental studies evaluate the learning outcomes of materials by using statistical
measures and usually have a pre-test-post-test design (Guilloteaux 2013; Luo 2016; Nitta
and Gardner 2005). One example of this can be seen in Hadley (2013) who conducted a
six-year investigation of the textbook Interchange Third Edition: Full Contact (Richards
et al. 2005), with around 700 Japanese university students. Two-tail t-tests of the paired
means of the learners’ pre-test and post-test scores were conducted every year for six years,
and found, at the 99% level of statistical probability, that the means of the post-tests were
significantly higher than those of the pre-test at the beginning of each year, with large to
medium effect sizes.
Materials development research using an experimental design can investigate the effi-
cacy of materials created for specific classes or institutions, and often employs control
groups. Examples of such studies can be seen in Fitzgerald et al. (2017), who used control
and experimental groups to study the effects of data-driven materials on a university-wide
156
Research to inform materials development
shared platform for the in-house creation of and free sharing of language learning materials,
known as a Digital Commons; Chang et al. (2017), who investigated mobile instructional
games for second language learning; and Mazloomi and Khabiri (2018), who found positive
effects on their students’ second language writing proficiency in English as a result of using
their self-assessment materials.
Our survey of the literature leads us to agree with Tomlinson (2012), who notes that most
materials development research tends to be observational. This is in no way intended to den-
igrate such research, because much can be learned through observation, especially in raising
awareness of aspects of the materials that teachers and learners might not otherwise have
noticed. Nevertheless, on their own, observational and survey-based studies can be subjec-
tive, because they rely upon the researchers’ judgement about what is important. Students
answer questionnaires crafted according to the interests of the teacher-researcher, which
may inadvertently overlook important issues. In addition, students may provide responses
to please their teachers. None of these problems is insurmountable, but an overemphasis on
subjective feelings, pedagogic preferences, and/or political concerns, while helpful, is insuf-
ficient on its own. Tomlinson (2012:146) argues:
I would like to read publications reporting and applying the results of longitudinal
studies not just of the effects of materials on the attitudes, beliefs, engagement and
motivation of learners but on their actual communicative effectiveness. For the field
of materials development to become more credible it needs to become more empirical.
And while it seems clear that the inclusion of more impartial studies would improve the
quality of materials development research, it is worth considering for a moment why such
studies are so rare.
One reason, according to Harwood (2014), is that empirical studies are expensive to
undertake. ELT researchers are often severely underfunded, and observational studies are
not only more affordable, they may be the only viable option. Another major reason, accord-
ing to Tomlinson and Masuhara (2010), is that experimental research into materials devel-
opment is much harder to do. Even when it is possible to carry out such investigations, they
stipulate that the research needs to be longitudinal, and that variables such as the teacher’s
skill, their rapport with learners, and any other exposure that students might have to the
target language need to be minimised before anything can be said about the efficacy of the
materials. Thornbury (2015) also questions materials development research which lacks a
control group, explaining that without a control group to serve as an external constant, it is
difficult to know whether the materials have had the intended effect. It is strongly implied
that, regardless of the expense and difficulty of carrying out materials development research,
unless it has been conducted as a longitudinal experiment where most if not all variables
have been addressed, then the potential contribution of such research should be seen as
severely limited.
Such views, however, could be said to represent an epistemological fallacy common
among teacher-researchers in applied linguistics. The error is in misapplying standards of
natural scientific knowledge production to the historical and social sciences (Körner 1972;
Rosenberg 2008). Natural sciences, such as chemistry, medicine, or physics, use experi-
mental designs that weed out variables in order to make predictions and/or to exert reliable
control over a specific area of study. Historical and social sciences, such as meteorology,
archaeology, and linguistics, work with the steady imbrication of individual studies of what
happened once in specific circumstances, with the goal of developing general principles.
157
When new data enters that disproves some aspects of earlier findings, the body of received
knowledge adjusts to fit with the new insights, thus leading to the creation of more robust
theories, be they psychiatric, meteorological, historical, or pedagogic.
Historical and social sciences use experimental and observational methods of inquiry,
but the contexts in which studies are conducted make it nearly impossible to filter out all of
the variables. Instead, a large collection of diverse but rigorous studies taking place in real-
life settings is created to find out, again in general terms, what sort of conditions are likely to
produce certain effects. Applied linguists, metaphorically like meteorologists, psychiatrists,
and others, use the scientific tools at their disposal to piece together knowledge about vari-
ous factors that contribute to outcomes within dynamic environments. Being unable to filter
out variables or lacking a control group does not necessarily invalidate a study. Such investi-
gations, if carried out in a rigorous, honest, and open manner, can be instructive, in that they
add to the wider body of materials development research, through which we can eventually
make stronger inferences through meta-analytical studies, such as those by Boulton and
Cobb (2017) and Plonsky (2011).
We argue that both observational and experimental studies are needed in materials devel-
opment research. And while we agree with Tomlinson and Masuhara (2010) on the need
for more experimental studies, our view is more in line with the standards of the historical
and social sciences than that of the natural sciences. By adding greater diversity to what has
been an overemphasis on observational aspects of materials development research, teacher-
researchers stand a better chance of discovering general principles which can empower all
of us to create better language learning materials. It is with those ends in mind that we now
turn our attention to an empirical investigation which serves as an illustrative example of
how research can inform materials development in a second language learning environment.

This section first presents the context and participants of our study and then introduces
the topic of our research, extensive reading (ER) and data-driven learning (DDL), before
explaining our research procedures.
Context and participants

Our investigation took place at a major Japanese national university from the spring semes-
ter of 2015 to the spring semester of 2018. The first author was the classroom teacher, and
the second author worked in a support and advisory role. The locus of the study was within
a 16-week undergraduate English language course that featured the synthesis of ER with
DDL. Because this class was an elective course, those who chose the class often expressed
a specific interest in reading English materials.
Table 11.1 Participants in this study (n = 76)
Gender Nationality
Male Female Japanese Chinese French Malaysian, Korean, Russian
25 51 39 31 3 3
158
Classes tended to be small, and ranged from 5 to 20 students. Students from seven dif-
ferent classes participated in the study. There was a higher proportion of female students,
and classes were diverse in terms of nationality, with almost half of the students coming
from abroad. This reflects the efforts of Japanese national universities to work out Ministry
of Education policies for internationalising university campuses (MEXT 2008). The par-
ticipants were not formally assessed before the course, but curriculum guidelines stipulated
that learners needed a score of 700 on the Test of English for International Communication
(TOEIC) to enrol on the course. Most of the international students had not taken this test,
however, and the subjective impressions of the first author during class interactions were
that most of the students, both domestic and international, ranged from high beginner to low
intermediate in terms of overall English language proficiency.
Learning methods and materials

ER is an ‘approach to the teaching and learning of reading in which learners read large quan-
tities of material that is within their linguistic competence’ (Grabe and Stoller 2013:286).
The material consists of graded readers, which are simplified books that are written with
progressively more advanced grammar and vocabulary according to a series of levels that
run from beginner to advanced. Dao’s (2014) analysis of several years of ER studies found
that it has great potential for improving learners’ grammatical accuracy, vocabulary com-
prehension, reading comprehension, and speed. Due to the inductive nature of ER, pro-
ponents stress that reading should be for pleasure; students should have unfettered access
to a wide variety of graded readers without the distraction of dictionaries, supplementary
materials, chalk-and-talk teacher instruction, or testing (Day and Bamford 2002, 2004).
However, more teacher-researchers are beginning to question whether a purely inductive
approach is the most efficient way for students to learn (Bieri 2015; Waring and McLean
2015; Waring and Takaki 2003). Grabe and Stoller (2013) are among those calling for more
research into adding new teaching methods to ER, which would lead to the creation of
materials aimed at helping learners to better identify the lexical items and other language
points while they are engaged in extensive reading. Taking this as our lead, we decided
to investigate the potential of materials created through the analytical insights that can be
gained through data-driven learning.
Like ER, DDL is a student-centred, inductive method of language learning. Unlike ER,
which focuses on broad reading, DDL requires learners to explore specific lexico-grammat-
ical issues using a corpus (a large database of language that is searched with software called
a concordancer, which typically provides key words in context (KWIC) (see McCarthy
and McCarten this volume)). Students learn through repeated exposure to occurrences of
the same lexical items or phrases. Learners investigate language questions, either through
the computer on their own or with printouts of corpus data with the teacher (Johns 1991,
1994). Studies indicate that DDL results in significant improvement among higher level
language learners (Boulton and Cobb 2017; Gordani 2013; Hirata and Hirata 2015), but
that its impact with beginners has been mixed, primarily because DDL at the beginner level
has been hampered by the use of corpora that were too difficult for them to comprehend
(Boulton 2007; Hadley 2002; Mizumoto and Chujo 2015). One notable exception, which
relates to our research, is Allan (2009), who created a small corpus of graded readers in an
attempt to provide comprehensible language input for her intermediate learners. Though
limited in terms of time, corpus size, and focus, Allan found evidence to suggest that DDL
159
used with graded readers helped students to rapidly learn lexical chunks, and that the com-
prehensibility of the material aided in making DDL more accessible. These findings are
promising, but more research is needed, especially to ascertain whether DDL can actually be
used effectively in receptive learning, such as with ER, or with vocabulary retention while
reading for meaning.
Our idea was to incorporate the granularity of DDL with the broad reach of ER, and to
do so by creating a corpus of graded readers. We envisaged a set of supplementary materials
that would exploit the graded reader corpus and would allow students to explore questions
of a lexical or grammatical nature. By drawing upon the graded reader corpus, the language
presented would be more in line with their levels of proficiency. Furthermore, using mate-
rials based on the corpus ensured that new lexical and grammatical items were recycled.
The result, we hoped, would be an improvement in the students’ reading skills and lexico-
grammatical knowledge.
We approached Oxford University Press (OUP) for permission to use their Bookworms
Graded Readers as corpus source material. This series consists of 192 books divided into 7
levels of increasing lengths and difficulty. The starter level featured short readings averag-
ing around 1,400 words, often presented as a graphic novel, while level six contained short
versions of classic novels of 2,500 headwords and over 30,000 words. OUP agreed to our
project proposal, and provided a full set of Oxford Bookworms for classroom use. Another
set was purchased by the university library’s Self-Access Learning Center to ensure that stu-
dents would have ample opportunities for ER both in and out of class. For security purposes,
OUP created the corpus on our behalf, and omitted a small number of books for either copy-
right or technical reasons. The resulting Bookworms Corpus contains 186 books from all 7
levels with a total of 1,715,160 tokens (with 17,670 word types, which includes declensions
and other grammar-based transformations, as well as place names and personal names).
OUP stipulated that the corpus itself could be used only in class, and that we could not load
it on the university’s internal network. This required the creation of paper-based materials.
Classes were randomly divided into experimental and control groups. However, all
classes in the course began with an orientation that discussed the procedures for doing ER.
The minimum requirement was to read 200,000 words over the semester, or approximately
4 or 5 graded readers a week. Both classes read from the same sets of paperback Oxford
Bookworms Graded Readers. Their progress was tracked using the MReader site adminis-
tered by Kyoto Sangyo University and the Extensive Reading Foundation. This platform pro-
vided short online quizzes for the books that students had read. The number of words within
each graded reader was tallied on this platform, and when a student successfully completed a
quiz, they received credit, in the form of the total number of words in the book, towards their
200,000-word reading goal. For mid-level graded readers, this is usually between 4000 and
9000 words per book. Students were trained in how to access the site, create their individual
MReader accounts, and take the online tests. Throughout the semester, student progress was
monitored and anonymous progress lists were regularly presented in class so that students
could compare the number of books and total amount of words accrued with others in the
class, thereby further encouraging regular reading. The typical format for each 90-minute
class began with 30 minutes devoted to interactive games and activities designed to encour-
age students to share or act out aspects of the stories and books they had read during the pre-
vious week. The experimental class used DDL-based activities created from the Bookworms
Corpus. Frequently occurring lexical items from the graded readers were identified using the
word list function in the concordance software. KWIC sheets for this vocabulary were cre-
ated, and expansion activities were created around these, as in the example in Figure 11.1.
160
Figure 11.1 Early materials developed for ER course using Bookworms Corpus.
Students with grammatical questions submitted these in writing, and corpus materials
were provided to supplement explanations (see Appendix 1). During the first year of materials
development, we adopted Johns’ (1991) procedure of identify, classify, generalise to structure
the work, meaning that even though explanations were given, students were still encouraged to
interact with the concordance materials independently by finding patterns, categorising them,
and then developing hypotheses about the lexical items. The limited class time meant that
students in the experimental group were expected to spend time outside of class working with
the corpus materials provided. The control classes did not use the DDL materials, but instead
randomly engaged with activities found in Day and Bamford (2004), an extensive reading
resource book. These differences aside, both experimental and control classes worked from
their appropriate levels of Oxford Bookworms Graded Readers. A large selection was brought
to each class, and 30 to 45 minutes of each class was devoted to silent, sustained reading.
Because of the different levels of proficiency in the class, students were taught a technique
developed in the United States for first and second language reading instruction known as the
161
‘Five-Finger Rule’ (Bryan 2011; Walker 2003:87), which helps students to quickly determine
whether a book is too difficult for them to read. Authorities in extensive reading, such as Waring
(1997) and Day and Bamford (2002) state that an average of more than two or three unknown
words a page in a graded reader makes it too difficult for learners, as they will often be tempted
to spend more time in their dictionaries, thereby continually breaking the flow of simply reading
in the second language. The Five-Finger technique requires students, upon finding a book of
interest, to first skim several pages of a book and to count on one hand the number of words per
page that they do not know. Students were told to choose only those graded readers where they
encountered no more than an average of two unknown words, or in the case where they really
wanted to read a certain book, three per page. At the end of both control group and experimental
group classes, all participants took a timed speed-reading test, which was at the 1000-word level,
from a battery of tests created for learners in the Asia Pacific context (Quinn et al. 2007).
Research procedure and initial findings

Our overarching procedure followed the lines of Action Research, an open-ended, explora-
tory approach that allows teachers to research issues of relevance to their classrooms. During
the process of teaching, action researchers seek to improve any observed problems through
iterative stages (Burns 2005). Among its many potential applications, Wallace (1998) states
that it is ideal for assessing and gradually improving materials development research. It is
also a ‘baggy’ enough approach to allow for a wide variety of methods and strategies.
Within the Action Research framework, an embedded-experiment design was adopted
to drive the discovery of problems and to allow for iterative assessment. This is a mixed-
methods strategy used for exploring issues occurring within a real-world context, where
both qualitative and quantitative data sources are available, and where one is seeking insight
about particular treatments or interventions (Edmonds and Kennedy 2017). In this case, the
phenomenon was the learners studying English via ER, and the treatment was the use of
materials developed through DDL to improve their reading skills and lexico-grammatical
proficiency. Embedded-experiment designs begin with a quantitative pre-test, and qualita-
tive data is collected as the intervention is taking place. A quantitative post-test is admin-
istered, and follow-up qualitative analysis is used to further unpack the quantitative data.
Quantitatively, pre-tests were analysed using t-tests of independent means. This was to
determine whether the control and experimental groups were at the same general levels of
language proficiency. Post-tests employed t-tests of dependent means to ascertain if each
group had improved to the level of statistical significance during the course of the semes-
ter. A post t-test of independent means was used to investigate whether the group using
DDL materials had improved to the point where it had become distinct from the control
group at a statistically significant level. Cohen’s d was used to measure the size of effect in
the data. Statistical analyses were calculated using StatPlus:mac Pro (AnalystSoft 2016).
Qualitatively, classroom observations, interviews, and repertory grids were employed to
discover the participants’ impressions about the materials. Repertory grids are a research
tool where participants have, in effect, a conversation with themselves around a particular
topic. They write out personal constructs about how they understand specific situations and
rate them on a scale, thus allowing for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed analyses. The
advantage of repertory grids is that participants can express themselves in their own words
and are thus unfettered by the undue influence of the researcher. For more information on
the use of repertory grids, see Jankowicz (2004) or Hadley (2017).
162
Instruments used for pre- and post-testing consisted of a speed-reading test from Quinn
et al. (2007) and a 100-item partial deletion cloze, or C-test (Klein-Braley and Raatz 1984),
created from the Bookworms version of David Copperfield by Charles Dickens. The read-
ing test measures speed by words per minute, and has internal checks for comprehension.
Word per minute results would be decreased for those who finished the test quickly but with
low comprehension scores. C-tests are a modified form of cloze testing that correlate highly
with grammar tests and reading tests (Alderson 1979), and are ideal for testing lexico-gram-
matical proficiency (Bowen et al. 1985).
Full details about the first stage of our investigation can be found in a recent paper with
another early collaborator (Hadley and Charles 2017). The findings from this study were
surprising: even though both groups had improved by the end of the course, post-test scores
for the control group had significantly improved more in terms of reading speeds and lexico-
grammatical knowledge than the experimental group. Qualitative data also indicated that
many learners were mystified as to the purpose of DDL materials:
I remember we did some corpus, and I didn’t understand well. Maybe I wasn’t so good
at listening to English, so I didn’t understand the aim. Yeah, it was a little difficult for
me. I didn’t understand what was the direct connection to extensive reading.
(Student interview extract)
Analysis of the experimental class’s repertory grid data revealed that the learners disliked
the materials because they were perceived as forcing the student to study too hard on their
own at home, when what they really wanted to do was to talk with classmates about what
they had read (Hadley and Charles 2017).
Response and subsequent data

The first cycle of quantitative findings indicated that we needed to go back to the drawing
board, and the qualitative data offered helpful hints as to how to go forward. It had not
occurred to us that students would want more opportunities to speak with each other in an
ER class. We decided to create new materials that would soften the boxy, data-rich image
that is so often associated with DDL, and to decorate the materials using images and a
design that we felt would be appealing to a group of primarily East Asian undergraduate
learners. We crafted and refined new materials that, while driven by corpus insights and
corpus data, looked more like a traditional textbook and featured cartoon animal charac-
ters. Conversation activities, vocabulary games, and reading sections in the form of comic
vignettes between the main characters were created using the most frequent lexical items
from the graded readers. Visible contact with corpus material was still maintained every
third lesson, where less frequent but often unknown words were presented. Students were
given greater latitude, however, over which lexical items they could choose. They were
required to turn corpus-based, lexical study into personalised questions, which would form
the basis for classroom conversation activities.
The observed response of students in subsequent experimental classes was that they
became more animated and better engaged with each other through the modified materials.
This was confirmed by later repertory grid data, which indicated that the students no longer
saw the DDL materials as alien to the class. A significant number saw the materials as more
conducive for conversation and sharing, but equally felt that the materials still required too
much work (Hadley and Hadley 2016).
163
In the subsequent course cycles that followed the initial investigation, only the data of
students having read the minimum of 200,000 or more words was included in the analysis.
This resulted in the number of participants being reduced to 63. While this was not done in
Hadley and Charles (2017) due to the relatively small group sizes and low number of stu-
dents not meeting the requirements, it should be noted that the overall findings of that study
would have remained the same with the exclusion of those who did not fulfil the reading
requirements, with only slight shifts in the statistical results. We wanted to study the results
of those students who had participated fully in the course, and recognising the other vari-
ables that naturally occur in mutable classroom settings, the 200,000 words was used as an
independent variable.
While space limitations do not allow for a full discussion of each test cycle, it should
be mentioned that t-tests of dependent means of the post-tests for all experimental and
control groups indicated that most students improved significantly by the end of term. Our
interest here is to determine what effects the enhanced DDL material development had
over the subsequent two-and-a-half years, and a consolidated t-test of independent means
for all the control and experimental groups allows for an effective overview of what took
place during the five times that this experiment was conducted. Because the materials and
mode of instruction for the control groups were unchanged for the entire three years, data
from the first control group meeting the minimum word requirements was added to the
following collated analysis. All of the data from the first experimental group, however,
was excluded.
The experimental group was created from four classes (n = 34), and a control group (n
= 29) was also formed from four classes. Both of the consolidated groups began the ER
course within the same statistical population, both in terms of lexico-grammatical profi-
ciency (t(61) = 0.724, p = 0.23; d = –0.18), and with an average reading speed of about 133
words per minute (t(61) = 1.273, p = 0.10; d = 0.34), the critical value for t in all instances
here being 1.67 (p < 0.05).
Post-test results over the successive periods yielded new surprises. In terms of lexico-
grammatical proficiency, overall no statistical difference between the experimental and
control groups (t(61) = 0.970, p < 0.16; d = –0.28) could be detected. However, the experi-
mental group significantly improved in comparison to the control group in terms of reading
speed (t(61) = 2.871, p < 0.05; d = 0.75), and in total number of words read (Table 11.2).

In terms of lexico-grammatical improvement, even though the enhanced materials admit-
tedly did not prove to be superior to the materials used in the control group, neither were
they inferior. Given that our first attempts resulted in materials that were having the oppo-
site effect, the fact that the DDL-based materials were having an effect that was on a par
Table 11.2 Mean and standard deviation of

word amounts read for collated
experimental and control groups (d
= 0.59)
M SD
Experimental group 314,433 180,469

Control group 234,509 48,331
164
with the control group’s commercially published expansion material was encouraging. Even
more fascinating was the significant improvement in both the experimental group’s reading
speeds and the amount of reading achieved.
Beyond these specific findings, however, the broader aim of this chapter is to demon-
strate that second language learning materials can be developed and enhanced using empir-
ical, experimental forms of research. The approach taken helped us to avoid subjective
approaches that often risk falling into bias confirmation, and the data helped us to make nec-
essary adjustments which produced better results. The challenges, however, are that all of
this entails a long-term investment of time, and some teachers might find it difficult to carry
out such research if their institution offers limited support. In addition, classroom research
using a longitudinal, experimental design (or for that matter any design) is inherently messy.
Numerous variables, ranging from individual student temperament, the influence of other
language courses, and even the weather on particular days, can affect the results.

For those teaching in extensive reading programmes, materials of the type we generated using a
DDL approach, which provide repeated exposure to the most frequent lexical items, and which
help learners to become more accustomed to skimming for patterns in corpus readout sheets (see
Figure 11.1), might significantly contribute to an improvement in reading speeds. But even more
important than these specific insights, we recommend more language teachers to engage in rigor-
ous and objective forms of research to improve the quality of materials design, in the belief that
they would benefit both individually and as a community of professional practice. In addition,
doing so will raise awareness of how to craft materials that have the potential for fostering better
second language learning opportunities for our students.
Conclusion
This chapter has sought to challenge both the opinions of those who have underap-
preciated the potential of materials development research, and those who mistakenly
believe that without tightly controlled, laboratory-like conditions, materials develop-
ment research has little to contribute to the growing body of knowledge about second
language pedagogy. Our study presents an example of how classroom research can be
used to improve materials.
Although undertaking research into materials development may be demanding, and many
teacher-researchers may lack the time and resources to carry out their own investigations, we
encourage them to engage with other researchers’ work, as this may aid their professional devel-
opment in this area. Additionally, in support of such colleagues, those who have opportunities
to conduct materials development research are encouraged to continue this work to enhance the
efficacy of our teaching materials and their potential impact in the classroom.
Further reading
Garton, S. and Graves, K., eds., 2014. International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
This volume provides examples of studies from teachers in classrooms from around the world,
and offers mostly observational studies on both global and local materials. Practical concerns for the
classroom are an important element of this book.
165
Harwood, N., ed. 2014. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production.
This book provides examples of classroom studies that investigate how ELT materials are used and
created. It aims to encourage language teachers to engage in more rigorous and critical considerations
of the materials they use.
McGrath, I., 2016. Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh: University
of Edinburgh Press.
This book provides activities, worksheets, and ideas for materials evaluation. It includes useful
recommendations for further reading.
Tomlinson, B., ed. 2013. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London and New
York: Bloomsbury.
This edited volume offers practical advice on creating materials for specific groups of learners, and
suggestions for adapting published global materials to meet the needs of individual classes in unique
cultural settings.
Related topics
Theory and practice in materials development, research in materials development: what,
how, and why?, writing corpus-informed materials.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Grant
Numbers 16K2878 and 19K00846).
References
Alderson, J.C., 1979. The cloze procedure and proficiency in English as a foreign language. TESOL
Quarterly, 13:219–227.
Allan, R., 2009. Can a graded reader corpus provide ‘authentic’ input? ELT Journal, 63:23–32.
Analystsoft, 2016. StatPlus:mac Pro. AnalystSoft, Inc.
Bahumaid, S., 2008. TEFL materials evaluation: A teacher's perspective. Poznań Studies in
Contemporary Linguistics, 44/4:423–432.
Bao, D., ed. 2018. Creativity and Innovations in ELT Materials Development: Looking Beyond the
Current Design. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Bieri, T., 2015. ER definitions and practice: Instructor voices. Extensive Reading in Japan, 8/1:4–6.
Boulton, A., 2007. But where’s the proof? The need for empirical evidence for data-driven learning.
In Edwardes, M., ed. Proceedings of the BAAL Annual Conference 2007. The University of
Edinburgh: Scitsiugnil Press.
Boulton, A. and Cobb, T., 2017. Corpus use in language learning: A meta-analysis. Language
Learning, 67/2:348–393.
Bowen, J., Madsen, H. and Hilferty, A., 1985. TESOL: Techniques and Procedures. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House Publishers.
Bryan, S., 2011. Extensive reading, narrow reading and second language learners: implications for
libraries. The Australian Library Journal, 60:113–122.
Burns, A., 2005. Action research: An evolving paradigm? Language Teaching, 38/2:57–74.
Calvert, M. and Sheen, Y., 2014. Task-based language learning and teaching: An action-research
study. Language Teaching Research, 19/2:226–244.
Chang, C., Shih, J.-L. and Chang, C.-K., 2017. A mobile instructional pervasive game method for
language learning. Universal Access in the Information Society, 16/3:653–665.
166
Dao, T.N., 2014. Using internet resources for extensive reading in an EFL context. Hawaii Pacific
University TESOL Working Paper Series, 12:72–95.
Day, R. and Bamford, J., 2002. Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 14/2:136–141.
Day, R. and Bamford, J., 2004. Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom. Cambridge:
Edmonds, W. and Kennedy, T., 2017. An Applied Guide to Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative,
and Mixed Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Fitzgerald, A., Marin, J.M., Wu, S.-Q. and Witten, I., 2017. Evaluating the efficacy of the digital
commons for scaling data-driven learning. In Carrier, M., Damerow, R. and Bailey, K., eds. Digital
Language Learning and Teaching: Research, Theory, and Practice. London: Routledge.
Garton, S. and Graves, K., 2014. Materials in ELT: Current issues. In Garton, S. and Graves, K., eds.
International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gordani, Y., 2013. The effect of the integration of corpora in reading comprehension classrooms on
English as a Foreign Language learners' vocabulary development. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 26/5:430–445.
Grabe, W. and Stoller, F., 2013. Teaching and Researching Reading. London: Routledge.
Gray, J., 2002. The global coursebook in English language teaching. In Block, D. and Cameron, D.,
eds. Globalization and Language Teaching. London: Routledge.
Gray, J., 2010. The branding of English and the culture of the new capitalism: Representations of the
Guilloteaux, M., 2013. Language textbook selection: Using materials analysis from the perspective of
SLA principles. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22/3:231–239.
Hadley, G., 2002. An introduction to data-driven learning. RELC Journal, 33/2:99–124.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian.
Hadley, G., 2017. Grounded Theory in Applied Linguistics Research: A Practical Guide. London:
Routledge.
Hadley, G. and Charles, M., 2017. Enhancing extensive reading with data-driven learning. Language
Learning and Technology, 21/3:131–152.
Hadley, G. and Hadley, H., 2016. Linking student constructs to educational innovations: Dynamics
within a Japanese context. In The XIIIth European Personal Construct Association, Galzignano
Terme, Padua, Italy.
Harwood, N., 2010. English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. Cambridge:
Hirata, Y. and Hirata, Y., 2015. Data-driven learning and semi-structured interviews in tertiary
language education in Japan. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 18/3:313–332.
Jankowicz, D., 2004. The Easy Guide to Repertory Grids. Chichester: Wiley.
Johns, T., 1991. Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven learning materials. English
Language Research Journal, 4:1–16.
Johns, T., 1994. From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of
data-driven learning. In Odlin, T., ed. Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. New York and
Klein-Braley, C. and Raatz, U., 1984. A survey of research on the C-Test. Language Testing,
1/2:134–146.
167
Körner, S., 1972. On a difference between the natural sciences and history. In Breck, A. and Yourgrau,
W., eds. Biology, History, and Natural Philosophy. New York: Plenum Press/Rosetta.
Lai, C., Shum, M. and Tian, Y., 2016. Enhancing learners’ self-directed use of technology for language
learning: The effectiveness of an online training platform. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
29/1:40–60.
Littlejohn, A., 2011. The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan Horse. In
University Press.
Low, G., 1989. Appropriate Design: The Internal Organisation of Course Units. In Johnson, R., ed.
The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luo, Q., 2016. The effects of data-driven learning activities on EFL learners’ writing development.
SpringerPlus, 5/1:1255–1268.
Maryam, A., Mitra, Z., Akram, F. and Hamid, R.K., eds., 2016. Issues in Materials Development.
Leiden: Brill-Sense.
Masuhara, H. and Tomlinson, B., 2008. Materials for general English. In Tomlinson, B., ed. English
Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Mazloomi, S. and Khabiri, M., 2018. The impact of self-assessment on language learners’ writing
skill. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55/1:91–100.
Mcdonough, J., Shaw, C. and Masuhara, H., 2013. Materials and Methods in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell.
McGrath, I., 2002. Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teachers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
MEXT, 2008. Outline of the student exchange system: Study in Japan and abroad [Online]. Retrieved
on 27 July 2020 from: http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ryugaku/081210/001.pdf.
Mizumoto, A. and Chujo, K., 2015. A meta-analysis of data-driven learning approach in the Japanese
EFL classroom. English Corpus Studies, 22:1–18.
Nitta, R. and Gardner, S., 2005. Consciousness-raising and Practice in ELT Coursebooks. ELT
Journal, 59/1:3–13.
Plonsky, L., 2011. The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis.
Language Learning, 61/4:993–1038.
Pryor, S., 2010. The development and trialling of materials for second language instruction: A case
study. In Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., eds. Research for Materials Development in Language
Learning. London: Continuum.
Quinn, E., Nation, I.S.P. and Millett, S., 2007. Asian and Pacific speed readings for ESL learners:
Twenty passages written at the one thousand word level. Wellington, NZ: School of Linguistics and
Applied Language Studies, University of Wellington.
Reinders, H. and White, C., 2010. The theory and practice of technology in materials development
and task design. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language Learning Materials: Theory and Practice.
Richards, J., 2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J., Hull, J., Proctor, S. and Shields, C., 2005. Interchange Third Edition: Full Contact.
Student's Book 1, 2 and 3. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, A., 2008. Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Language Learning and Teaching. London: Palgrave MacMillian.
Sanprasert, N., 2010. The application of a course management system to enhance autonomy in learning
English as a foreign language. System, 38/1:109–123.
Sheldon, L. 1988. Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42/4:237–246.
Tatsukawa, K. 2018. Materials development to improve learners’ fluency in English class. In
KOTESOL, 2018, Seoul, Korea. Seoul: KOTESOL, 325–335.
Thornbury, S., 2015. English language teaching textbooks: Content, consumption, production. ELT
Journal, 69/1:100–102.
168
Tomlinson, B., 2010. Principles of effective materials development. In Harwood, N., ed. English
Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B., ed. 2011. Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
45/2:143–179.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., eds. 2010. Research for Materials Development in Language
Walker, B., 2003. Supporting Struggling Readers. Toronto: Pippin Publishing Corporation.
Wallace, M., 1998. Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waring, R., 1997. Graded and extensive reading: Questions and answers. The Language Teacher,
21/5:9–12.
Waring, R. and Mclean, S., 2015. Defining extensive reading. Extensive Reading in Japan, 8/1:7.
Waring, R. and Takaki, M., 2003. At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from
reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15/2:130–163.
Widdowson, H., 1990. Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Appendix 1
Figure 11.2 Example of student questions and corpus material from Bookworms Corpus.
169
12
Writing corpus-informed materials
Introduction
Historical background
Compared with the centuries-long evolution of English language teaching and its approaches,
methods, and materials, the use of corpora to inform teaching covers a relatively short
stretch of time. Modern-day, computerised corpora of texts only made the transition from
the domain of information technology in fields such as librarianship and the analysis of texts
for stylistic purposes to addressing ELT concerns in the late 1970s and early 1980s (see
the historical introduction to O’Keeffe and McCarthy 2010). The pioneering work of John
Sinclair and his team which produced the Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary
(Sinclair 1987) brought to the market a ground-breaking dictionary for learners, based on
research into a 20-million-word corpus of mostly written texts. This was followed in the
1990s by other COBUILD corpus-based products covering grammar and further aspects
of lexical learning. The COBUILD English Course (Willis and Willis 1988) was the first
coursebook to be published based on corpus research. The course adhered to a lexical
approach, focusing on a set number of ‘frequently used words’ (700 in Level 1 and 850 in
Level 2), incorporating findings from the research team at the University of Birmingham.
Unlike the dictionary, however, it had limited commercial success, possibly because as
Harwood (2002) and Dudeney and Hockly (2012) suggest, it was perceived by its intended
audience as too radical a departure from the style of materials that were in use at the time.
Despite the comparative lack of success of the COBUILD course, the approach espoused
by Sinclair and his associates had a major impact on the ELT publishing industry, especially
in terms of reference works. Throughout the 1990s, several UK-based major publishers
invested resources into building their own large-scale corpora, principally for the creation
of dictionaries (Crowther 1995; Procter 1995; Rundell 2002; Summers 1995), which was
regarded as leading to a general improvement both in lexicographic standards and as regards
appeal for teachers and students (Herbst 1996). On the heels of corpus-based dictionaries
came grammar reference works (Biber et al. 1999; Carter and McCarthy 2006; Carter et
al. 2011; Sinclair 1990) and a steady stream of vocabulary materials starting in the late
1990s and early 2000s (e.g. McCarthy and O’Dell 2002) and continuing to the present.
170 DOI: 10.4324/b22783-15

Nonetheless, corpus research evidence and influences remained largely absent from pub-
lished mainstream four-skills coursebooks until the new millennium, which saw the publi-
cation of the Touchstone series by McCarthy et al. from 2005 onwards.
Availability and use of corpora

Since the 1990s there has been a steady increase in interest in the role that corpora can play
in materials design, culminating in the present situation where most major courses boast at
least some contribution from corpus-derived information. However, for many years cor-
pora remained the preserve of publishers, who invested large sums in the collection, rights
clearance, and, in the case of spoken corpora, the challenging and expensive business of
recording and transcription. Only those writers fortunate enough to be commissioned by a
corpus-sponsoring publisher had access to data. In more recent years, large corpora have
become more widely available through online access; examples include the British National
Corpus (BNC) and the American National Corpus (ANC), both easily accessed through any
search engine, and most online corpora offer reasonably user-friendly interfaces for carrying
out corpus searches. Even so, commercial licences need to be sought by those wishing to
publish using corpus data to underpin their work.
Further significant steps in the potential for corpora to support teaching materials were
taken in the form of the creation of learner corpora from the 1990s onwards. Notable exam-
ples include the Cambridge Learner Corpus and the International Corpus of Learner English
(Granger 2003). An excellent survey of learner corpora may be found in Granger et al.
(2015). Learner corpora are generally accessed for two principal purposes. Firstly, if the
data is error-coded (i.e. where all infelicitous examples of usage are annotated in the data),
invaluable information can be gleaned as to common problems which learners encounter.
This can then enhance teaching materials through the targeting of potential errors in the
construction of the materials or more overtly through error-warnings. The materials are
thus based on the evidence of what learners typically cannot do. However, the data can
equally provide evidence of what learners can do (for example, how much vocabulary they
can typically use at different levels of proficiency), an approach which has informed the
creation of the English Vocabulary Profile (see http://www.englishprofile.org/wordlists),
an invaluable resource for materials writers based on the lexical profiles of thousands of
learners from all over the world performing at different levels of the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR). Learner corpus research is now seen as a major aspect
of corpus-informed language pedagogy, with learner usage, not just native-speaker usage,
being considered as significant in the creation of materials and in the understanding of the
learning process (Granger et al. 2015).
Two further, parallel developments in the evolution of corpora have had an effect on mate-
rials writing. In the early days of corpora, which, as outlined, were dominated by dictionar-
ies and reference works, compiling the largest possible corpus was seen as the goal. After
all, a general dictionary or reference grammar would need huge masses of data to provide a
reliable picture of the state of an entire language. However, it was soon realised that much
was to be gained for materials writers in investigating smaller, targeted corpora. Corpora
developed in the late 1990s and early 2000s such as the Michigan Corpus of Academic
Spoken English (MICASE) and the Cambridge and Nottingham Business English Corpus
(CANBEC) became invaluable resources for the understanding of special uses of English.
These, along with the greater technological affordances of sub-corpora extracted from or
partnered with bigger corpora (e.g. the Cambridge Academic Corpus) have underpinned
171
more specialised corpus-informed products such as EAP and Business English materials
(e.g. Capel et al. 2012; Koester et al. 2012; McCarthy et al. 2009; McCarthy and O’Dell
2008).
Spoken corpora
The second major development in the evolution of corpora came about with the creation of
corpora of everyday spoken English. The Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse
in English (CANCODE; see McCarthy 1998) and the Cambridge Corpus of Spoken North
American English (CAMSNAE), both developed under the sponsorship of Cambridge
University Press, were purposely designed to provide information on everyday, casual con-
versation, with a view to creating a new generation of authentic speaking resources for
reference and classroom materials. Spoken corpora, of necessity, tend to be small compared
with written ones: CANCODE, for example, is just 5 million words, as opposed to the more
than 1.5 billion words of the whole Cambridge International Corpus.
Despite the greater availability of corpus data, Burton (2012) finds that authors’ use of
corpora is limited, which he ascribes partly to downward pressures on the time allowed for
writing schedules. A related issue is that corpus research is a skilled task requiring experi-
ence and some training to accomplish successfully, which may account for why, in terms of
commercial publishing at least, it was long the preserve of professional language research-
ers such as lexicographers and grammarians. This is changing as publishers see the benefits
of providing commissioned authors with access to ready-made resources such as frequency
lists and off-the-peg language descriptions based on pre-analysed concordances or learner-
error information, produced by in-house, dedicated corpus research teams.

Where should materials writers get their evidence from?
As suggested above, initially, corpora were not seen as essential to the development of
materials, and considerable debate took place, especially during the 1990s, as to their suit-
ability. On the one hand, many scholars argued that insights gained from corpus research
had much to offer materials development in terms of more accurate language descriptions,
coursebook content which reflected actual as opposed to invented usage, and a greater claim
to authenticity. This, it was argued, would be likely to lead to increased motivation and more
natural and useful learning outcomes for teachers and learners alike (Carter 1998; Carter
and McCarthy 1995, 2001; Gilmore 2004; Römer 2004; Sinclair 1991). Others, however,
challenged the appropriacy of using native-speaker corpora to inform materials for lan-
guage learners (Jenkins 2000; Prodromou 2003; Widdowson 1998, 2000, 2004). Setting the
learning target as the attainment of native speaker norms was felt to be neither realistic nor
desirable even for advanced level learners or expert users of the language. It was argued,
and continues to be argued, that the most widespread manifestations of a language such as
English are interactions between and among non-native users, a population to which native-
speaker norms may be irrelevant. The English as a Lingua Franca movement was the driving
force behind these arguments, which led to the creation of the Vienna-Oxford International
Corpus of English (VOICE; see Seidlhofer 2001, 2004; Seidlhofer and Jenkins 2003).
What had become a heated debate in the late 1990s has been largely superseded by the
more considered perspective which more than a decade has brought about (see Timmis
172
2012), a broader acceptance of the role of corpora in ELT, the commercial success and
popularity among teachers and students of corpus-informed materials, and a wider choice of
corpus resources which both sides of the argument can draw upon. These resources include
non-native and learner corpora as well as corpora of other, non-British and non-American
varieties of English such as the ICE International Corpus of English (see http://ice-corpora
.net/ice/), which includes varieties of English from Asia, Africa, and Oceania. In an ideal
world, materials based on native-speaker norms might exist side-by-side with those based
on lingua franca norms and offer a choice to teachers and learners who may not wish to be
cajoled into accepting one side of the argument or the other.
How should we apply corpus evidence in materials?

In terms of the exploitation of corpora in language learning materials, theoretical
approaches have varied. Views include, at one end of the spectrum, the advocacy of mate-
rials only loosely or indirectly informed by corpora. For example, a course may use a
simple frequency list to inform its vocabulary syllabus but little else in the way of corpus-
derived insight; further corpus-derived content may be offered by publishers in posses-
sion of learner data. At the other end of the spectrum stand those who believe that direct
exposure to corpus data for students is an ideal way of immersing students in real, attested
examples of usage and a way of helping learners themselves become language researchers
and thereby better learners. This last approach, under the heading of data-driven learning
(DDL), exposes learners directly to corpus data, often in the form of key word in context
(KWIC) concordances, presented either on paper or on screen, showing how a specific
word, phrase, or grammatical pattern is repeatedly used (see Hadley and Hadley this vol-
ume). Associated tasks encourage learners to explore the language further as researchers
(Cobb 1997; Johns 1986, 1991; Gilquin and Granger 2010; Reppen 2011; Tribble and
Jones 1997).
It is fair to say that despite the merits of DDL claimed by its many adherents (Cheng
et al. 2003; Sinclair 2004), it has not been widely adopted as a methodological approach
in most major commercially available ELT coursebooks. Historically, familiarity with the
very concept of a corpus has not been high, corpus linguistics has not been widely pro-
moted in teacher education programmes (Römer 2004), and many teachers lack both the
computer and corpus resources to promote it in their own institutions. User-friendliness is
also arguably an issue; the presentation of KWIC concordance lines can seem somewhat
forbidding and their meaning can be difficult to process, since they typically show incom-
plete sentences, from diverse contexts and often with distracting vocabulary and other
problems. They demand a way of reading that is neither left to right nor right to left nor
vertically but a combination of all (see Cheng 2010). While some of these comprehen-
sion issues may be mitigated by using a ‘pedagogic corpus’ (Willis 2011:54) created by
individual teachers and comprised of texts from the learner’s materials or graded readers
appropriate to the level (Allan 2009), DDL has not entered mainstream published materi-
als. Constraints of time, space on the page, and pressures of syllabus coverage may be seen
as further impediments. (See also Gilquin and Granger 2010 for further discussion of DDL
in language teaching.)
Midway along the spectrum is the corpus-as-resource for a wide range of features in
coursebooks. For example, the present authors, in their corpus research for the Touchstone
and Viewpoint series (McCarthy et al, 2005, 2006, 2012, 2014a, 2014b), derived information
173
not only on word frequencies but on typical grammatical patterns, common speaking strate-
gies, conversational structure, rhetorical features of writing, and so on. Although heavily
reliant on the corpus, this approach can best be described as ‘corpus-informed’ rather than
‘corpus-driven.’ In a corpus-driven approach, the integrity of the data is everything and,
often, the researcher arrives at insights which can only be gained from corpora and com-
mits to remaining 100% faithful to the evidence in whatever use it is put to (Tognini-Bonelli
2001:84ff). A corpus-informed approach trusts the corpus but retains the freedom to lightly
edit the data where necessary or unavoidable (e.g. ‘tidying up’ messy spoken transcripts
for the purposes of illustrative dialogues) and to mediate and transform corpus information
into something practical, useful, and palatable for the target audience. Mediation may mean
exploiting the insights and information gained from research into corpora in developing
material that looks almost as familiar as any other coursebook, while still being true to
the underlying insights gained from the data. Corpus-informed material acknowledges that
corpus research can underpin many aspects of the syllabus, content, and methodology but
is ‘pre-digested’ to form a non-threatening presentation and reflection of actual language
use which will be perceived by the users as an authentic encounter with the target language.

Corpora and the ELT canon
What sorts of information do corpora provide that might otherwise elude the materials
writer and why should experienced materials writers bother with them? In considering
some examples of the types of information corpora throw up, we shall see that sometimes
commonly held tenets of the ELT canon are confirmed, while at other times they are chal-
lenged and undermined. Furthermore, materials writers often have to resolve conflicts relat-
ing to conventional views of what is accurate in language usage as well as presenting
and highlighting significant information from the corpus which may at best only exist as
sub-conscious and -liminal knowledge on the part of native or expert users. Spoken corpus
analysis, in particular, tends to provide insights that are difficult to arrive at through intro-
spection or which are not reported in reference works based mostly or wholly on written
sources.
Confirming the canon

The ELT canon, that is to say the widely accepted view of what is important to teach about
English in terms of grammar, vocabulary, etc., a body of knowledge accumulated over cen-
turies of experience in the teaching of native- and non-native users and enshrined in refer-
ence works and coursebooks, is often reassuringly confirmed by corpus research. So, for
example, we rarely if ever find native users of English failing to add the -s ending to a
third-person singular present-tense verb. On the other hand, learner corpora frequently attest
to the non-use of third person present singular -s. Whatever our opinion of whether it mat-
ters if learners often do not use the -s ending, all coursebook writers will orientate towards
including it as part of the grammar syllabus. It is not a question of whether the ELT canon
accurately reflects native-speaker usage; the only debate to be had is whether in a course
directed towards English as a lingua franca, for example, it could happily be stated that
using or not using third person -s is your choice.
174
Questioning the canon

However, the ELT canon is open to challenge from corpus evidence. An example the pre-
sent authors encountered in their corpus research is the use of what the canon calls ‘future
perfect,’ that is to say the form will + have + past participle (or + been + -ing form), as in I
will have taken three exams by the end of my course or We will have been living here for ten
years by the end of this year. Traditionally students are encouraged to think ahead to a point
in the future and to measure its circumstances in relation to the now. The corpus, however,
challenges us to rethink this ‘canonical’ use and throws up examples that look back to past
events and make suppositions or assumptions about the present, rather than look to the future.
Examples from the pedagogical section of the CANCODE spoken corpus include: You will
have come across in other reading the notion of different perspectives on organizations of
management; Billy Dunn will have told you how acid production is controlled in the stom-
ach; You will have seen that in some of the literature you’ve looked at. This information about
what is a common use of the ‘future perfect’ leads us to question not only the name given to
the particular verb form in the ELT canon but also what we should present and teach about
the form. A corpus-informed approach bears in mind that creating a new name for the form
might well confuse or alienate teachers and learners but presenting an alternative function,
especially at the advanced level, not only more accurately represents usage but also gives
greater coherence to one of the principles espoused by McCarthy (2015) for grammar syl-
labuses at the advanced level, viz the presentation of new functions for forms already known.
The next example relates to aspects of usage which may well be considered inaccurate or
infelicitous by conventional standards. Traditionally, the contracted form there’s has always
been taught as being followed by a singular noun complement. However, in the CANCODE
corpus of 5 million words of everyday spoken language, we find some 500 examples of
there’s followed by a plural noun complement within the range of 3 words following,
compared with some 1,700 where the noun is singular using the same search parameters.
Examples include: there’s lots of tourists, there’s really nice beaches, there’s five different
systems, there’s no real problems. A corpus-driven approach to materials writing would sug-
gest that the apparently ‘incorrect’ examples cannot be ignored given their number, and that
the materials should present the singular and plural versions as in something approaching
free variation. However, the materials writer must weigh up (1) the likelihood that many
teachers will baulk at the idea of teaching what they consider to be a wrong form, and (2)
the threat of the student being marked down in examinations (especially if the form appears
in writing). In this particular case, the present authors opted for a warning box in the gram-
mar presentation of there’s and there are in Touchstone Level 1 Second Edition (McCarthy
et al. 2014:55), informing the student that in conversation people often say there’s with a
plural noun but that it will be seen as incorrect in writing. Such dilemmas arise from time
to time: for example, what does one do about forms such as wanna and dunno, or the use of
be like to introduce reported speech? Is it worth spending time teaching productive use of
whom as the object form of who except for formal writing? These questions are amenable
to common-sense solutions based on real-world classroom needs if one adopts a corpus-
informed approach.
Shedding light on the unconscious

Corpora can bring to the fore information about the language which native users may have
as part of their usage but which may exist on the edges of explicit awareness or completely
175
unconsciously. We have already mentioned that this is especially true of spoken usage,
which occurs overwhelmingly in real time, with little opportunity for conscious reflection
during its execution. Here our example takes us to the elementary level of the verb be. It is
uncontroversial to state that present-tense third-person singular be in negative form offers
the option of two contracted forms: isn’t and ’s not. However, deciding which one is the
more common, or which one is used when, is not an easy question to answer purely through
introspection, and teachers are likely to find little to help them in published resources.
The present authors’ corpus research suggested that there is a marked preference for ’s not
when the subject is a pronoun (e.g. he’s not a teacher; she’s not here; it’s not open till nine
o’clock), while isn’t is preferred after full noun subjects (the teacher isn’t here; the machine
isn’t working; the film isn’t very good). It is important to note that this is a preference rather
than a rule; it is an example of probabilistic grammar, which some see as one of the major
types of insight offered by corpus analysis (e.g. Halliday 1991).
Dealing with chunks

Corpus analysis, especially of the spoken language, presents a further set of challenges and
opportunities for materials writers in the form of the ubiquity of recurring chunks in corpus
data, especially in everyday spoken language. One study suggests that more than 50% of
all the words in spoken and written texts may exist as part of ready-made chunks rather
than as single words (Erman and Warren 2000). Basic frequency counts of spoken corpora
have served to show up chunks that are extremely common in conversation, but which are
routinely overlooked in materials. As such these items often do not meet with the expecta-
tion or, in some cases, the approval of publishers’ editors and teachers. For example, what
are known as vague category markers, e.g. or something like that, and things like that, are
extremely common in conversation, being more frequent than many words and expressions
that are considered part of the elementary level syllabus. The four-word chunk or something
like that is more frequent in the CANCODE corpus than the noun breakfast, the adjective
slow, and the conjunction/adverbial however. Research into the frequency and functions of
vague category markers (e.g. their ability to refer to shared knowledge without the need for
tiresome and exhaustive lists, or the way they facilitate hedging and face-protection) sug-
gests that it is impossible to have a natural conversation without using them (see Cutting
2007 for various papers on the subject). While the frequency of or something like that over
some basic vocabulary suggests early inclusion in the teaching syllabus, prior to McCarthy
et al. 2005, this chunk had not been specifically focussed on with its strategic function
explained. In the same vein, the discourse marker I mean, the second most frequent two-
word chunk in the CANCODE corpus (you know being the first) was initially baffling to
some users of pilot material which was ultimately incorporated into McCarthy et al. 2005
(personal communications). Our personal, anecdotal experience from presenting at profes-
sional conferences is that teachers are often hesitant or even hostile to the inclusion in
materials of expressions such as you know and or something like that, and that considerable
work in illustrating and explaining the fundamental role such chunks play in successful
communication is often necessary in professional training seminars and workshops and in
the teachers’ books that accompany the course material. Once again, if new and unexpected
matter is incorporated into the materials in a familiar, non-threatening form, with activities
that are doable and enjoyable, the successful reception and increasing ‘normality’ of such
content suggest that the materials writer can afford to be reasonably bold, innovative, and
176
true to the evidence of the corpus. In this respect, the personal experience of the present
authors has reassured us of a noticeable shift in attitudes since the early days of the corpus
revolution and the doubts and suspicions frequently voiced in the mid- and late 1990s as to
the value of spoken corpora in the creation of materials.
Finding good texts

Corpora consist of collections of texts, whether spoken or written, but while written texts
from newspapers, magazines, websites, novels, etc., offer potentially vast resources of
authentic material, a major difficulty for the writer of conversation material is that of find-
ing ‘texts’ that are suitable for inclusion in a commercially published course. We would
argue that in order to help learners be able to engage in social conversation confidently and
successfully, it is important to show in materials what natural social interaction is like and
to provide realistic examples of it, ones which will be experienced as authentic samples of
the language by teachers and students alike. This is not often such a problem in relation to
written forms of communication; language courses are rich in written texts as the basis of
many aspects of language presentation (not just in writing lessons) and ‘model texts’ are
considered de rigueur for the teaching of writing. The fact that face-to-face conversation
is not normally experienced in written form should not be seen, in our view, as an argu-
ment for not presenting conversations on a page (ideally accompanied by audio) to learners
wishing to acquire or improve their conversation skills. However, the choice of text can be
problematic. Very often unedited ‘raw’ corpus data is deemed unsuitable for a wide variety
of reasons. Length, context, informal usage, and opacity are all factors (see McCarten 2010
for a fuller discussion). Inevitably, it is in the messy world of informal, casual conversation
among friends, family, workmates, and so on that the materials writer is forced to do the
greatest amount of editing. False starts, hesitations, overlaps, mumblings, inaudible words
and syllables, unfinished grammatical structures, and repeated words are the hallmarks of
a genuine transcript of conversation. A common-sense approach informs us that we would
not want our teaching goal to be ‘learning how to mumble’ or ‘techniques for making false
starts.’ These are spontaneous human behaviours, not features of English per se. What we
are more likely to have as a goal is a raised awareness of and practice in the use of interac-
tive expressions (such as you know and I mean and the vague category markers already
discussed), macro-features such as starting and ending a conversation (e.g. Anyway, good
to talk to you), ways of making engaged responses other than a mere yes (e.g. Great! That’s
fine), ways of expressing our stance without causing offence (e.g. I’m not sure that’s right,
what do you think?), and so on. All these key features can be retained in a ‘cleaned up’
transcript where the messy distractions have been removed to give something that has the
familiarity of a coursebook dialogue, but which is corpus-informed in its form, content, and
pedagogical focus. And certain common phenomena that occur in the transcript might well
be retained in the dialogue (especially at more advanced levels) for the purposes of showing
learners, for example, that it is quite normal to say er or erm when hesitating (erm, I’m not
sure), that it is normal to use a word and then immediately correct oneself with a better or
more suitable word (it’s better to book before, to pre-book I mean), that one may pause at
strategic points without loss of fluency (if you like … erm … we could go tomorrow), and so
on. Finding ideal spoken texts for one’s purpose is not easy but can be achieved with a good
corpus; the real benefit of any corpus is the way it can show us, through frequency lists and
concordances, how features are repeated at different times by different speakers and writers
177
in different situations and contexts, which of itself already gives the materials writer a way
into constructing a more authentic syllabus where the learning targets match the way the
language is really used by its users, be they native or expert users.

Corpora and methodology
The translation of corpus statistics and insights to a page (or screen) of pedagogically suc-
cessful and engaging materials is complex and, we would argue, involves not just a shift
in content but also a methodological shift to a language-awareness based approach. There
are various reasons why this should be so. First and foremost, the more novel insights that
corpora have provided (especially in relation to the spoken language) are typically not part
of the conscious baggage that learners bring to the language-learning enterprise. Previous
language education, along with lay perceptions of what matters in language use (typically
limited to things like correct grammar, spelling, and pronunciation) may mean that students
exposed to corpus-informed teaching will either miss the point of what the lesson is about or
feel bamboozled by the unfamiliarity of what they are being asked to engage with.
Secondly, the kinds of features corpora reveal to be important (e.g. engaged responses in
conversation, the use of discourse signalling in writing) tend to be matters of choice rather
than matters of rule. To say that one can use a past continuous with the verb want as a strat-
egy for indirectness and creating good relations (e.g. in a furniture shop: We were wanting to
look at some sofas) is a choice; using the past of be and the -ing forms of verbs is rule about
the formation of the past continuous. Rules can be taught explicitly, typically in grammar
charts; choices can only be seen in contexts, typically embedded in texts.
For the above reasons, a somewhat different approach to the present-practise-produce
(PPP) methodology needs to be brought to bear in these areas of choice. In the six levels of
corpus-informed published materials by McCarthy et al. (2005, 2006, 2012, 2014a, 2014b)
the approach taken to the teaching of conversation in particular is one of directed noticing,
initially putting students in the role of observers rather than analysts of language. Noticing as
a step towards deeper learning has a longstanding and solid grounding in research (Schmidt
1990, 1993) and is a first step towards meaningful interaction with the material which, if
appropriately constructed, leads to inductive insights about what speakers and writers are
doing when they use or something like that, or you know, or when a writer uses a wh-cleft
clause to highlight an important point in an argument. It is very difficult simply to ‘present’
or something like that in the same way as one might present a new tense or the passive voice,
and far better to devise activities which let the student notice, interact, and draw conclusions
about the kinds of phenomena the corpus-informed syllabus engages with. This process
reflects the methodological principles of the three ‘I’s: illustration – interaction – induction,
as postulated by Carter and McCarthy (1995). In the case of conversational strategies, for
example, exposure to and exploitation of a short conversation which illustrates a particular
language feature is followed by a noticing task, which requires students to interact with the
text to find further examples of the said feature. The practice activities which follow give
further conversationally based examples of the target language or skill and are designed
to allow students to incorporate this new language with what they already know, eventu-
ally in exchanges, a process which can be described as induction. It is important that the
practice phases be equally ‘corpus-informed’ in that they should contain language which
is realistic and representative of actual conversation. As such, it should be supportive in
178
providing scaffolding for students’ own production, i.e. a spring board for personalisation
(see McCarthy and McCarten 2018 for further discussion of practice).
However, as we have constantly asserted in this chapter, hand in hand with the desire to
teach corpus-informed language and share important insights is the need to create materials
which are methodologically familiar, employing activity types that teachers already use and
which are easy to set up and manage in the classroom. While the role of teachers’ manuals is
important in giving information about language and suggesting ways of exploiting the mate-
rial, the student material must itself be transparent to teachers of all levels of experience.
Future directions
It is always difficult to predict the future in language teaching and especially in the realm
of materials, given the rapid advances in technology which have taken many types of mate-
rial off the page and onto the computer screen, and often out of the classroom and into the
learner’s private space. The mention of technology takes us back to the debate over DDL.
Will DDL be the future for online learning? It is certainly true that accessibility to corpora
and ease of use have increased massively over the decades that have elapsed since the first
explorative days of computer-assisted language learning (CALL). We would suggest that
the day when DDL will take over and other types of corpus-informed materials become
redundant is a long way off, if it is ever to come about. DDL certainly offers enhanced
opportunities for independent, out of class learning in the era of almost universal access to
personal computers, tablets, and smartphones. Nonetheless, in its usual form, i.e. engaging
learners directly with corpus data, typically in the form of concordances of target words,
phrases, and grammatical patterns, DDL suffers from the burden of throwing learners in at
the deep end and immersing them in too much ‘reality,’ a problem that is likely to be more
intense without a teacher on hand. That is not to say that DDL, with sufficient support and
online feedback, might not work for more specialised contexts such as EAP or professional
and business English, where learners are likely to already have considerable knowledge of
the contexts and subject-matter of the texts they are exposed to, knowledge which they can
put to good use to defray the distractions of non-target features of the concordances such
as unusual lexis or cryptic contextual references that are often encountered in more general
materials such as newspaper texts or conversational transcripts.
If we accept that technology in various forms is likely to play an increased role in lan-
guage pedagogy in the form of blended learning, if not totally online learning, then the
materials writer will have to adapt to the new forms that pedagogy will take and is already
taking. One such example is the growth in adaptive learning technology (for a general dis-
cussion, see San Pedro and Baker 2016). Machines can be ‘taught’ to give feedback to learn-
ers appropriate to their level and to their current performance. For example, in the area of
automated feedback on writing tasks, it may be necessary not only to correct grammatical,
lexical, punctuation, and spelling errors but also give feedback on more extended patterns
of usage and rhetoric such as hedging. Good adaptive feedback would then offer the learner
activities in the use of hedging devices such as modal constructions and discourse markers
that function as hedges, and this is where the materials writer reappears out of the techno-
logical fog, and where the corpus can continue to provide the raw material for transforma-
tion into a new generation of material. Machines can do more than just deliver the verdict of
reference grammars, dictionaries, and thesauruses as feedback to the user; recent research,
for example, has shown how machines can be trained to recognise discriminating features
179
in corpora of student essays that tend to attract higher (or lower) marks from human graders
(Alexopoulu et al. 2013). This kind of corpus-derived information can be valuable to mate-
rials writers creating materials for exam courses, for instance.
Other technological affordances that could feed positively into the corpus-informed mate-
rials writer’s task may come about in the form of multi-modal corpora, where audio, video,
and transcript evidence can be scrutinised simultaneously, offering the potential for corpus-
informed pronunciation materials as well as overall improved materials for the teaching of
speaking. A good brief discussion of multi-modal corpora may be found in Knight (2011).
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have argued in favour of the exploitation of corpora as the best way for-
ward for the creation of materials that reflect the actual usage of whatever population they
are drawn from (native users, expert users, learners). Corpora provide powerful evidence for
areas of language use that are not easily amenable to introspection, especially areas such as
everyday conversation and discourse-level phenomena in speaking and writing. Corpus evi-
dence may both support and challenge the accepted canons of language teaching, presenting
materials writers with a slew of dilemmas over whether such evidence is appropriate, valu-
able, useful, and how, if at all, it should find its way into materials. We have argued for a
common-sense, corpus-informed approach in which the corpus is respected as an indispen-
sable source of evidence, but evidence which needs careful mediation and transformation
into material that will be familiar, practical, and ultimately perceived as more authentic and
lead to more rewarding learning.
Further reading
Carter, R. and Adolphs, S., 2008. Linking the Verbal and Visual: New Directions for Corpus Linguistics
Language and Computers, 64:275–91.
A fascinating look into the future of multi-modal corpus research methodology and findings.
Cullen, R. and Kuo, I.-C., 2007. Spoken Grammar and ELT Course Materials: A Missing Link?
TESOL Quarterly, 41/2:361–86.
An interesting analysis of how spoken grammar is represented in coursebooks.
A good overview of differences between real conversations and those in coursebooks.
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. J., and Carter, R. A., 2007. From Corpus to Classroom. Cambridge:
An introduction to corpus research and its practical pedagogical applications.
Related topics
Theory and practice in materials development, authenticity in language teaching materials,
research in materials development: what, how, and why?, using research to inform materials
development, materials for developing speaking skills.
References
Alexopoulou, T., Yannakoudakis, H. and Salamoura A., 2013. Classifying intermediate learner English:
A data-driven approach to learner corpora. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G. and Meunier, F., eds. Twenty
180
Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, Moving ahead. Corpora and Language in Use.
Proceedings, vol. 1, Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
Allan, R., 2009. Can a graded reader corpus provide ‘Authentic’ Input? ELT Journal, 63/1:23–32.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E., 1999. The Longman grammar of
spoken and written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.
Burton, G., 2012. Corpora and coursebooks: Destined to be strangers forever? Corpora, 7/1:91–108.
Capel, W., Flockhart, J. and Robbins, S., 2012. Business Vocabulary in Practice: B1–B2. London:
Collins.
Carter, R.A., 1998. Orders of Reality: CANCODE, communication, and culture. ELT Journal,
52/1:43–56.
Carter, R.A. and McCarthy, M.J., 1995. Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics,
16/2:141–158.
Carter, R.A. and McCarthy, M.J., 2001. Size isn’t everything: Spoken English, corpus and the
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35/2:337–340.
Carter, R.A. and McCarthy, M.J., 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carter, R.A., McCarthy, M.J., Mark, G. and O’Keeffe, A., 2011. English Grammar Today. Cambridge:
Cheng W., 2010. What can a corpus tell us about language teaching? In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy,
M., eds. The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, Oxford: Routledge.
Cheng, W., Warren, M. and Xu, X., 2003. The language learner as language researcher: Corpus
linguistics on the timetable. System, 31/2:173–186.
Cobb, T., 1997. Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25/3:301–315.
Crowther, J., ed., 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Cutting, J., ed., 2007. Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dudeney, G. and Hockly, N., 2012. ICT in ELT: How did we get here and where are we going? ELT
Journal, 66/4:533–542.
Erman, B. and Warren, B., 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20/1:29–62.
Gilquin, G. and Granger, S., 2010. How can data-driven learning be used in language teaching? In
O’Keeffe A. and McCarthy M.J., eds. The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Abingdon,
Oxon: Routledge.
Granger, S., 2003. The international corpus of learner English: A new resource for foreign language
learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 37/3:538–546.
Granger, S., Gilquin, G. and Meunier, F., eds., 2015. The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus
Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K., 1991. Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B.,
eds. English Corpus Linguistics. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Harwood, N., 2002. Taking a lexical approach to teaching: Principles and problems. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12/2:139–155.
Herbst, T., 1996. On the way to the perfect learners' dictionary: A first comparison of OALD5,
LDOCE3, COBUILD2 and CIDE. International Journal of Lexicography, 9/4:321–357.
Jenkins, J., 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Johns, T., 1986. Micro-Concord: A language learner’s research tool. System, 14/2:151–62.
Johns, T., 1991. From print out to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-
driven learning. CALL Austria, 10:14–34.
Knight, D., 2011. The future of multimodal corpora. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada,
11/2:391–415.
Koester, A., Pitt, A., Handford, M. and Lisboa, M., 2012. Business Advantage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
181
McCarten, J., 2010. Corpus-informed course book design. In A. O’Keeffe and M. McCarthy, eds. The
Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
McCarthy, M.J., 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McCarthy, M.J., 2015. The role of corpus research in the design of advanced level grammar instruction.
In Christison, M.A., Christian, D., Duff, P.A. and Spada, N., eds. Teaching and Learning English
Grammar: Research Findings and Future Directions. New York: Routledge.
McCarthy, M.J. and McCarten, J., 2018. Now you’re talking! Practising conversation in second
language learning. In Jones, C., ed. Practice in Second Language Learning Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McCarthy, M. J. McCarten, J. Clark, D. and Clark, R., 2009. Grammar for Business. Cambridge:
McCarthy, M.J. and O'Dell, F., 2002. English Idioms in Use Intermediate. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McCarthy, M.J., & O'Dell, F., 2008. Academic Vocabulary in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McCarthy, M.J., McCarten, J. and Sandiford, H., 2005, 2006. Touchstone, Levels 1–4. Cambridge:
McCarthy, M.J., McCarten, J. and Sandiford, H., 2014a. Viewpoint, Levels 1 and 2. Cambridge:
McCarthy, M.J., McCarten, J. and Sandiford, H., 2014b. Touchstone, Levels 1–4. 2nd ed. Cambridge:
O'Keeffe, A., and McCarthy, M.J., eds.. 2010. The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics.
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Procter, P., ed., 1995. Cambridge International Dictionary of English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Prodromou, L., 2003. In Search of the successful user of English. Modern English Teacher 12/2:5–14.
Reppen, R., 2011. Using corpora in the language classroom. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
Römer, U., 2004. A corpus-driven approach to modal auxiliaries and their didactics. In Sinclair, J.
McH., ed., 2004. How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Rundell, M., ed., 2002. Macmillan English Dictionary. London: Macmillan.
San Pedro, M.O.Z., and Baker, R.S., 2016. Adaptive learning. The Cambridge Guide to Blended
Learning for Language Technologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R., 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11:129–158.
Schmidt, R., 1993. Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
13:206–226.
Seidlhofer, B., 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua
franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11:133–58.
Seidlhofer, B., 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24:209–39.
Seidlhofer, B. and Jenkins, J., 2003. English as a lingua franca and the politics of property. Cross
Cultures, 65:139–156.
Sinclair, J. McH., 1991. Corpus, Concordance and Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. McH., ed., 1987. Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary. London: Harper
Collins Publishers.
Sinclair, J. McH., ed., 1990. Collins COBUILD English Grammar. London: Harper Collins Publishers.
Sinclair, J. McH., ed., 2004. How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. Amsterdam and Philadelphia,
PA: John Benjamins.
Summers, D., ed., 1995. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 3rd ed. Harlow: Longman.
182
Timmis, I.G., 2012. Spoken language research and ELT: Where are we now? ELTJ, 66/4:514–522.
Tognini-Bonelli, E., 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tribble, C. and Jones, G., 1997. Concordances in the Classroom: A Resource Book for Teachers.
Harlow: Longman.
Widdowson, H.G., 1998. Context, community and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly,
32/4:705–716.
Widdowson, H.G., 2000. On the limitations of applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 21/1:2–25.
Widdowson, H.G., 2004. Text, Context, Pretext. London: Blackwell.
Willis, J., 2011. Concordances in the classroom. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials Development in
Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, J. and Willis, D., 1988. Collins COBUILD English Course, Levels 1 and 2. London: Harper
Collins Publishers.
183
Part 4
Materials for language learning
and skills development

13
Penny Ur
Introduction
This chapter focuses mainly on the grammar-teaching component within general ELT
course materials (digital or print), though much of its content will be found relevant also to
supplementary textbooks aimed specifically at the teaching of English grammar.
Grammar has traditionally been a central component of language-teaching coursebooks.
The roots of this emphasis can be found in the teaching of Latin and Greek from the Middle
Ages onwards, maintained in early textbooks for the teaching of English (Howatt 2004).
In the 20th century, the focus on grammar gained further momentum through the work
of Noam Chomsky, Ferdinand de Saussure, and Leonard Bloomfield. Although the two
main schools of thought in linguistics – generative grammar, associated with Chomsky, and
structuralist linguistics, associated with de Saussure and Bloomfield – are commonly seen
as opposing camps, they were united in the underlying assumption that grammar is the basis
of linguistic knowledge and therefore lent support to the status of grammar as an essential
component of language courses.
Popular methodologies of most of the 20th century also supported grammar teaching.
The grammar-translation method, based primarily on the teaching of formal grammatical
rules and translation, was predominant for most of the century, and indeed continues to be
used in some places to the present day. Audiolingualism became popular worldwide in the
1960s and early 1970s; it stressed the acquisition of ‘patterns’: models of correct imple-
mentation of grammatical rules. Both methods saw the acquisition of grammatical accuracy
as the primary goal of language teaching: they differed only in the methods by which this
was to be achieved. Grammar-translation used the application of theoretical rules through
written exercises; audio-lingualism encouraged habit-formation and acquisition by analogy
through repetition, memorisation, and oral drills.
In the late 20th century both grammar-translation and audio-lingualism were aban-
doned by most writers on English teaching in favour of methods based on a communicative
approach. The latter is premised on the fairly uncontroversial assumption that the purpose
of language is primarily to communicate, which has led to the recommendation that the
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-17 187

Penny Ur
teaching of English in classrooms should focus primarily on teaching students to communi-

cate in English, and less – or not at all – on formal accuracy of grammar (Widdowson 1978).
We would therefore expect to see coursebooks published in the late 20th century and
early 21st century devoted predominantly to communicative tasks, and reducing grammar
explanations and exercises to a minimum. And we would expect far fewer, if any, publica-
tions of books or websites devoted solely to the explicit teaching and practice of grammar.
Neither of these has in fact happened.
Critical issues and challenges for materials development

The choice of how to select, present, and consolidate the learning of grammar in coursebooks
is based on the following main considerations: insights from research; current accepted
approaches, methods, and strategies in English teaching; the pedagogical experience and
approach of the writers; marketing concerns of the publisher.
Research
The two areas relevant to the present discussion are corpus linguistics and language acquisi-
tion research.
Corpus linguistics has produced a number of interesting findings as regards frequency
of specific grammatical structures. For example, it is clear that in all contexts the simple
aspect of the verb is hugely more common than the progressive (Biber et al. 1999; Biber
and Conrad 2001). This contrasts with the conventional tendency in grammar books (e.g.
Murphy 2009) or more traditional coursebooks (e.g. L. G. Alexander’s classic Look, Listen
and Learn 1968) to put the present progressive first when teaching beginners: whether
because teachers have intuitively assumed that it is common, or because it is based on
the very common verb be, or because it is easy to demonstrate by mime and pictures in
the classroom. Many more recently published coursebooks (e.g. Liz and John Soars’s New
Headway series) have, however, moved towards putting the present simple first, probably
in response to corpus findings.
Diachronic corpus studies have shown interesting tendencies in the development of
English grammar: for example, the decline in the use of shall these days, even in formal
prose, as an indicator of the future with the first person; and decrease in the use of must to
indicate obligation, parallel with a rise in the use of have to (Aarts et al. 2014). The same
researchers note a significant increase in the use of the present progressive (though not
enough to affect materially the overall ratio of progressive to simple mentioned above),
particularly with the so-called ‘stative’ verbs, as in the McDonald’s slogan ‘I’m lovin’ it.’
Corpora are a reliable source of information about the grammar of spoken English (Carter
and McCarthy 2017). Spoken grammar includes elements such as left- and right-dislocated
elements (‘heads’ and ‘tails’), as in sentences like ‘My friend Ella, her mother’s an actor’ or
‘He’s a good guy, John’; the use of coordination rather than subordination in sentence con-
struction; ellipsis, as in ‘You finished yet?’ or ‘Think so?’; and the use of fragments rather
than full sentences (‘I think … sooner or later … a break for tea…’).
A third type of corpus which has provided some interesting evidence with regard to
grammar use is that which consists of the use of English by non-native speakers in commu-
nication with one another. Research on the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English
(VOICE) has shown that non-standard variants such as the omission of the final s from the
third person singular of the present simple verb form, the use of which in relative clauses
188
to refer to a person, or the use of uncountable nouns like advice, information in the plural,
are relatively common in the output of such speakers (Breiteneder 2005, 2009), and do
not affect the communication of meaning. It has been suggested therefore that it might be
inappropriate to insist on learners of English for purposes of international communication
producing the standard forms of such features (Jenkins 2006).
The actual teaching and learning of grammar have been investigated in a large number
of applied linguistics studies. The following list is necessarily selective, focusing on those
topics which have clear relevance for materials design.
An influential study by Pienemann (1984) showed that there appears to be a predeter-
mined order of acquisition of syntactic structures by language learners, which cannot be
altered by order of teaching. An example, for question forms, would be the following:
tage 1: single words, fragments. ‘A spot on the dog?’

S
Stage 2: subject-verb-object with rising intonation: ‘A boy throw the ball?’
Stage 3: fronting. ‘Do the boy is beside the bus?’
Stage 4: wh- with copula be. ‘Where is the ball?’
Stage 5: wh- with auxiliary second. ‘What is the boy throwing?’
(adapted from Spada and Lightbown 1999:5)
This led to the teachability hypothesis, which states that a learner who has not mastered
earlier structures in the developmental sequence will not be able to master later ones, how-
ever intensively they are taught. It has been further claimed that teaching ‘later’ structures
in this sequence before a learner is ready may actually have a detrimental effect on learning.
This more extreme claim has been called into question by later research (e.g. Spada and
Lightbown 1999), but the basic thesis, later expanded into processability theory, is gener-
ally accepted. One problem with the implementation of this theory in materials design for
ELT is the fact that there is no full empirically substantiated list of the developmental order
of acquisition of structures in English, and there is some evidence that this may be affected
by the learner’s mother tongue; another is the fact that in a classroom of learners different
individuals are likely to be at different stages, and therefore it is difficult to gauge the point
at which a particular feature should be taught. Some teaching options that take into account
the teachability hypothesis are discussed below.
The question of whether it is beneficial to teach grammar explicitly has been explored
by a number of researchers. We need to make a distinction at this point between explicit
versus implicit knowledge – the ability to articulate a rule, versus the ability to produce
correct forms without any conscious rule-application – and explicit versus implicit teach-
ing – teaching by explaining rules, creating opportunities for students to apply them, and
providing corrective feedback on their errors, versus the provision of plenty of exemplars
of the grammar within communicative texts and interactions. Clearly the ultimate aim is
that learners should eventually acquire implicit knowledge of grammar: the question is
whether such acquisition is facilitated by implicit teaching. Stephen Krashen would claim
that it is: that explicit teaching does not promote implicit knowledge (‘acquisition’), but
only conscious declarative knowledge (‘learning’), and can produce evidence to support this
(Krashen 1999). A much-cited meta-analysis of research on the effectiveness of L2 instruc-
tion by Norris and Ortega (2001), however, shows that explicit teaching of grammar leads
to better results than implicit; and this appears to be true even for younger learners (Gorman
and Ellis 2019).
189
Penny Ur
A subject associated with the explicit/implicit dichotomy is the effectiveness, or inef-

fectiveness, of focused grammar practice as the means of transforming explicit into implicit
knowledge. The concept of practice in language learning is rooted in skill theory, accord-
ing to which the learning of a skill through instruction follows a sequence of declarative
knowledge (conscious, articulated instructions or descriptions of the target skill, and there-
fore explicit) transformed into procedural knowledge (intuitive skilled performance, which
is implicit) through a process of automatisation by means of practice (Salaberry 2017).
This clearly applies to skills like driving or playing a musical instrument, and arguably
also to the learning of grammar. As with the use of explicit grammar rules, the importance
of providing grammar practice to assist acquisition is generally accepted by teachers and
materials writers, and is a standard feature of most courses. However, some writers have
reservations about this. Krashen rejects conventional focused grammar practice, as he does
explicit teaching, claiming that this contributes only to ‘learning’ not ‘acquisition’ (Krashen
1999). Ellis (2001) also questions the usefulness of practice, but in this case on the basis
of the teachability hypothesis described above. He reasons that when a learner is ready
to acquire a structure, he or she will do so through communicative activity and does not
need practice; if he or she is not ready, then no amount of practice will help. A further
controversy surrounds the issue of whether to provide only input-based practice, requir-
ing students to process grammar features encountered in context, as recommended by, for
example, VanPatten (2015), or also output-based, requiring students to produce exemplars
themselves. The research indicates that optimal outcomes are achieved by a combination
of receptive and productive tasks, and that such practice is conducive to good learning of
grammar (Dekeyser and Sokalsky 1996; Salaberry 1997).
In conclusion we may note that research has produced a number of interesting, though by
no means unanimous, insights with regard to different aspects of the teaching of grammar
that are in principle relevant to materials design. In general, however, it appears that even
those which have been generally accepted have had relatively little effect on the content of
modern coursebooks (Tomlinson 2013; Ur 2017).
Approach, method, strategy

Research studies on grammar teaching, as we have seen above, may produce contradictory
results; and even when a conclusion is accepted by the majority of researchers, its applica-
tion in practice is often debatable and has little direct influence on materials design. One
would expect, however, that present-day approaches, methods, or practical grammar-teach-
ing strategies suggested by applied linguists and language-teaching experts should reveal
a more direct influence on the design of the grammar component of materials. An example
is the recommendation that grammar should be taught through reactive focus on form (i.e.
focusing on a grammatical feature in response to a learner error or a grammatical issue that
comes up in a text or communicative task), rather than conventional focus on formS (the
pro-active teaching of a grammatical structure according to a pre-set syllabus). It should be
noted that such models, though often citing the research as a basis for their rationale, owe at
least as much to the underlying social or philosophical position adopted, tacitly or explicitly,
by the writers (Waters 2007).
At present the communicative approach is predominant in the literature and in professional
interactions in conferences or online discussions. This has its roots in the ideas of Stephen
Krashen and his input hypothesis, which rejects any substantial role for explicit grammar
190
teaching in language courses, and claims that appropriate comprehensible input is a nec-
essary and sufficient condition for grammar acquisition. Other scholars have expressed a
more moderate position: Widdowson, relating to his seminal work Teaching Language as
Communication (1978) has remarked that if he were writing the book today he would re-title it
Teaching Language for Communication (my emphasis) (personal communication 2017): the
achievement of communicative competence does not necessarily entail only communicative
activity in the classroom. Swain (2000) also stresses the importance of the inclusion of learner
output and explicit teaching of grammar within immersion-based learning of a new language.
Also stressing the primacy of meaning and a reduction in emphasis on correct grammar,
is the Lexical Approach (Lewis 1993). Twenty-first-century research on the place of vocabu-
lary in language acquisition has strongly supported this approach, and there has indeed been
a rise in the amount of teaching and review of lexis in published materials; but vocabulary
has not, in most cases, displaced grammar as the primary focus.
Language-teaching method is defined for the purposes of this chapter as a coherent set
of principles and procedures based on a theory of language and language acquisition (Ur
2013). The predominant method associated today with the communicative approach is task-
based instruction or task-based learning (TBL), according to which language syllabus,
materials, and classroom procedures are based on a collection of communicative tasks, a
task being defined as an activity whose main focus is the achievement of a communicative
goal, as distinct from language exercises whose aim is the production of correct sentences
(Skehan 2003). It is therefore based not on a grammatical syllabus, but on a communicative
task (Long and Crookes 1992). The method has been criticised for its rejection of systematic
and explicit teaching of language components, particularly when applied to the most com-
mon ELT situation, the teaching of English in schools in non-English speaking countries
(Bruton 2005; Swan 2005). Its implementation, moreover, in materials design and actual
classroom practice worldwide has in fact been limited; courses based on it, like for example
the Collins COBUILD English Course (Willis and Willis 1989), have not been very success-
ful; and where it has been officially adopted, it has often been re-interpreted to allow for a
substantial component of explicit grammar teaching (Carless 2004).
In the light of such criticisms and difficulties with implementation in practice, together
with research evidence of the advantages of explicit grammar teaching, some attempts have
been made to introduce an element of grammar-teaching strategies within TBL. Most promi-
nent among these has been focus on form (Long and Robinson 1998): the reactive teaching
of grammatical forms within a communicative task. There is no overt grammar syllabus;
but if a grammatical feature is encountered in the course of communication, the teacher
focuses on it temporarily, explaining and even practising as necessary. The most common
trigger for such focus on form is a learner error: in providing corrective feedback, the teacher
provides information about the relevant grammar feature. Clearly, the strategy as originally
envisaged is teacher-dependent, a spontaneous reaction to ongoing classroom process, and
therefore cannot be covered by pre-written materials. However, a later variation termed ‘pre-
emptive’ focus on form (Ellis et al. 2002) allows for pre-planning, and therefore in principle
could be integrated into materials design: a grammatical feature relevant to the task may be
highlighted in some way and some explanation and even practice provided. A basic problem
remains that the adoption of focus on form as the sole basis for grammar teaching is premised
on the assumption that all the grammar that students need to know will in fact be covered
through being related to in this way – an assumption that may not be justified. The research
evidence indicates that focus on form has positive results, but not that it is more effective for
learning than more traditional grammar-teaching processes (Norris and Ortega 2001).
191
Penny Ur
Another strategy that has been suggested through which explicit grammar teaching
might be compatible with a generally task-based methodology, and takes into account the
teachability hypothesis, is consciousness raising (Ellis 2001). Learners are taught explicit
grammar rules, and invited to engage with them in exercises, whose aim is not to bring
about implicit knowledge of the grammatical feature in question, but to help them under-
stand and grasp the rule and how it is applied. Once they are ready to acquire the feature,
the awareness of the rule will facilitate its acquisition through communicative task- or
text-based work, without the need for focused practice. As noted by Nitta and Gardner
(2005), however, this strategy has not displaced conventional explanation and practice in
coursebooks.
The importance of the use of L1 (mother tongue) in the teaching and learning of a
new language is increasingly recognised (Cook 2001; Hall and Cook 2012), and there is
growing recognition of its relevance for grammar teaching (Levine 2014). It is clearly
useful for providing explanations, since the level of English required for explaining
the more basic structures is often well above the level of the target learner population.
Another use which can clearly contribute to learning is that of contrastive analysis:
often mistakes can be avoided and understanding enhanced by raising awareness of the
learners as to how a particular feature of English grammar compares and contrasts with
a parallel in their own language.
Finally, there is deductive versus inductive teaching of grammar rules: the provision of
rules, later applied to exemplars, versus the provision of exemplars from which learners
work out the rule. In principle, applied linguists and writers on ELT appear to favour induc-
tive, which accords with the current trend in favour of student-centred processes and data-
driven learning, but as Ellis (2006) points out, the research is by no means conclusive as to
its relative effectiveness, and on the whole learners appear to prefer the conventional deduc-
tive approach (Fortune 1992). However, a decision as to which to use in any given case
would depend not only on the grammar rule itself (how readily it lends itself to inductive or
deductive processes), but also on the age and level of the students, the goals and orientation
of the course, and the local culture of learning.
Writer preferences and marketing considerations

As we have seen, neither the research nor popular theoretical models at the level of approach,
method, or strategy seem to have had a substantial influence on design of the grammar com-
ponent in commercial materials. What does seem to tip the balance is what the writers and
publishers feel is appropriate and will sell.
It is true that the publisher’s main aim is to make a profit, and therefore the content and
design of the grammar component will certainly be influenced, if not determined, by the
preferences of potential buyers: mainly teachers, but also students, employers, and parents.
This, however, is an over-simplification: not everything can be explained solely on the basis
of optimising profit. Side by side with marketing considerations, and of equal importance,
are the professional expertise and experience of the writers, who are likely themselves to
have considerable classroom teaching experience, and whose decisions on what to include
are based on their own beliefs and practical know-how: what they see as pedagogically
effective. There are occasional conflicts between the two, as documented for example by
Bell and Gower (2011), but in general there is considerable overlap and coordination: any
good writer will be aware of the needs of the market, and the publishers necessarily respect,
and even depend on, the expertise of the writers.
192
Aspects of design which come under the category of pedagogical and marketing con-
siderations include the following: general attractiveness (clarity, interest, artwork, and
page layout), method of grammar teaching (type and frequency of grammar explana-
tions; type and quantity of exercises or activities), local preferences (culture of learning,
use of L1).
The consideration of general attractiveness is crucial: many potential buyers will be influ-
enced by the impression they get from a preliminary flick through the pages of the book. Is
the material clearly laid out, with pleasing and attention-catching artwork; is it easy to find
one’s way around? This applies obviously to the course as a whole: with regard to the gram-
mar component what we are looking for are clear and not too complex explanations (Swan
2012), easy-to-understand exercises with an accessible key to the right answers either in the
student’s book or in the teacher’s guide. The aspect of interest is also paramount; given that
most of the grammar tasks are based on conventional formats like gapfills, etc. (see below),
and therefore not very interesting in themselves, the topics at least need to be stimulating,
up to date, and relevant to the target audience. The Macmillan grammar, for example, makes
a point of basing many of their exercises on content studied in other subjects in the school
curriculum (Vince 2008).
As to the method of grammar teaching: it seems that the conventional pattern of presenta-
tion of contextualised examples followed by rule explanation which furnishes the basis for
grammar exercises (mainly substitution, gapfill, matching, or transformation) remains the
basis for the grammar teaching component in most coursebooks today, worldwide. This has
been commented on by researchers (e.g. Nitta and Gardner 2005; Waters 2009) and is sup-
ported by my own brief survey carried out while preparing this chapter (see the next section
for more detail on this). A number of books devoted only to grammar teaching have been
published by the major ELT publishing houses in the first two decades of this century (Azar
and Hagan 2009; Davies and Rimmer 2013; Murphy 2009; Swan and Walter 2011; Vince
2008) all following the pattern of rule explanation plus exercises. Current thinking, as we
have seen above, seems in general to oppose pro-active grammatical syllabuses and the par-
allel conventional process of presentation-practice-production (PPP), and suggests various
alternatives. The fact that the conventional pattern continues to predominate in published
materials can only be a result of individual writer beliefs and preferences together with
publishers’ marketing considerations: this is what authors feel is appropriate and/or what
teachers and students want.
A vital further factor influencing the choices by writers and publishers who are targeting
a particular market is the local culture of learning (Cortazzi and Jin 1999). If in a particu-
lar culture collaborative work by students is discouraged in favour of teacher-led instruc-
tion, then clearly grammar teaching strategies which rely on group- or pair-work tasks are
unlikely to be popular, and explanations provided by an authority (teacher or textbook) are
likely to be preferred over processes based on inductive learner discovery. A further factor
working against the inclusion of collaborative tasks, in grammar or anything else, is the
problem of classroom management: in many places where classroom discipline is a very
real problem, teachers will be understandably reluctant to hand over the initiative to stu-
dents, and will not use materials that require them to do so.
Also linked to the target market is the level of use of the mother tongue (L1): in many
locally produced, or adapted, materials, the L1 is used for grammatical explanations, and
often, at the lower levels, for exercise instructions as well, particularly where the materi-
als are intended for use in schools, with young learners and adolescents. It is fairly easy to
translate explanations and instructions of an international book for a local adaptation, and
193
Penny Ur
this is often done. More difficult, and therefore rarer, is the insertion of points of contrast
between English and the local L1, since this involves expertise in both languages and the
insertion of new content. The discussion of such contrasts can be found in grammar books
targeting a particular language community more often than in coursebooks; it is interesting,
however, that even in those which do use contrastive analysis, I have found no instances of
practice that exploits contrastive awareness in the form of translation-based exercises.
Three courses
In order to examine in more detail the issues raised in the earlier sections of this chap-
ter, I looked at sample units from three levels of currently popular coursebooks in English
for the international market: New Headway, 4th edition. (Soars and Soars 2011–2014);
Interchange, 5th edition (Richards et al. 2017); English File, 3rd edition (Latham-Koenig
and Oxenden 2015). What I was interested in checking was, first, the sheer quantity of
grammar-focused material, as compared to material focusing on fluency or other aspects of
accuracy such as vocabulary, pronunciation; and second, the ways in which this material is
presented, and more specifically the types of grammar task provided (conventional practice,
communication-oriented activities, consciousness-raising).
The only one to stress grammar in its introductory blurb is New Headway: ‘the world’s
best-selling English course – a perfectly-balanced syllabus with a strong grammar focus,
and full support at all six levels’ (my emphasis); English File mentions it: ‘A four-skills syl-
labus with a clear focus on pronunciation – plus Grammar Bank exercises for practice
and activation of grammar’ (my emphasis); whereas Interchange claims only a ‘commu-
nicative approach.’ In fact, however, all three courses feature grammar fairly prominently.
On the contents page it appears, significantly, as the first column of several in both New
Headway and English File, and as the second of four (after ‘Speaking’) in Interchange.
Grammar explanations and practice are provided for every unit, at all levels. The proportion
of space allotted to it varies. In New Headway, the first reading passage of each unit clearly
focuses on a grammatical point, and this is followed up by further tasks: in all between 30
and 50% of the space is allotted to grammar, supplemented by grammatical support material
available elsewhere in the book. In English File, only about 10–15% of the space in the main
units is devoted to grammar, but the learner is referred forward to a very extensive ‘grammar
bank’ (the most substantial section in the ‘bank’ supplement at the end of the book, about
two pages for each unit). In Interchange, grammar takes up about 25% of the space in Book
1, decreasing to 15% in Books 2 and 3, but again supplemented by extra material at the end
of the book (‘Grammar Plus’). In all three courses grammar exercises are provided in the
Workbook, taking up a higher proportion of space than in the main Student’s Book.
All the books feature grammar explanations. Interchange provides a simple explanation
within the unit before the relevant exercises, and supplements this with more detailed rules
in the ‘Grammar Plus’ section. The other books give no explanations within the unit itself,
but direct learners to go to the grammar supplements at the end of the book.
As regards exercises: most common in all the books is the standard completion exercise:
a sentence with a gap which needs to be filled using words provided in a separate ‘bank’ or
in parenthesis at the end of the sentence. While most such exercises require understanding
of meaning, there are some, even in the mainly communicative Interchange, that could be
done mechanically, by, for example, transforming a given base verb form into a given tense
or aspect to fill a gap. Other formats which clearly focus on production or recognition of
194
the correct forms, but also normally require understanding include ordering (of words or
sentences), expansion (of a brief cue into a full sentence), transformation (from one gram-
matical form into another), question and answer, multiple or dual choice, identifying correct
or incorrect sentences, and matching.
A number of exercises that frankly focus on form without meaning are given in New Headway:
listing the comparative forms of different adjectives, for example, or filling in a table with forms
of verbs. Also in New Headway in the post-elementary students’ books is a regular prominent
feature called ‘Grammar Spot,’ which is in fact a consciousness-raising task, requiring learners
to think about the forms and meanings of the grammar rather than to show they can use it. For
example, the learner is asked to identify the time a sentence refers to (present/past/future). This
type of task appears occasionally also in English File, but not in Interchange.
All the books also contain grammar tasks sometimes defined as ‘activities’ (Nitta and
Gardner 2005; Ur 2009), where students are asked to use the target structure in order to
respond to cues with their own content, and which therefore are usually open-ended (have
many possible answers). For example, in order to practice the future with will the learner
might be asked to make their own predictions about what will happen next year, and then
compare these with the predictions written by classmates.
In general, the results of my survey agree with those of other writers, e.g. Nitta and
Gardner (2005), Tomlinson (2013), in that, while there is indeed a substantial four-skills-
based communicative component in modern coursebooks, grammar teaching continues to
rely on a clear grammatical syllabus, explanations, and chiefly form-focused conventional
exercises, adding, in some cases, a component of consciousness-raising. The question is
whether this is a good or a bad thing. Many writers, such as those mentioned above, see this
as regrettable, since it conflicts with the approach adopted by the majority of ELT experts.
I do not agree.
Interim conclusions
It is commonly assumed that the general trend in favour of task-based, communicative
teaching and away from PPP based on a grammatical syllabus is solidly research-based, but
this is in fact questionable. There is certainly research based on natural acquisition of a first
language, or even a second in an immersion situation showing how grammar is acquired in
such natural situations: but there is no justification for the conclusion that such processes
necessarily apply to formal instruction in a course of study. There is no empirical research
supporting the hypothesis that learners acquire grammar better through task-based learn-
ing; there is substantial evidence that explicit teaching of grammar makes a contribution
to good learning and that form-focused teaching, though useful, does not produce better
results than formS-focused (Norris and Ortega 2001); the research on grammar practice is
mixed, but there is substantial evidence in its favour (Dekeyser 2009; Salaberry 1997). As
the late Alan Waters remarked: ’Rather than perceiving the continued or increased provi-
sion for so much practice work in textbooks as regrettable … it can be viewed more posi-
tively as evidence of a need for re-thinking research and theorizing in this area’ (Waters
2009: 319).
In other words: if there is a difference between what materials designers, teachers, and
students apparently see as a good way to teach grammar on the one hand, and what currently
popular theory is claiming on the other – it is quite possible that the theorists may be wrong.
My position is that the research on language acquisition has in principle much to con-
tribute to materials design, and that materials designers ignore it at their peril (Ur 2017), but
195
Penny Ur
how this research is to be interpreted and applied in the form of approaches, methods, and
strategies implemented in coursebooks is the responsibility of the practitioners (the writers
themselves and the teachers) rather than of theorists.

While approving, in general, the main design features of the grammar component in most
modern coursebooks, I would like to see some changes introduced in the future based on
my own interpretation of the research and theoretical and practical models discussed earlier.
I have also noted instances where a possible change, recommended by others, would not, in
my view, contribute to the improvement of materials.
Recommendation 1: implementation of corpus findings

Clearly it is useful for materials writers to keep up to date with findings on relative fre-
quency of different grammatical features: to prioritise, for example, the present simple over
the present progressive; to be cautious about claims that ‘stative’ verbs are used only in the
simple form; and so on.
With regard to spoken grammar, on the other hand, I doubt whether there is a place for
explicit teaching of features such as ellipsis, ‘heads’ and ‘tails,’ the use of coordination
rather than subordination in sentence construction, and so on, since all these are also charac-
teristic of speech in other languages, and may even be language-universal. They seem to be
a result of ‘thinking on your feet’ and the construction of utterances as the ideas pop up into
your mind (as compared to the more thoughtful and organised construction of sentences in
writing). As such, it is likely that these phenomena will occur naturally in speech produced
or heard by learners, and do not need to be systematically taught. However, occasional
awareness-raising activities, such as those suggested by Timmis (2005) may have a place in
materials designed for more advanced, adult learners.
Finally, with regard to the findings on users of English as a lingua franca: the fact that
certain non-standard variants (such as *she go) are common in the speech of non-native
users of English worldwide and do not interfere with communication is perfectly true, but
this does not to me seem to be a good reason for abandoning, or downplaying, the teaching
of the standard forms in materials. ‘Common’ does not mean ‘predominant’: on the contrary,
the evidence is that most users of English who have other languages as their mother tongue
adhere to the ‘correct’ forms even in informal speech (Ur 2010). Teaching these correct
forms is not a case of imposition of ‘native’ forms by an unfairly dominant native-speaker
community, but rather an issue of international standards: such forms are seen as accept-
able and desirable by most competent speakers of English, whatever their mother tongue,
for purposes of international communication. Course materials (except for those teaching
only spoken English for informal communication) would be doing learners and teachers a
disservice if they failed to teach and review them.
Recommendation 2: use of L1 and contrastive analysis

The use of the learners’ mother tongue in language teaching in general is, as mentioned
above, recognised today as potentially helpful. However, it is clear that it is rarely used or
mentioned in grammar-teaching materials. Obviously, this is largely because in interna-
tional coursebooks, such as those referred to earlier, the target audience have a wide variety
196
of mother tongues, but even in locally produced materials, the use of the mother tongue is
usually limited to instructions and explanations at the lower levels. In my view there is a
place for contrastive work in both types of materials. In international ones, it would be use-
ful to invite learners occasionally to compare grammatical features with the parallel in their
L1, and note similarities or differences, as part of the consciousness-raising component. In
locally produced or adapted ones, this is much easier to do, and the comparisons may be
made explicit.
A useful contribution of the L1 to grammar-teaching materials targeting a monolingual
learner population is actual translation exercises. Many mistakes in grammar are rooted in
L1 interference: requiring students to translate encourages them to face and overcome this
problem: for example, translating an L1 question into English, where English requires the
auxiliary do that is not represented in the L1 parallel. (I realise that this is a feature which is
unlikely to be adopted in the foreseeable future, owing to the general reluctance on the part
of most practitioners to use translation of anything beyond single vocabulary items.)
Recommendation 3: focus on form

Although we cannot conclude from the research that reactive focus on form within com-
municative tasks is superior to, or should completely replace, the process of conven-
tional explanation + practice (PPP), there is certainly, as mentioned above, substantial
support for its overall usefulness (Norris and Ortega 2001). It is, however, rarely used
in the materials I looked at. The teaching of a new structure is often based on a text, but
this text is specifically designed to illustrate the target structure. It is relatively unusual
to find tasks included as a regular feature that draw learners’ attention to a particular
grammatical feature as a brief component within the later stages of a communicative
activity or reading or listening comprehension task. Examples of such tasks might be:
‘Note the use of …’ or ‘Why does the writer use the form …?’ Apart from reminding
students of the use of the grammatical point and functioning as brief review and con-
solidation, the use of such components would contribute to solving the problem posed
by the teachability hypothesis. A student may not have acquired a feature when it was
taught in an early unit simply because he or she was not ready to learn it in terms of his
or her stage of grammatical development at that point: providing occasional opportuni-
ties to re-focus on the feature in later units raises the likelihood of successful learning.
Finally, there is the general importance of review: teaching a grammatical feature – or,
indeed, any other unit of language – only once does not ensure acquisition. It is impor-
tant for the coursebook to build in periodic brief reminders or review of grammar taught
earlier, and this can be effectively done through focus on form.
Recommendation 4: consciousness-raising
Consciousness-raising tasks require learners to think about the meanings and forms of tar-
get structures and identify where their use is appropriate. While not agreeing with Ellis
(2001) that such activity should replace presentation and practice, I feel that it can make
an important contribution to effective teaching materials (with the possible exception of
those intended for young learners). As we have seen above, only one of the three course-
books examined uses such tasks as a regular and substantial component of their grammar-
teaching process; another uses them sometimes; the third not at all. I would like to see them
197
Penny Ur
integrated into all units in coursebooks for adolescent and adult learners, including aspects
of contrastive analysis, as suggested above.
Recommendation 5: more opportunities for creative grammar use

All the coursebooks I have referred to above use occasional activities that activate students
in creating their own sentences using the target grammar feature: but I would like to see
this feature included in every unit, expanded, and affording more varied types of activation.
Most of the personalised activities simply require students to use the target feature to create
statements, texts, or dialogues of their own that implement the grammar. Also useful, and
arguably more interesting, are those based on language play rather than serious language-
for-communication: relatively light-hearted tasks that encourage learners to use the gram-
mar in order to suggest their own original, imaginative, or humorous ideas in response to a
cue, whether written or spoken. (For examples, see Ur 2009.)
Conclusion
The sequence of grammar teaching in most modern coursebooks is predominantly PPP:
presentation of a new grammatical feature through exemplars often contextualised in read-
ing texts and explanations; practice, through form-focused exercises; production through
tasks requiring learners to create their own utterances or written texts using the grammar.
There are occasional mechanical exercises, such as requiring the learner to fill in past
forms of a verb in a table; I consider these useful, up to a point, provided that the major-
ity of exercises require understanding of meaning – which is the case in all the course-
books I looked at. Consciousness-raising is also a key feature in at least one of the courses
surveyed.
In general, I would not subscribe to a widely accepted view that because materials
do not accord with currently popular ideas on grammar teaching as presented in the
literature they are therefore ineffective. Based on the evidence provided by research,
personal experience as a teacher and professional judgement as a materials writer, my
own conclusion is that modern course materials are in general satisfactory. This is not
to say that there is not room for improvement (see my recommendations above), but in
my view the basic approach, method, and actual teaching strategies embodied in most
widely used materials are likely to be effectively mediated by teachers and lead to sat-
isfactory acquisition by learners.
Further reading
Celce-Murcia, M., 2015. An overview of teaching grammar in ELT. In Christison, M., Christian, D.,
Duff, P.A. and Spada, N., eds. Teaching and learning English grammar: Research findings and
future directions. New York: Routledge.
An overview of various issues connected to the teaching of grammar within an essentially
communicative methodology, including the design of an overall pedagogical strategy, instruction,
feedback, and correction.
Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., and Dekeyser, R., 2019. Optimizing Second Language Practice in the Classroom:
Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology. The Modern Language Journal, 103/3:551–561.
An introduction to an issue of The Modern Language Journal, devoted to discussion of different
aspects of the functions and effectiveness of practice in language acquisition. It includes an overview
198
of recent research on topics such as type and distribution of practice and the effects of practice on
learning trajectories.
Ellis, R. 2010. Second language acquisition research and language-teaching materials. In Harwood,
N., ed. English language teaching materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Some suggestions for the design of grammar-teaching procedures within materials based on a
task-based approach. Such procedures are classified into three main categories: input-enrichment
(with no overt learner response), structured input activities (requiring a response that demonstrates
understanding), and consciousness-raising (requiring students to become aware of a grammatical rule
or feature underlying a set of exemplars).
Pienemann, M., ed. 2005. Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Co.
A discussion of the research and theory underlying the idea of a natural developmental order
of acquisition of morpho-syntactic structures (previously termed the teachability hypothesis), with
implications for language acquisition and instruction.
Tomlinson, B., ed. 2013. Applied linguistics and materials development. London: Bloomsbury
Academic.
A collection of articles on applied linguistics research and its relationship with materials design,
providing more detailed discussion of issues mentioned in the present chapter, and further information
on relevant applied linguistics research. Of particular interest are the chapters on spoken language
research (Timmis) and on intercultural competence (Byram and Masuhara).
Related topics
Theory and practice in materials development, selecting language for materials writing.
References
Aarts, B., Wallis, S. and Bowie, J., 2014. Profiling the English verb phrase over time: Modal patterns.
In van der Auwera, J. and Marin, J.I., eds. Current Issues on Evidentiality and Modality in English:
Theoretical, Descriptive and Contrastive Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Alexander, L.G., 1968. Look, Listen and Learn. London: Longman.
Azar, B. S., and Hagan, S. A., 2009. Understanding and Using English Grammar. Upper Saddle
River, US: Pearson Education.
Bell, J., and Gower, R., 2011. Writing course materials for the world: A great compromise. In Tomlinson,
B., ed. Materials Development and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. and Conrad, S., 2001. Quantitative corpus-based research: Much more than bean-counting.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E., 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken
and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Breiteneder, A., 2005. The naturalness of English as a lingua franca: The case of the third person 's.
Vienna English Working Papers, 14:3–26.
Breiteneder, A., 2009. English as a lingua franca in Europe: An empirical perspective. World Englishes,
28/2:256–269.
Bruton, A., 2005. Task-based language teaching: For the state secondary FL classroom? Language
Learning Journal, 31/1:55–68.
Carless D.., 2004. Issues in teachers' reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools.
Carter, R., and McCarthy, M., 2017. Spoken grammar: Where are we and where are we going? Applied
Cook, V., 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review,
57/3:402–423.
199
Penny Ur
Cortazzi, M. and Jin, L., 1999. Cultural mirrors: Materials and methods in the EFL Classroom. In
Hinkel, E., ed. Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Davies, F., and Rimmer, W., 2013. Active Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R.M., 2009. Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In Long,
M.H. and Doughty, C.J., eds. The Handbook of Language Teaching. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R. M., and Sokalski, K. J., 1996. The differential role of comprehension and production
practice. Language Learning, 46/4:613–642.
Ellis, R., 2001. Grammar teaching: Practice or consciousness-raising?. In Richards, J. C. and
Renandya, W. A., eds. Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ellis, R., 2006. Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly,
40/1:83–107.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. and Loewen, S., 2002. Doing focus-on-form. System, 30/4:419–432.
Fortune, A., 1992. Self-study grammar practice: Learners' views and preferences. ELT Journal
46/2:160–171.
Gorman, M. and Ellis, R., 2019. The relative effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct written
corrective feedback on children’s grammatical accuracy in new writing. Language Teaching for
Young Learners, 1/1:57–81.
Hall, G. and Cook, G., 2012. Own language use in language teaching and learning. Language
Teaching, 45/3:271–308.
Howatt, A. P. R. and Widdowson, H.G., 2004. A History of English Language Teaching. 2nd ed.
Jenkins, J., 2006. The spread of EIL: A testing time for testers. ELT Journal, 60/1:42–50.
Krashen, S., 1999. Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language
Annals, 32/2:245–57.
Latham-Koenig, C. and Oxenden, C., 2015. English File. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levine, G. S., 2014. Principles for code choice in the foreign language classroom: A focus on
grammaring. Language Teaching, 47/3:332–348.
Lewis, M., 1993. The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Long, M. H. and Crookes, G., 1992. Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL
Quarterly, 26/1:27–56.
Long, M. H. and Robinson, P., 1998. Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In Doughty, C.
and Williams, J., eds. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:
Murphy, R., 2009. Essential Grammar in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nitta, R. and Gardner, S., 2005. Consciousness-raising and practice in ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal,
59/1:3–13.
Norris, J.M. and Ortega, L., 2001. Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings
from a meta‐analytic review. Language Learning, 51/1:157–213.
Pienemann, M., 1984. Psychological constraints on the teachability of language. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 6/2:186–214.
Richards, J.C., Proctor, S. and Hull, J., 2017. Interchange. 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Salaberry, M. R., 1997. The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 53/2:422–451.
Salaberry, M. R., 2017. Declarative versus procedural knowledge. In Liontas, J.I., ed. The TESOL
Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Skehan, P., 2003. Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36/1:1–14.
Soars, J. and Soars, L., 2002. New Headway Beginner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Soars, L. and Soars, J., 2011, 2012, 2014. New Headway. Elementary, Intermediate, Upper
Intermediate. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
200
Spada, N. and Lightbown., P. M., 1999. Instruction, first language influence, and developmental
readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83/1:1–22.
Swain, M., 2000. French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied
linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20:199–211.
Swan, M., 2005. Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics,
26/3:376–401.
Swan, M., 2012. Design criteria for pedagogic language rules. In Swan, M., ed. Thinking about
Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swan, M. and Walter, C., 2011. Oxford English Grammar Course. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Timmis, I., 2005. Towards a framework for teaching spoken grammar. ELT Journal, 59/2:117–125.
Tomlinson, B., 2013. Second language acquisition and materials development. In Tomlinson, B., ed.
Applied Linguistics and Materials Development. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Ur, P., 2009. Grammar Practice Activities. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ur, P., 2010. Teacher, is it OK to say “she goes”? In ELF3, Third International Conference of English
as a Lingua Franca, 22–25 May, Vienna.
Ur, P., 2013. Language-teaching method revisited. ELT Journal, 67/4:468–474.
Ur, P., 2017. Applications of research to materials design. In Hinkel, E., ed. Handbook of Research in
Second Language Teaching and Learning, Vol.III. London: Routledge.
VanPatten, B., 2015. Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53/2:91–109.
Vince, M., 2008. Macmillan English Grammar in Context. London: Macmillan Education.
Waters, A., 2007. ELT and the spirit of the times. ELT Journal, 61/4:353–359.
Waters, A., 2009. Advances in materials design. In Long, M.H. and Doughty, C.J., eds. The Handbook
of Language Teaching. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Widdowson, H.G., 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, J. and Willis, D., 1989. Collins COBUILD English Course. London: Harper Collins.
201
14
Introduction
The field of second language (L2) vocabulary teaching and learning has gained greater cur-
rency among researchers and teachers since Michael West published the General Service
List (GSL) in 1953. Until the appearance of West’s work, vocabulary had received relatively
little attention, while a great deal of research was focused on grammar (Schmitt 2000). Over
the last three decades, an increasing number of studies and vocabulary teaching and learn-
ing materials have been published and made available for classroom use. Language teachers
today have access to a great number and variety of vocabulary teaching materials, and a
large body of literature that they can access to help them to develop suitable materials for
their students.
Currently, perhaps the greatest issue with materials for teaching vocabulary may not be a
lack of resources, but rather a lack of ‘good’ materials that are informed by research findings
(see Harwood, and Tomlinson this volume). Moreover, there is also a need for greater guid-
ance about why some activities and exercises might be more effective than others. Without
knowledge of the research on vocabulary learning, it is difficult to create or select appropri-
ate materials for effective vocabulary teaching. Studies of vocabulary learning have looked
at several questions that are important for developing materials for teaching vocabulary. The
questions include: which words should be taught and in what order should they be presented
in textbooks? How should encounters with target vocabulary be arranged and prepared in
reading materials? What kind of activities should be included in vocabulary activity books?
How can teachers evaluate and improve the potential effectiveness of vocabulary learn-
ing activities? How can multiple materials be best handled within a limited class time? In
order to answer these questions, this chapter will provide fundamental principles based on
empirical evidence from L2 vocabulary research that can be used to guide the selection and
development of vocabulary teaching materials.
This chapter is organised in a way that answers four questions that are useful to keep in
mind in developing and selecting materials. In the section ‘Critical Issues and Topics,’ we
address the following questions: ‘what are the most common materials for teaching vocabu-
lary?’ and ‘what principles can be used to develop materials for teaching vocabulary?’ This
202 DOI: 10.4324/b22783-18

section will provide a brief overview of existing materials and resources frequently used in
vocabulary instruction, and a review of factors promoting or preventing vocabulary learning
on the basis of research evidence. In the section ‘Implications and Challenges for Materials
Development,’ the following questions are discussed: ‘how can teachers evaluate materi-
als?’ and ‘how can teachers modify materials?’ In this section, we will summarise impor-
tant psychological conditions that contribute to vocabulary learning, and also introduce
Technique Feature Analysis (Nation and Webb 2011), a useful checklist tool for evaluating
and improving vocabulary learning activities. Finally, the chapter will provide practical
considerations for materials development and use as well as future directions in this area.

What are the most common materials for teaching vocabulary?
There are a great number of materials and resources for teaching L2 vocabulary: course-
books, vocabulary exercise books, word lists, concordancers, graded readers, and other types
of materials. In the following sections, we will highlight several of these key resources.
Coursebooks
Perhaps the most basic form of materials for vocabulary learning are coursebooks.
Coursebooks are considered to have a major influence on classroom practice, forming the
core of most teaching programmes (Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). Matsuoka and Hirsh
(2010) examined an internationally, best-selling coursebook, New Headway Student’s Book
Upper-Intermediate (Soars and Soars 2005), by counting repetitions of words that appear
in the lists of high-frequency/basic words, academic words, and lower-frequency words.
This study suggests that the textbook is useful for learning high-frequency vocabulary
and academic words, but that it gives little opportunity to learn words beyond basic levels
(i.e. beyond the first 2,000 words and academic words). Another limitation of coursebooks
concerns insufficient recognition of different aspects of word knowledge. Brown (2011)
examined nine textbooks from a range of publishers targeting beginner to intermediate
levels, for example, English Firsthand Success (Helgesen et al. 2007), New Cutting Edge
(Cunningham et al. 2005), and Clockwise (Forsyth 2000), by identifying the aspects of
vocabulary knowledge involved in an activity. The author found that coursebooks primarily
focus on knowledge of form-meaning connections while other aspects of knowledge (e.g.
collocations, word class) received relatively little attention.
Vocabulary activity books

Vocabulary activity books are more explicitly focused on vocabulary learning than gen-
eral coursebooks. Perhaps the most extensively used activity book series focused on word
learning is English Vocabulary in Use (see, for example, McCarthy and O’Dell 2010 for
upper-intermediate level). Vocabulary activity books of this kind contain various types of
word learning activities such as gap-filling, error correction, word matching, and sentence
writing (see Webb and Nation 2017, Chapter 5, for other activities). A recent review of
vocabulary learning activities has suggested that the activities where words are learned out
of context (flashcard and word list learning) lead to higher learning gains than the activities
where words are learned in context (gap-filling and sentence/composition writing) (Webb,
Yanagisawa, and Uchihara, 2020).
203
Word lists
A word list can be used in two ways; first, it can be used as part of vocabulary learning
activities such as list learning (e.g. memorising L2 forms and matched L1 meanings pre-
sented side by side on a notebook) and flashcards, and second, it can be used as a reference
list, primarily serving the purpose of identifying L2 words deserving of teaching and testing
(Nation 2016). We refer to the second use here in discussing the role of word lists.
Word lists are often developed using frequency information as one of the key selection
criteria. Building upon West’s (1953) original GSL, updated lists representing high-frequency
word families (i.e. a word counting unit including headwords and both inflected and derived
forms such as respect, respects, respecting, respected, respective, respectable, respectful) have
been created such as Nation’s (2012) British National Corpus (BNC)/Corpus of Contemporary
American English (COCA) 2000 (see Webb and Nation 2017, pp. 197–198 for other general
service lists). In addition to these general service lists, several specialised word lists are also
available for teaching and materials development. The Academic Word List (Coxhead 2000)
might be the most widely used specialised list. It contains words frequently appearing across
various academic subjects and serves as an important resource for materials used in English
for academic purposes programmes. Other types of word lists include subject-specific word
lists, which represent words that commonly appear in a particular subject area such as agri-
culture and economics (see Webb and Nation 2017, p. 16 for a summary of subject-specific
word lists), as well as lists of multi-word items. There are available lists of the most frequent
and useful phrasal verbs (e.g. find out, pick up), spoken collocations (e.g. out there, a little bit),
phrasal expressions (e.g. as well as, rather than), and academic formulas (e.g. the extent to
which, in terms of) (see Webb and Nation 2017:200 for examples of multi-word lists).
Of particular relevance to materials development is the use of word lists to determine
which words to include and in what order to sequence them in vocabulary learning materi-
als such as coursebooks, activity books, and texts for reading and listening. For example,
in choosing appropriate texts for reading activities, when learners master the most frequent
2,000 words but fall short of the 3,000 frequency level, teachers can use word lists as refer-
ence points to select a text which contains a large number of the most frequent 2,000 words
and a small portion of the most frequent 3,000 words. Thus, learners can pick up the most
useful unknown words without too much difficulty in comprehending the text (see the sub-
section below on evaluating materials for details of this procedure).
Concordancers
A concordancer is a type of software that produces a concordance of a text. A concordance is
a list of all the occurrences of keywords or key phrases in context. The concordance is sorted
according to the words on the left or the right of the search term so that it is easy to deter-
mine the words that are used together with the keyword. An example of a concordance for
the keyword ‘priority’ is presented in Figure 14.1 using the British National Corpus (BNC)
from Tom Cobb’s (2018) Compleat Lexical Tutor website (https://www.lextutor.ca/conc/).
We can see that ‘priority’ typically occurs preceded by adjectives such as ‘high’ and ‘imme-
diate.’ In this example, we can also see that a verb commonly preceding ‘priority’ is ‘give.’
These pieces of information are considered to be appropriate for learning how a given word
is commonly used together with other words (e.g. collocations), which can be of great value
in helping students to improve their use of vocabulary in writing. Such advantages were
confirmed by a recent meta-analysis of studies adopting corpus-based vocabulary teaching
(Lee et al. 2019).
204
Figure 14.1 An example of a concordance for the keyword ‘priority.’
Graded readers
Graded readers are books that are specially written or modified for L2 learners using a
controlled vocabulary. Because the words that are repeatedly encountered in graded readers
consist almost entirely of the most frequent words, they are widely viewed to be an essential
source of input for L2 vocabulary learning. In reality, the majority of English-as-a-foreign-
language (EFL) learners fall short of the vocabulary sizes necessary to comprehend unsim-
plified, authentic texts (Webb and Nation 2017). A graded reader serves to fill this gap as it
provides a series of books with incremental lexical difficulty which caters to learners with
varying vocabulary sizes. Tom Cobb’s Compleat Lexical Tutor website includes 11 graded
readers, under the resource-assisted reading link (https://www.lextutor.ca/ra_read/graded/),
for learners with a vocabulary size ranging from 2,000 to 3,000 words. Paul Nation’s website
(https://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paul-nation) also provides a number of graded
readers including books for intermediate and more advanced learners with vocabulary sizes
ranging from 4,000, 6,000, to 8,000 words. Research (e.g. Webb and Chang 2015) supports
the effectiveness of extensive reading programmes using graded readers. Webb and Chang
examined the extent to which Taiwanese EFL students in secondary school learned 100 tar-
get words incidentally from reading a total of 10 graded readers with audio support (i.e. the
Oxford Bookworm series). A pre-and-post design of the study using a bilingual matching
test (measuring meaning recognition) revealed that learners gained an average of around 20
words after 13 weeks of reading activities.
Audiovisual materials
Resources that include spoken input are worth noting. First, watching L2 television pro-
grammes has the potential to promote vocabulary growth. A corpus-driven study revealed
that television programmes provide opportunities for learners to encounter both high- and
low-frequency words repeatedly in a relatively small amount of viewing time (Webb and
Rodgers 2009). Research shows that viewing television programmes contributes to vocab-
ulary learning (Peters and Webb 2018; Rodgers and Webb 2019). For example, Peters
and Webb (2018) explored the extent to which Dutch-speaking EFL learners incidentally
learned 64 words from watching a single full-length, one-hour television programme (i.e.
BBC documentary) and found that learners recalled the meanings of 2.5 words on aver-
age immediately after viewing. Similarly, TED Talks, which are freely available online
205
presentations about different topics, have gained popularity as a resource for vocabulary
learning. Although a higher vocabulary size may be required for the comprehension of TED
Talks than general spoken texts, the advantages of using TED Talks are that they are rela-
tively short, allowing repeated viewing of the same talk, and viewers can also read captions
of the audio (Webb and Nation 2017). Nguyen and Boers (2019) found that watching a TED
Talk twice led to learning four words on average. Finally, L2 songs are also a useful vocabu-
lary learning resource. Because listening to L2 songs is common practice among learners,
it has the potential to increase the amount of spoken input that is received. Indeed, Pavia et
al. (2019) found that children in grades five and six learning EFL in Thailand were able to
learn words through repeated listening to L2 songs. In this study, young learners listened to
two English songs (i.e. Every Breath You Take and Die a Happy Man) without being asked
to sing or seeing the lyrics. The learners completed multiple-choice vocabulary tests (e.g.
form recognition) before and after listening sessions. For both songs, learners recognised
a greater number of target-word forms that appeared in the songs repeatedly compared to
control groups who did not listen to the songs.
Choosing vocabulary teaching materials needs to be done wisely depending on a focus
of learning as well as learners’ proficiency levels. With too much focus on learning vocabu-
lary through decontextualised learning activities (e.g. list learning, sentence writing), learn-
ers might develop limited aspects of word knowledge. Instead, teachers should ensure that
decontextualised learning is balanced with contextualised learning, for example, by drawing
on extensive reading or viewing activities using graded readers or full-length episodes of
television programmes (see the section below, ‘Recommendations for Practice,’ for discus-
sion of balanced vocabulary teaching programmes).
Proficiency levels also need to be considered in choosing materials. For example, an
activity using concordances without any support may not be appropriate for L2 beginners,
as it requires not only some reading skills but also the ability to infer meanings or linguistic
patterns inductively with contextual clues provided. Audiovisual materials also need to be
used carefully with consideration given to learners’ ability to segment connected speech.
For low-proficiency learners, textual support in written form should be provided, such as
lyrics for songs and L2 captions or L1 subtitles for television programmes.
What principles can be used to develop materials for teaching vocabulary?

In order for teaching materials to be used or developed appropriately, it is important that
teachers and material writers are well informed about different factors that promote or pre-
vent word learning. In this section, we will provide key principles about vocabulary learn-
ing, which are based on the different factors that influence vocabulary learning. Application
of these principles should help teachers and materials writers to select, develop, or modify
vocabulary teaching materials to optimise learning.
Select the words for learning in the materials

Perhaps of greatest importance when designing materials for vocabulary learning is deciding
which words should be included as target vocabulary for learning. Because there are thou-
sands of different words and a limited amount of class time, it is important to focus on teach-
ing the words that are most useful for learners. Usefulness is often indicated by frequency
of word occurrence in actual language use. Words that are frequently encountered in spoken
and written language are of greater value for learning, because these words are most likely to
206
influence comprehension and use. Therefore, teaching high-frequency vocabulary needs to

come before teaching low-frequency vocabulary. When teaching novice learners, for exam-
ple, the development of a vocabulary syllabus may start with the Essential Word List (Dang
and Webb 2016). Knowledge of the 800 lemmas (624 content words and 176 function words)
that make up the Essential Word List should provide the lexical foundation for language
learning, because they cover 75% of the words that are encountered in spoken and written
discourse. If students have mastered the Essential Word List, then the next goal should be
mastery of general service lists (Brezina and Gablasova 2015; Nation 2012; West 1953).
General service lists tend to account for around 90% of the word families in actual language
use, and so there is great value in learning words from these lists. After this, the next step is
to target either the next 1,000 words so that the most frequent 3,000 words are known, or spe-
cialised vocabulary if there are specific learner needs. Knowing the most frequent 3,000 word
families provides 95% coverage of spoken discourse and should allow students to understand
television programmes and movies (provided that they recognise known words in connected
speech). For learners who aim to enrol in English-medium universities, focusing on general
academic vocabulary (Coxhead 2000; Dang et al. 2017; Gardner and Davies 2014) may be
useful. These words account for a relatively large proportion of unknown vocabulary in uni-
versity studies. If learners know which subject they will study or are already studying given
subject matter, teaching subject-specific vocabulary may also be essential.
Decide on the different aspects of vocabulary knowledge to focus on in

materials
Learning a word is typically associated with learning form-meaning connections. This
involves learning the meaning attached to an L2 word form. However, it is important to note
that knowledge of form-meaning connections is one of many aspects of word knowledge.
Other aspects of vocabulary knowledge include collocations, polysemy, word class, gram-
matical functions, contextual knowledge, and pronunciation (Nation 2013). Although the
view that word knowledge involves multiple aspects appears to be accepted among research-
ers, it has yet to be effectively implemented by materials designers. Brown (2011) conducted
text analysis on nine general English textbooks ranging from beginner to intermediate level.
The results revealed that learning activities focused almost exclusively on form-meaning
connections while other aspects of vocabulary knowledge received little to no attention. It is
important to remember that learning words is a gradual process, and so using different types
of materials over time to develop different aspects of word knowledge is likely to be a good
strategy (Webb 2012). For example, using word cards (e.g. an L2 form written on one side
and the corresponding meaning written in L1 on the reverse side) and trying to memorise
the meaning of the word might lead to learning form-meaning connections, while using a
concordancer and trying to work out how words are used in combination with other words
might lead to learning collocations. In the classroom, for example, teachers can choose in
advance node words that they want their students to notice along with the words that they
are likely to co-occur with (e.g. effect), prepare concordance lines for that word, encourage
discovering collocations from the lines (e.g. adverse effect), and have students engage in
meaning-focused output activities using such collocations (e.g. essay or sentence writing).
Ensure that there is repetition of target vocabulary in materials
Repeated exposures to words lead to greater learning than a single exposure. A meta-anal-
ysis conducted by Uchihara et al. (2019) confirmed the importance of repeated encounters
207
with words for learning through reading, listening, and viewing. Specifying the number of
encounters needed for substantial learning to occur is difficult as it is influenced by many
other factors, such as age of learners, mode of input, and learning conditions (e.g. massed
vs. spaced) (Uchihara et al. 2019). Research has indicated that from 8 encounters (Horst et
al. 1998) to 10 encounters (Webb 2007) to more than 20 encounters (Waring and Takaki
2003) may be necessary to learn words when they are encountered during reading. The
effect of repetition is enhanced when learners encounter words at greater intervals over
time (i.e. spaced learning) rather than through repeated encounters over a short amount of
time (i.e. massed learning). Evidence supports this spacing effect as Elgort et al. (2018)
found that encountering the same words during reading over two days led to greater learn-
ing than through the same encounters in a single day. Therefore, materials writers need to
make efforts to ensure that target vocabulary appears multiple times across coursebooks and
exercise books and not simply in a single unit. Although a strong call for the ‘recycling’ of
words has already been made, this perspective has not fully informed practice in materials
development (Nordlund 2015; Schmitt 2008).
Avoid interfering relationships between words

Presenting semantically and formally related words simultaneously could disturb or inter-
fere with vocabulary learning. When learners are presented with near synonyms (e.g. fast,
rapid), antonyms (e.g. dark, light), lexical sets (e.g. apple, orange, lemon), or words which
have similar forms (e.g. adapt, adopt), learning tends to be more effortful and less suc-
cessful than when presented with unrelated words (Nakata and Suzuki 2018). Despite the
recommendations of researchers, in many textbooks, words related to a given topic (e.g.
animals, days) are often introduced together (Nation and Webb 2011). Webb and Nation
(2017) suggest several alternatives to the traditional topic-based lessons on lexical sets. For
example, introducing related words individually at different times (e.g. different units or
activities) and learning the words in distinguishing contexts (e.g. Apples are red, but lemons
are yellow) can help to reduce the negative effects of interference.

Teachers and learners today might be overwhelmed by the great number of teaching and
learning materials focused on lexis. Unfortunately, the reality is that many existing materi-
als have not been sufficiently informed by research findings. Under these circumstances,
teachers need to be able to effectively assess the suitability of materials for their students
and adapt them for effective classroom use. An emerging challenge is that even though
teachers might know the general rules or principles about vocabulary learning, they might
not necessarily know how best to evaluate or modify the materials in practice. This section
will describe how teachers can evaluate and modify materials for vocabulary teaching.
How can teachers evaluate materials?

Lexical profilers
A lexical profiler is a text analysis tool which classifies vocabulary in a text according to
word frequency levels (e.g. the most frequent 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 words, and so on). A
lexical profiler can be used to evaluate the lexical difficulty of texts. In principle, the more
low-frequency words that are used in a text, the more challenging the text would be for
208
Figure 14.2 A sample output of the lexical profile analysis.
learners to comprehend. Research suggests that learners need to know 95% or 98% of the
words in a text for adequate and optimal comprehension (Schmitt et al. 2017). These two
coverage figures work as points of reference in order to judge the appropriateness of a text
for learners. Let us suppose that teachers are looking for a text at the right level for stu-
dents with a vocabulary size of the most frequent 2,000 words. They can conduct a lexical
profile analysis on the text from this chapter as an example using Vocabprofile available at
Tom Cobb’s (2018) Compleat Lexical Tutor (https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/). According to the
result (Figure 14.2), the column labelled cumulative tokens (i.e. running words) indicates
that 75.9% coverage is explained by the 1,000 word level (K-1), 87.1% by the 1,000 and
2,000 levels (K-1 + K-2), and 95.5% by the 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 levels (K-1 + K-2 +
K-3). This finding suggests that the text would be too difficult for students who only know
the most frequent 2,000 words because they account for 87% coverage, which is lower than
the 95% or 98% coverage necessary for successful comprehension. Thus, the analysis sug-
gests that the text could either be discarded or modified to increase the coverage (see Webb
and Nation 2008 for detailed procedures of text modification and interpretation of the output
of a lexical profile analysis).
Psychological conditions for efficient learning

There are several features of activities that contribute to vocabulary learning. Inclusion of
these features serves as useful criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of vocabulary learn-
ing activities. Understanding of the conditions that contribute to word learning should raise
209
awareness of how effective (or ineffective) an activity may be in vocabulary learning mate-
rials. This sub-section will discuss the following four conditions that influence word learn-
ing: noticing, retrieval, varied encounters and use, and elaboration (Webb and Nation 2017).
Noticing
Noticing involves paying attention to a word. Words that receive a greater amount of atten-
tion, incidentally (e.g. through extensive reading) or deliberately (e.g. through word match-
ing task), are found to be more likely to be learned (Boers et al. 2007; Elgort et al. 2018).
There are various ways to draw learners’ attention to a word. First, words that are presented
out of context tend to receive attention. The presence of context in activities such as exten-
sive reading might take learners’ attention away from word forms. In contrast, when words
are presented in isolation (e.g. word card learning), they tend to receive all of the attention,
increasing the chance that they will be learned. Second, word consciousness enhances the
quality of attention to a word. Word consciousness refers to a general meta-linguistic aware-
ness of words and the different aspects of what it means to know a word (see Webb and
Nation 2017, pp. 68–69 for ways to raise word consciousness). Boers et al. (2007) present
one example of how word consciousness might be raised by suggesting that inferring idi-
omatic meaning on the basis of etymological information promotes learning idioms. Third,
noticing is encouraged by group work activities in which learners negotiate the forms and
meanings of words that are unfamiliar to them. Negotiation of word form and meaning
triggers language-related episodes, which occur when learners clarify and explain language
features to one another, such as what a word means or how to pronounce it (Newton 2013).
A review of studies on vocabulary learning through spoken input activities such as watching
videos and listening to stories confirms the central role of interaction in incidental vocabu-
lary learning (de Vos et al. 2018). This means that when learners negotiate to clarify the
meaning of new words during a task, they tend to notice and pay more attention to these
words, and consequently, vocabulary is more likely to be learned than in tasks in which
opportunities for negotiation are absent.
Retrieval
Retrieval is regarded as an additional condition contributing to successful word learning.
Retrieval can only come about on the second or subsequent encounters with a word, because
it involves recollecting or recalling what was encountered previously. Evidence confirms
the robust advantage of retrieval in vocabulary learning (Barcroft 2007). For example, word
card learning where L1 and L2 words are not presented together (e.g. L1 translations are
written on one side, and L2 words are written on the reverse side) is more likely to bring
about retrieval and be more effective for learning than list learning where L1 meaning and
L2 form are presented together. Ways to increase opportunities for retrieval include re-
telling activities (e.g. reading a text => summarising the text without reference to it), digital
glossaries, and flashcards (see Webb and Nation 2017, pp. 70–71 for details of the activities).
Varied encounters and use

Encountering or using a word repeatedly in different contexts cannot only increase the
opportunity for retrieval to occur but can also enrich knowledge of the word on each
encounter. Joe (1998) reports that there are many degrees of variation which impact our
knowledge of a word. Words can vary in their form, meaning, and use. Forms can vary in
210
their spoken/written form or word parts (e.g. inflected or derived words). Meaning senses
can also vary for a word (e.g. polysemous words). Use can vary across different contexts:
a different grammatical context may require the use of a different form of the word (e.g.
make decisions vs. made decisions) as well as different collocations (e.g. make decisions
vs. reach decisions). Through varied encounters, learners can see how a word can be used,
while through varied use, productive knowledge of a word is strengthened. To increase the
chance that learners encounter and use words in different contexts, Webb and Nation (2017)
propose a linked skills activity as an example in which learners work on the same piece of
material across a range of different language skills (e.g. reading a text while taking notes =>
exchanging opinions about the topic in speech => writing a summary of the main points in
sentences or paragraphs).
Elaboration
Elaboration involves the enrichment of knowledge of a word, which helps a word stick in
memory by, for instance, linking it with images, seeking extra information about the word,
or applying memory techniques. Research suggests that learning words along with pictures
can help to promote elaboration by making strong associations between images and words,
contributing to word learning (Horst et al. 1998). Analysing word parts (e.g. word stems
such as -ped- and -spect-) and their relationships with other words that share the same word
part is another way of stimulating elaboration (e.g. ped: pedal, centipede, pedestrian) (Wei
and Nation 2013). It is important to bear in mind that some words can be easily learned, but
other words are relatively difficult to learn for many reasons such as word characteristics
(e.g. concreteness, word length, pronounceability). Elaboration in teaching can be used to
increase the chances that students learn difficult words.
Awareness of how these four conditions contribute to vocabulary learning can serve as
useful guidance for materials writers in developing vocabulary activities or coursebooks.
When developing reading materials, materials writers can refer to the conditions and make
every effort to increase the chances that target words are learned. For example, by putting
target words in boldface type (noticing), making the same words appear across chapters
on different topics (varied encounters), and including post-reading activities of word parts
analysis (elaboration) and story re-telling (retrieval), vocabulary learning may be enhanced.
How can teachers modify materials?

With awareness of the conditions that contribute to vocabulary learning as highlighted
above, teachers and materials designers can create or modify materials to try to optimise
learning. For this purpose, Nation and Webb (2011) developed Technique Feature Analysis
(TFA), which lists criteria for evaluating and modifying vocabulary learning activities.
TFA includes 18 questions related to motivational and psychological conditions contrib-
uting to vocabulary learning, under five headings: motivation, noticing, retrieval, varied
encounters and use, and retention (see Table 14.1 for the questions). TFA users answer
each question (max = 18 points) with each point representing a positive feature of an activ-
ity. Higher scores for an activity indicate that the activity is likely to be more effective.
Research supports the ability of the framework to predict successful vocabulary learning
(Hu and Nassaji 2016).
Let us suppose a hypothetical situation where we as teachers or materials writers need
to examine the effectiveness of a sentence writing activity (i.e. writing sentences using
211
Table 14.1 Example of Technique Feature Analysis
Criteria Writing
sentences
Motivation
1 Is there a clear vocabulary learning goal? 1
2 Does the activity motivate learning? 0 (1)
3 Do learners select the words? 0
Noticing
4 Does the activity focus attention on the target words? 1
5 Does the activity raise awareness of new vocabulary learning? 1
6 Does the activity involve negotiation? 0 (1)
Retrieval
7 Does the activity involve retrieval of the word? 0 (1)
8 Is it productive retrieval? 0 (1)
9 Is it recall? 0 (1)
10 Are there multiple retrievals of each word? 0 (1)
11 Is there spacing between retrievals? 0 (1)
Varied encounters and varied use
12 Does the activity involve varied encounters and use? 1
13 Is it productive? 1
14 Is there a marked change that involves the use of other words? 1
Retention
15 Does the activity ensure successful linking of form and meaning? 1
16 Does the activity involve instantiation? 0
17 Does the activity involve imaging? 0
18 Does the activity avoid interference? 1
Total score 8 (15)
Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate the scores after modification. Instantiation (under 16) means seeing an
instance of a word such as when the word is used in a meaningful situation; imaging (under 17) means an attempt
to imagine a visual image related to the meaning of the word; interference (under 18) reduces the potential to learn
words when semantically and phonologically similar sets of words are learned together (see Nation and Webb 2011:8–
11 for more details of each item description).
target words along with L1 meanings provided by teachers or textbooks). A first step is to
examine the effectiveness of this activity using the TFA framework. The result of the TFA
(Table 14.1) shows that the sentence writing activity has a total score of 8. A second step
in response to this result is to consider whether the current version of the sentence writing
activity could be modified to become even more effective. By examining the TFA features,
we can examine if we could change the activity in a way that its total TFA score increases.
One way to do this would be to integrate an element of interaction between learners when
completing the sentence writing activity. To illustrate, learners could be instructed to write
sentences in a question form using the target vocabulary. Learners are then paired up and ask
the questions to their partners without looking at the written sentences. This change to the
activity would result in an increase of 1 point (+1 for #2: motivating learners) and 3 points
as it requires recalling spoken forms of the words (+1 for #7: presence of retrieval, +1 for
#8: productive retrieval, +1 for #9 recall). The listeners answer the questions, and they are
allowed to ask clarification questions or give feedback on language use when necessary (+1
for #6: negotiation). This cycle continues repeatedly with different partners (+1 for #10:
212
multiple retrievals, +1 for #11: spacing of retrievals). As a result, the total TFA score of the
modified version of the sentence writing activity increases from 8 to 15.

We are inclined to think or wish that one-size-fits-all materials exist, and by using such
materials, teachers can simply rely on them for language teaching. A coursebook might be
used among teachers with a common view that it is supposed to be an ideally structured and
research-based product. However, evidence suggests that this is not always true, as some
textbooks do not appear to fully reflect empirically underpinned conditions for successful
vocabulary learning. Research suggests that within coursebooks, there can be a lack of atten-
tion to different aspects of word knowledge (Brown 2011), minimal recycling of target words
(Nordlund 2015), and interference between related words (Nation and Webb 2011). This sug-
gests that there is the potential to improve on materials to help increase vocabulary learning.
One of the best structured plans to optimise vocabulary learning in materials is through the
use of Paul Nation’s four strands (see Nation 2007). Nation proposes that vocabulary learn-
ing programmes should be well-balanced with a roughly equal amount of instruction time
spent on each of the four strands: meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, language-
focused learning, and fluency development. Language-focused learning is where deliberate
attention is often directed to word forms in a decontextualised manner with the purpose
of intentionally learning words (e.g. flashcards, sentence production). In meaning-focused
input, learners’ attention is focused on comprehension (e.g. extensive reading), and in mean-
ing-focused output, students are encouraged to produce L2 words in context with the purpose
of communication (e.g. essay writing, oral presentations). Fluency development is related to
meaning-focused input and output but different in that it gives greater weight to the ability
to comprehend and produce words at a faster rate (e.g. speed reading, ten-minute writing).
Through a four strands approach, language teachers’ use of multiple materials is likely to
provide balanced vocabulary learning opportunities for learners, which should result in the
development of more comprehensive vocabulary knowledge than might be gained through
any one type of material. For example, L2 learning programmes with a primary focus on
deliberate learning using exercise books might benefit from introducing extensive reading
activities using graded readers and production activities based on reading (e.g. re-telling,
text reconstruction) in order to assist learners in seeing how words are used in context and
help them to effectively use words. Similarly, integrating more language-focused activi-
ties (e.g. word part activities, data-driven learning using concordancers) into L2 immersion
programmes (where meaning-focused input is abundant) might help learners to understand
more of the words that they encounter and hope to use.
Future directions
Despite increased attention in recent years on materials and resources for L2 vocabulary
teaching and learning, there are a number of areas in need of further exploration and research
for materials development and use.
First, we reiterate the apparent lack of reflection of research findings onto the develop-
ment of vocabulary teaching materials. In particular, it is necessary for materials to increase
the degree to which target words are recycled throughout coursebooks and vocabulary-
focused activity books. We acknowledge that there are great challenges in writing texts in
213
a way that target vocabulary appears repeatedly across different coursebook units while
maintaining the high quality of the content in each unit. However, research clearly indicates
that repeated encounters with a word increase vocabulary learning (Uchihara et al. 2019),
especially when such encounters are spaced and provided in different contexts (Elgort et al.
2018; Joe 1998; Webb and Nation 2017). Notably, a recent study (Northbrook and Conklin
2018) also reveals that the frequency of occurrence of multi-word items in a coursebook
predicts learning at the beginner level, suggesting that regardless of proficiency levels or
single-/multi-word items, repeated encounters promote vocabulary learning.
Second, it is important for materials writers and teachers to provide opportunities for
learners to learn different aspects of word knowledge other than form-meaning connections.
We should always remember that word knowledge is multi-faceted and includes knowl-
edge of word class, collocations, pronunciation, spelling, and contextual constraints on use
(Nation 2013). Among these aspects, knowledge of spoken forms perhaps deserves more
attention. Uchihara and Harada (2018) found that learners who mastered the most frequent
2,000 words in written form did not necessarily know the spoken form of these words, sug-
gesting the need to place more instructional focus on encountering words in speech. In fact,
a call has long been made to teach pronunciation (e.g. lexical stress) in vocabulary teaching
programmes (Field 2005), which leads us to propose that well-balanced exposure to both
written and spoken forms of a word is necessary when selecting materials.
Third, frequency information has been used as the criterion for various purposes of
materials development, particularly for compiling word lists. Although valuable, frequency
should not be viewed as a single point of reference (Nation and Webb 2011). Dang, Webb,
and Coxhead (2020) and He and Godfroid (2019) have recently adopted an innovative
approach using cluster analysis to integrate frequency, usefulness, and difficulty as word
selection criteria in order to classify words and collocations, with the latter two criteria rated
by experienced teachers.
Finally, it would be useful to develop more tools that teachers and materials writers can
use for assessing texts for comprehension tasks (e.g. reading, listening, viewing). There
have been several research tools created employing a large number of lexical indices that
can be used to accurately predict the difficulty of a written text for L2 learners (e.g. Crossley
et al. 2008). Text analysis tools such as Coh-Metrix (Crossley et al. 2008) (accessible at
http://cohmetrix.com/) and TAALES (Kyle and Crossley 2015) (accessible at http://www
.kristopherkyle.com/tools.html) are freely available. However, the complexity of these tools
(e.g. more than 400 indices are available in TAALES) might make them challenging to use
for materials design. The development of more user-friendly tools could be of great benefit
to improving the quality of materials designed for learning words.
Conclusion
This chapter discussed several issues with materials commonly used for vocabulary teaching
and provided practical guidance of how to evaluate and modify materials to optimise learn-
ing. We emphasised the importance of selecting and designing teaching materials according
to key principles for L2 vocabulary learning. It is hoped that materials and resources that are
developed in the future will be more fully informed by research evidence, and that there will
be greater guidance about how to use materials to promote vocabulary learning. This should
provide better opportunities for learners to gain comprehensive vocabulary knowledge. We
also hope that this chapter will raise awareness of some of the key pedagogical implications
214
of research on learning vocabulary, and that this improves our understanding of how materi-
als might be created to enhance vocabulary learning.
Further reading
Nation, I.S.P., 2013. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nation’s Learning Vocabulary in Another Language covers a wide range of points of discussion
regarding practical and theoretical considerations in vocabulary pedagogy.
Schmitt, N., 2010. Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Schmitt’s Researching Vocabulary serves as a useful reference for materials writers, teachers, and
researchers. Part 4 compiles various resources including corpora, concordancers, and word lists.
Webb, S. and Nation, I.S.P., 2017. How Vocabulary is Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
This book expands on many of the topics in this chapter. Readers might find Chapter 5 particularly
useful as it includes various vocabulary learning activities with information of which programme
strands an activity belongs to and which learning conditions underlie an activity.
Related topics
Theory and practice in materials development, writing corpus-informed materials, using
research to inform materials development.
References
Barcroft, J., 2007. Effects of opportunities for word retrieval during second language vocabulary
learning. Language Learning, 57/1:35–56.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J. and Stengers, H., 2007. Presenting figurative idioms with a touch of etymology:
More than mere mnemonics? Language Teaching Research, 11/1:43–62.
Brezina, V. and Gablasova, D., 2015. Is there a core general vocabulary? Introducing the new general
service list. Applied Linguistics, 36/1:1–22.
Brown, D., 2011. What aspects of vocabulary knowledge do textbooks give attention to? Language
Cobb, T., 2018. Compleat Lexical Tutor [Online]. Retrieved on 12 Jun 2018 from: https://www
.lextutor.ca/.
Coxhead, A., 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34/2:213–238.
Crossley, S.A., Greenfield, J. and McNamara, D.S., 2008. Assessing text readability using cognitively
based indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42/3:475–93.
Cunningham, S., Moor, P. and Comyns Carr, J. (2005). New Cutting Edge: Pre-intermediate. London,
UK: Longman.
Dang, T.N.Y. and Webb, S., 2016. Making an essential word list. In I.S.P. Nation, ed. Making and
Using Word Lists for Language Learning and Testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dang, T.N.Y., Coxhead, A. and Webb, S., 2017. The academic spoken word list. Language Learning,
67/4:959–997.
Dang, T.N.Y., Webb, S. and Coxhead, A., 2020. Evaluating lists of high-frequency words: Teachers’
and learners’ perspectives. Language Teaching Research [Online]. Retrieved from: https://doi.org
/10.1177/1362168820911189.
de Vos, J.F., Schriefers, H., Nivard, M.G. and Lemhöfer, K., 2018. A meta-analysis and meta-regression
of incidental second language word learning from spoken input. Language Learning, 68/4: 906–941.
Elgort, I., Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M. and Van Assche, E., 2018. Contextual word learning during
reading in a second language: An eye-movement study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
40/2:341–366.
215
Field, J., 2005. Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly,
39/3:399–423.
Forsyth, W., 2000. Clockwise: Intermediate Student Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, D. and Davies, M., 2014. A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35/3:305–327.
He, X. and Godfroid, A., 2019. Choosing words to teach: A novel method for vocabulary selection and
its practical application. TESOL Quarterly, 53/2:348–371.
Helgesen, S., Brown,, S. and Wiltshier, J., 2007. English Firsthand Success: Beginner, Student Book.
London: Longman.
Horst, M., Cobb, T. and Meara, P., 1998. Beyond a clockwork orange: Acquiring second language
vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11/2:207–223.
Hu, H. and Nassaji, H., 2016. Effective vocabulary learning tasks: Involvement load hypothesis versus
technique feature analysis. System, 56:28–39.
Joe, A., 1998. What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary
acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19/3:357–377.
Kyle, K. and Crossley, S.A., 2015. Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools,
findings and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49/4:757–786.
Lee, H., Warschauer, M. and Lee, J.H., 2019. The effects of corpus use on second language vocabulary
learning: A muti-level meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 40/5:721–753.
Matsuoka, W. and Hirsh, D., 2010. Vocabulary learning through reading: Does an ELT course book
provide good opportunities? Reading in a Foreign Language, 22/1:56–70.
McCarthy, M. and O’Dell, F., 2010. Vocabulary in Use, Upper-Intermediate. 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Nakata, T. and Suzuki, Y., 2018. Effects of massing and spacing on the learning of semantically related
and unrelated words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41/2:287–311.
Nation, I.S.P., 2007. The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1/1:2–13.
Nation, I.S.P., 2012. The BNC/COCA word family lists. Retrieved on 23 April 2020 from: https://
www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paul-nation.
Nation, I.S.P., 2013. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nation, I.S.P., 2016. Making and Using Word Lists for Language Learning and Testing. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Nation, I.S.P. and Webb, S., 2011. Researching and Analyzing Vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle
Cengage Learning.
Newton, J., 2013. Incidental vocabulary learning in classroom communication tasks. Language
Nguyen, C.D. and Boers, F., 2019. The effect of content retelling on vocabulary uptake from a TED
Talk. TESOL Quarterly, 53/1:1–25.
Nordlund, M., 2015. Vocabulary acquisition and the textbook: What opportunities are there for young
learners? ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 166/2:199.
Northbrook, J. and Conklin, K., 2018. Is what you put in what you get out?: Textbook-derived lexical
bundle processing in beginner English learners. Applied Linguistics, 40/5:816–833.
Pavia, N., Webb, S. and Faez, F., 2019. Incidental vocabulary learning from listening to L2 songs.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41/4:745–768.
Peters, E. and Webb, S., 2018. Incidental vocabulary acquisition through viewing L2 television and
factors that affect learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40/3:551–577.
Rodgers, M.P.H. and Webb, S., 2019. Incidental vocabulary learning through viewing television. ITL:
International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Retrieved on 30 April 2020 from: https://doi.org/
DOI: 10.1075/itl.18034.rod.
Schmitt, N., 2000. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N., 2008. Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language
216
Schmitt, N., Cobb, T., Horst, M. and Schmitt, D., 2017. How much vocabulary is needed to use
English? Replication of van Zeeland and Schmitt (2012), Nation (2006) and Cobb (2007).
Soars, L., and Soars, J. (2005). New Headway Student's Book (Upper–Intermediate). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Development for Language Learning. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Uchihara, T. and Harada, T., 2018. Roles of vocabulary knowledge for success in English-medium
instruction: Self-perceptions and academic outcomes of Japanese undergraduates. TESOL
Quarterly, 52/3:564–587.
Uchihara, T., Webb, S. and Yanagisawa, A., 2019. The effects of repetition on incidental vocabulary
learning: A meta-analysis of correlational studies. Language Learning, 69/3:559–599.
Waring, R. and Takaki, M., 2003. At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from
reading a graded reader ? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15/2:130–163.
Webb, S., 2007. The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28/1:46–65.
Webb, S., 2012. Learning vocabulary in activities. In Widodo, H.P. and Cirocki, A., eds. Innovation
and Creativity in ELT Methodology. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Webb, S. and Chang, A., 2015. Second language vocabulary learning through extensive reading
with audio support: How do frequency and distribution of occurrence affect learning? Language
Webb, S. and Nation, I.S.P., 2008. Evaluating the vocabulary load of written text. TESOLANZ Journal,
16:1–10.
Webb, S. and Nation, I.S.P., 2017. How Vocabulary is Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Webb, S. and Rodgers, M.P.H., 2009. Vocabulary demands of television programs. Language
Learning, 59/2:335–366.
Webb, S., Yanagisawa, A. and Uchihara, T., 2020. How effective are intentional vocabulary-learning
activities? A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 104/4:715-738.
Wei, Z. and Nation, I.S.P., 2013. The word part technique: A very useful vocabulary teaching technique.
Modern English Teacher, 22/1:12–16.
West, M., 1953. A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman.
217
15
Materials for developing speaking
skills
Scott Thornbury
Introduction
Speaking – whether labelled as fluency, conversational skills, or spoken interaction –
has traditionally been a priority for most learners. However, until relatively recently,
speaking was seldom taught as such, but instead was considered to be a by-product of
the knowledge of the systems of the language. Speaking meant simply the oral produc-
tion – or, better, the oral reproduction – of language to which the learner had been pre-
viously exposed, either through explicit instruction or through modelling and drilling.
The assumption was that, so long as the learner had amassed a sufficient store of gram-
mar and lexis, and so long as some attention had been paid to the accurate phonological
articulation of this stored knowledge, speaking would take care of itself. Materials that
specifically targeted the skill of speaking were a relatively late innovation. However, a
number of developments in the last half century or so have significantly impacted on
the status and design of speaking materials, including more elaborated descriptions of
spoken language, informed by discourse analysis and corpus linguistics; and research-
derived models of oral fluency.
After a brief historical survey, this chapter reviews these developments, and the issues
that they raise with regard to the design of materials for teaching speaking, and makes some
recommendations for future practice.
Historical background
Dedicated speaking activities – as opposed to the memorisation of dialogues, teacher-led
sequences of display questions, or pattern-practice drills – did not make an appearance in
language teaching materials until at least the 1970s. Until then, explicit attention to develop-
ing speaking skills was not considered necessary, since it was assumed that the capacity to
engage in ‘spontaneous expression’ was simply a case of calling into play ‘a multiplicity of
structures and lexical items that have been learned over a period of years’ (Rivers 1968:200).
As Louis Alexander, author of one of the best-selling courses of the time, New Concept
English, put it:
218 DOI: 10.4324/b22783-19

Materials for developing speaking skills
The traditional ‘conversation lesson’ is of no value at all if the student is not ready for it
… The student must first be trained to use patterns in carefully graded aural/oral drills.
Only in this way will he finally learn to speak.
(1967:viii)
Nevertheless, the tightly controlled presentation-practice (PP) paradigm characteristic of

courses such as Alexander’s had begun to yield in the face of a felt need for freer speaking
practice. Fluency could not be deferred indefinitely. As Byrne (1976:4) wrote, in Teaching
Oral English, such an approach sets students ‘on a seemingly never ending path towards an
ever receding horizon.’ Accordingly, a production stage was appended to the presentation-
practice sequence (PPP). The aim of the production phase is, according to Byrne (1976:78),
‘to provide the learners with opportunities to use the language for themselves: to say what
they want to say rather than what they are directed to say.’ Typical activity types include
such relatively formal and structured ones as dialogue practice and ‘oral composition,’ but
also discussions, role plays, and language games.
As the PPP paradigm took hold, greater prominence was given to materials and activ-
ity-types that targeted freer speaking, but it was not until the arrival of Communicative
Language Teaching in the mid-1970s that spoken interaction became a core component of
the curriculum. Until then, if real communication ever occurred in the classroom, it was
accidental or peripheral: the challenge now was to design activities – and their associated
materials – that purposefully encouraged and supported such communication. Contrasting
the attributes of ‘non-communicative’ and communicative activities, Harmer (1982) argued
that the latter involve a desire to communicate, have a communicative purpose, are focused
on content not form, require a variety of linguistic resources (rather than being restricted to
some targeted feature), and involve little or no teacher intervention nor materials control.
Despite Harmer’s dictum that communicative activities should have ‘no materials con-
trol,’ materials that were designed to stimulate such activities began to appear with increas-
ing frequency in standard EFL and ESL courses. The information-gap task, for example,
where each learner of a pair is directed to different but related data in different sections
of the coursebook, the sharing of which enables them to negotiate the outcome of a task,
became a standard feature of self-styled ‘communicative’ courses.
At the same time, there was a parallel increase in the number of resource books devoted
exclusively to the development of the speaking skill. These were generally more closely
aligned with communicative methodology than most coursebooks were. For example,
Hadfield’s hugely popular Communications Games series (first published in 1984; re-
issued in 1990) was strongly committed to the principle of the information gap. As Johnson
(1979:201) noted at the time, ‘the attempt to create information gaps in the classroom,
thereby producing communication viewed as the bridging of the information gap, has char-
acterized much recent communicative methodology.’
However, the single most important effect of communicative methodology on speak-
ing materials was the shift of emphasis from accuracy to fluency, defined at the time as
‘natural language use, whether or not it results in native-speaker-like comprehension or
production’ (Brumfit 1984:56). For example, in the Teacher’s Book that accompanies the
first of what became a best-selling series, Headway Intermediate, the authors note that
‘there is at least one fluency speaking activity per unit’ (Soars and Soars 1986:vi), divided
more or less equally between role plays and discussions. This marks a significant contrast
with the generation of coursebooks that preceded it. An associated development was the
inclusion of ‘personalization’ tasks in which learners are encouraged to talk about and
219
Scott Thornbury
share their own experiences, opinions, and preferences. For example, Soars and Soars
(1996:iv), in the introduction to the Teacher’s Book of the ‘new edition’ of Headway
Intermediate, point out that ‘activities are personalized at every opportunity. This gives
students the chance to talk about themselves, and to learn about their fellow students.’ The
cultural appropriacy of such ‘caring and sharing’ moments in certain contexts is seldom
questioned.
Even if CLT may have failed to live up to its initial promise (see, for example, Thornbury
2016), its promotion of ‘natural language use’ over grammatical accuracy has had a pro-
found effect, and is perhaps its most durable legacy, even if the distinction between accuracy
and fluency is no longer construed in such polarised terms.

Underpinning the evolutionary process described above has been the growing recogni-
tion that speaking a language proficiently involves more than simply knowing the systems
of the language – its grammar, vocabulary, and phonology – and that even learners with
advanced knowledge of these systems often find it difficult to activate this knowledge in
real-time, face-to-face encounters. Speaking, after all, is a skill, and like all skills involves
both a knowledge-base plus the skills with which to mobilise this knowledge. As Bygate
notes, ‘This distinction between knowledge and skill is crucial in the teaching of speaking’
(1987:3). Two areas of research that have considerably enhanced our understanding of spo-
ken language, and which have implications for materials design, are discourse competence,
on the one hand, and fluency development, on the other.
This section, then, summarises recent research that addresses these key questions, con-
cerned, respectively, with the knowledge-base and the skill-base of speaking:
1. what is discourse competence?

2. what is fluency?
It will then consider the pedagogical options that the answers to these questions might
suggest.
What is discourse competence?

Part of the knowledge-base of speaking involves what has been called discourse compe-
tence, defined as ‘mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings to achieve
unified spoken or written text in different genres’ (Canale 1983:9). The components of dis-
course competence were further refined by Bachman and Palmer (1996) to include textual
knowledge, i.e. how sentences or utterances are combined to form texts, and pragmatic
knowledge, i.e. how such texts are related to the user’s situated, communicative goals.
Since its inception in the 1960s, discourse analysis has generated a number of different
schools and sub-disciplines, including pragmatics, genre analysis, and conversation analy-
sis, but all share the basic premise that speech, like written language, has texture and struc-
ture, and that its texture and structure differ significantly from that of written language.
Hence, knowledge of written language does not necessarily transfer to spoken language.
Some of the contributions of discourse analysis and its related disciplines to our under-
standing of the knowledge-base of spoken language include:
220
·· the way that speaking turns are managed and sequenced – in the form, for example, of
opening and closing sequences and of adjacency pairs (as in A: Do you mind if I start?
B: Not at all.) – and how and by whom misunderstandings are repaired;
·· the way speakers use intonation to distinguish given from new information (as in
A: It’s RAINing. B. Well, they SAID it would rain.), and to signal topic shift or turn
completion;
·· the way that cohesion is achieved in talk, and the way speakers’ intentions are signalled,
through the use, for example, of discourse markers, as in A: So, you’re new here. B.
Well, I started in June, actually. A. Oh, I had no idea.
·· the way that distinct speech genres – such as casual conversation or formal presenta-
tions – are organised, and how their organisation reflects their communicative, social,
and cultural goals;
·· the way that speakers use contextual clues, sociolinguistic knowledge, and co-operative
principles (Grice 1975) to infer the pragmatic intentions of their interlocutors, e.g. in
indirect speech acts, such as It’s after nine (intended to mean It’s time we left);
·· the way speakers employ politeness devices, such as mitigation, to avoid threats to face
(as in I take your point, but…), and the way that specific interpersonal speech events –
such as greeting and complementing – are locally managed.
While discourse analysis tends to focus on the ‘macro’ features of spoken language, such
as the way talk is co-constructed in its contexts of use, corpus linguistics has provided a
wealth of data about the ‘micro’ features of spoken language, specifically its grammar and
lexis, and how these differ from written language in many respects. Carter and McCarthy
(1995, 1997), for example, compiled a corpus of casual conversation, spoken narratives,
service encounters, and ‘language-in-action,’ i.e. ‘talk which accompanies some real-world
task’ (1995:144), and identified a number of distinctive features that ‘slip through the net
of grammatical description or are relegated to positions of minor importance’ in descriptive
grammars. These include
·· the use of ellipsis: [Do you] Fancy a bite to eat?

·· left dislocation (also known as fronting): A friend of mine, he was telling me…
·· tails, i.e. ‘the slot available at the end of a clause in which a speaker can insert gram-
matical patterns which amplify, extend or reinforce what (s)he is saying or has said’
(1997:18): It’s very nice, this sauce.
·· vague language: There were lots of cakes and stuff.
In a follow-up paper, (Carter and McCarthy 2017) the authors review the evidence to date
and re-affirm the view that ‘the identification of sentences in conversational data is problem-
atic’ (2017:7). But so too is analysis at the level of the individual utterance, since so much
of interactive talk is jointly constructed. A case in point is what they call ‘response tokens’
– freestanding words that operate across turn-boundaries, such as fine, great, absolutely.
Biber et al. (1999) examine the grammatical construction of spoken English and identify
the clause as the basic building block of speech, interspersed with what they call non-clausal
units, such as response tokens, all of which are assembled in real time using an ‘add-on
strategy’ (1999:1068). This does not mean, however, that speech is syntactically simple: the
cumulative addition of clausal and non-clausal units can produce utterances of considerable
length and grammatical complexity, but it is a different kind of complexity than that which
typifies written grammar.
221
Scott Thornbury
The demands of real-time processing also mean that, as Biber et al. (1999:1049) phrase
it, ‘conversation has a restricted and repetitive repertoire.’ Not only does speech evidence a
greater degree of lexical and phrasal repetition than written genres, it relies more heavily on
formulaic – or ‘prefabricated’ – language (Wray 2002). Corpus analysis is now providing
information as to the most frequent multi-word items in spoken language (e.g. Ellis et al.
2008; Martinez and Schmitt 2012; Simpson and Mendis 2003), data that is likely to inform
syllabus design in the future.
Given the marked differences between spoken and written grammar, the viability of
using written grammar as the standard for teaching oral skills has been called into question.
Rühlemann (2008:680), for example, argues that ‘it would seem … that, in teaching the
spoken language, which includes first and foremost conversation, SE [Standard English] is
an inappropriate model because its grammar differs too much from the grammar of conver-
sation.’ How materials writers might address this challenge will be discussed below.
What is fluency?
Oral fluency, loosely defined as the production of language in real time, is possibly one of the
most coveted but least understood goals of second language learning. Johnson (2013:270)
labels fluency a ‘combinatorial skill’ in that it is ‘the skill of “being able to do many things
correctly at the same time.”’
Cognitive accounts of SLA (e.g. Segalowitz 2003, 2010; Skehan 1998) equate fluency
with automaticity, whereby skilled behaviours are induced through ‘massive repetition
experiences’ leading to a qualitative change in the way in which the behaviour is executed
– also known as ‘restructuring’ (McLaughlin 1990). This, in turn, allows speakers to allo-
cate their attentional resources to other, higher order, features of the interaction, such as
appropriacy. Fluency is traditionally contrasted with both accuracy, i.e. the ability to avoid
error, and complexity, i.e. the capacity to use structurally more elaborate and more diverse
linguistic forms. Research – and the experience of many learners and teachers – suggests
that there is considerable trade-off between these abilities: that, for example, the production
of fast and fluent speech is often at the expense of grammatical accuracy, and vice versa.
Despite the fact that, as Segalowitz (2010:39) argues, ‘it is not possible to globally
characterise a person’s L2 speech as “fluent” in some unidimensional, absolute fashion,’
researchers use a number of temporal criteria to measure it, specifically:
·· speech rate, usually measured in terms of the number of syllables or words produced
per minute: a fast speech rate is around 200 words per minute;
·· pause rate, pause length, and pause placement;
·· length of run, i.e. the number of syllables produced without pausing, on average (known
as the mean length of run: MLR).
While the psychological processes underlying fluency are not fully understood, it is gener-
ally agreed that fluency is to a large extent a function of having access to a very large store
of memorised formulaic sequences (Wray 2002), the automatic retrieval of which reduces
the need for planning, with the added benefit of conferring a degree of idiomaticity on
the speaker. As noted earlier, corpus research has confirmed the view that, as Carter and
McCarthy (2006:828) note, ‘the language use of native speakers and expert users always
contains a high number of such clusters, especially in speech.’
222
At the same time, perceptions of fluency can be influenced by any one of a number of
other factors, independent of the performance phenomena mentioned above. For example:
·· accuracy: despite the fact that fluency is frequently contrasted with accuracy, there
nevertheless seems to be a ‘threshold of tolerance,’ beyond which the number and fre-
quency of non-standard forms produced by a speaker counts against the perception of
fluency. As Chambers (1997:540) observes, ‘judgements of fluency actually embrace
linguistic accuracy in some way,’ suggesting that ‘the restricted definition of fluent
speech as simply smooth and continuous becomes applicable only beyond a certain
level of linguistic proficiency’ (ibid.);
·· idiomaticity: i.e. the extent to which the speaker’s use of language reflects native-like
usage, rather than being unconventional or untypical, even if grammatically accurate;
·· accent: the extent to which the speaker’s first language accent is obtrusive and/or is the
cause of misunderstanding;
·· interaction skills: such as the speaker’s capacity to cooperate with other speakers –
by, for example, ‘latching’ their turns on to those of other speakers, yielding the floor
appropriately and providing listener feedback by backchannelling; this also encom-
passes the notion of what has been called pragmatic fluency, defined as ‘a dialogic phe-
nomenon that combines pragmatic appropriateness of utterances and smooth continuity
in ongoing talk’ (House 1996:228);
·· strategic competence: specifically the capacity to deploy communication strategies to
compensate for deficiencies in L2 knowledge and to repair breakdowns in communication;
·· paralinguistics: this includes gesture, gaze, and proxemics, which, all things being
equal, may play a significant role in the perception of fluency.

In this section, the implications of the above developments for speaking skills materials
design will be discussed. These can be framed as two questions:
1. should the components of discourse competence be taught explicitly? If so, what mate-
rials might facilitate this?
2. what classroom activities – and, hence, what kinds of materials – might promote
fluency?
Indirect vs. direct approaches

A key concern for materials designers is whether the teaching of the speaking skill should
adopt an indirect or a direct approach (Richards 1990). The former adopts an experiential
position, arguing that speaking is learned by speaking, and hence a syllabus for the teaching
of speaking would consist, essentially, of a series of tasks. A direct approach, on the other
hand, seeks to isolate the discoursal, grammatical, and lexical features characteristic of spo-
ken language, along with the specific sub-skills and competences that research has identified
as comprising oral fluency, and teach these individually and explicitly before integrating
them into tasks involving spoken interaction.
Proponents of an indirect approach argue that, since fluency is automatised processing,
without awareness or conscious attention (Segalowitz 2003), it is best acquired without
223
Scott Thornbury
the distractions of conscious control and attention to explicit ‘rules.’ Truscott (2015:234),
for example, argues that, while ‘consciously learned knowledge has very large effects on
production in artificial tasks in which the application of that knowledge is the focus, [it] has
little effect on communicative performance.’ Hence,
the primary focus of learning activities should be on getting extensive experience with
the language … This experience should be acquired in realistic contexts that are reason-
ably well matched with contexts in which the person wants to use the language in the
future.
(2015:238)
Evidence in support of an indirect, more experiential approach, is the fact that learners in
study-abroad contexts frequently demonstrate significant gains in fluency when compared
with learners in ‘at home’ contexts (see Di Silvio et al. 2016; Towell et al. 1996), although,
admittedly, there is considerable individual variation. These findings suggest that, for some
learners at least, simply being immersed in the target language environment is a powerful
driver of fluency.
Moreover, since second language learners are already fluent speakers of their first lan-
guage, and since most if not all higher order features of spoken interaction – such as turn-
taking – are universal, these features are (potentially, at least) transferable from the learners’
L1 without the need for formal instruction. As McCarthy (1991:128) puts it,
it is not a question of telling learners that speakers take turns; they know this naturally
from their own language. The problem is to make sure that activities generate the natu-
ral sorts of turn-taking that occur in the target discourse type and so not inhibit typical
turn-taking patterns.
Of course, such transfer may be dependent on learners first having a critical mass of general
language knowledge and the time spent teaching these universal features of conversation
would perhaps be better spent teaching and practising the language, including the expo-
nents of specific conversational moves, without which these universals remain inert and
non-transferable.
On the other hand, there are strong theoretical grounds supporting a direct approach, as
well. Dörnyei (2009), for example, draws on skill-acquisition theory, which makes the case
that declarative knowledge (e.g. as gained through explicit instruction) becomes procedural-
ised and eventually automatic through practice. Hence, instructed second language acquisi-
tion ‘should contain explicit initial input components’ (Dörnyei 2009:302) and, ‘similar to
the training of musicians or athletes, it should also include controlled practice activities to
promote the automatization of L2 skills’ (ibid.).
In favour of the direct approach is evidence suggesting that there are a number of fea-
tures of second language conversational competence that respond positively to instruction.
Two areas that have received some attention in the research literature are the application of
communication strategies to enhance communicative competence, and the development of
L2 pragmatics. However, Ellis (2008) reviews a number of studies into the effectiveness of
training communication strategies and finds mixed results, partly due to a lack of consen-
sus as to what constitutes a communication strategy. And he adds, ‘reflecting perhaps the
uncertainty over the value of training communication strategies, instructional materials for
L2 learners are hard to find’ (2008:511). However, Goh (2017) suspects that the application
224
of communication strategies research may have been too narrowly focused on resolving
vocabulary issues, and not on fostering spoken interaction in general.
With regard to pragmatic competence, the evidence is more encouraging. Bardovi-
Harlig summarises the research evidence by claiming that ‘instruction appears to facilitate
the development of L2 pragmatics’ (2014:153). In a survey of research studies, Taguchi
(2015:11) concurs: ‘all 31 studies show significant gains in L2 learners’ knowledge and use
of learned pragmatic forms from pre- to post-instruction (although some studies revealed
mixed findings).’ It may be the case that instruction works because it facilitates transfer – the
position adopted by Kasper and Rose (2001:6–7):
There is … a clear role for pedagogical intervention, not with the purpose of providing
learners with new information but to make them aware of what they know already and
encourage them to use their universal or transferable L1 pragmatic knowledge in L2
contexts.
The same ‘trigger effect’ might apply equally to other features of discourse competence.
Classroom activities that explicitly target specific features of discourse competence include:
·· matching the two parts of a selection of adjacency pairs, as in greetings, compliment-

ing, etc.;
·· ordering short conversations, e.g. service encounters, phone calls;
·· discourse-completion tasks, such as selecting or providing the most appropriate
response to a speech act;
·· inserting discourse markers into a written dialogue, or cohesive devices into a written
monologue;
·· comparing transcripts of two or more different conversational extracts to identify dif-
ferences due to register variables;
·· re-formulating dialogues to take account of register variables, e.g. making the language
more formal, less direct;
·· turning ‘written grammar’ dialogues into ‘spoken grammar’ dialogues, e.g. by the addi-
tion of ellipsis, pause fillers, heads and tails, etc.
Thornbury (2005) draws on both cognitive skill learning theory and sociocultural theory in
order to reconcile direct and indirect approaches, proposing a three-tier staging of speak-
ing instruction. This begins with an awareness-raising stage, where learners are either pre-
sented or discover for themselves features of spoken language. A typical awareness-raising
task might be to identify and classify different discourse markers in a transcript of spoken
dialogue. This is followed by appropriation activities – such as reading aloud, rehearsing
and performing dialogues, and engaging in communicative tasks of the information-gap
type – where learners gain control of targeted features, before achieving full autonomy as
independent speakers in a range of different spoken genres, by such means as discussion,
debate, formal presentations, and drama-based activities.
What activities and materials promote fluency?

‘All automaticity proposals for enhancing SLA are based, in one way or another, on the idea
that extended practice, under particular conditions and circumstances, will increase fluency
225
Scott Thornbury
by developing automaticity’ (Segalowitz 2003:401). Questions remain, however, as to what

kind of practice is optimal, and under what ‘conditions and circumstances’?
Johnson (1996), drawing on information-processing models in cognitive psychology,
argues that practice is optimal when it takes place in ‘real operating conditions,’ that is,
where the contextual and psychological conditions in which the practice is taking place as
closely as possible match the conditions of actual language use – what is now known as
‘transfer appropriate processing,’ whereby ‘the transfer of automatized skills depends on
the psychological similarity of the learning and transfer contexts’ (Segalowitz 2003:402).
This is seldom if ever the case with traditional pattern practice drills, and even commu-
nicative tasks of the ‘information gap’ type may offer only a semblance of psychologi-
cal authenticity, especially if they are designed primarily to practise pre-selected grammar
items. Segalowitz makes a case for activities that are genuinely (rather than superficially)
communicative: genuine communication requires joint attention and mutual ‘intention read-
ing’ by participants. Such conditions are more likely to be present when learners are focused
on achieving a collaborative task, the outcome of which has personal relevance.
Indeed, the literature on task-based learning has provided useful guidelines as to how
task-types can be selected, and how task conditions can be manipulated, in order to achieve
increments in fluency. Ellis (2003:127) summarises the research findings: ‘Tasks that: (1)
provide contextual support; (2) have familiar or involving topics; (3) pose a single demand;
(4) are closed; and (5) have a clear inherent structure are likely to promote fluency.’
Contextual support can take the form of a picture, a map, or tangible objects, for example,
that the learners refer to or manipulate. The ‘demands’ of a task can be single or multiple,
and cognitive as well as linguistic: a task that poses a single demand might be one that
requires learners to collaboratively reconstruct a story from memory, whereas a more cog-
nitively demanding task might be to jointly create an original story. ‘Closed tasks’ are those
that require the learners to reach a single outcome. Tasks with an ‘inherent structure’ are
those that adhere to a familiar ‘script’ or ‘schema,’ such as describing one’s journey to work.
Task familiarity can be enhanced by having learners repeat tasks that they have done
previously: the topic of task repetition will be addressed in the next section.

In light of the above, this section makes four recommendations to writers of materials that
target the speaking skill, specifically, that materials should
·· provide exposure to authentic data

·· promote memorisation
·· develop ‘creative automaticity’
·· include an element of task repetition
Exposure to authentic data

Hughes (2010:213) identifies ‘something of a “gap” between the realities of speech and what
is taught.’ Other writers have similarly complained of the way spoken language is misrep-
resented or under-represented in most current ELT materials, where dialogues, for example,
tend to be pre-scripted and with many of the performance features of speech, including dys-
fluencies, stripped out of them. Likewise, higher order features of naturally occurring talk,
226
such as topic management, conversational openings and closings, and pragmatics, are either
absent or poorly represented. Bardovi-Harlig (2014:158–159), for example, argues that:
the key barrier to wider presence of pragmatics in second and foreign language teaching
is the general lack of commercially available materials based on authentic interaction
… Such materials are necessary because … in the area of pragmatics native-speaker
intuition is an insufficient basis for instruction. Using materials based on authentic
interaction provides an opportunity for students and teachers (both native and non-
natives!) to learn together, using transcripts, recordings, audio-visual materials to guide
the discovery process.
In similar vein, in their ground-breaking study of spoken grammar, Carter and McCarthy
(1995:154) make the suggestion that
in the present situation, the best course of action would seem to be to expose learners
to natural spoken data wherever possible and to help them to become observers of the
grammar of talk in natural contexts and in different genres.
This advice still holds.
Memorisation
Although attitudes to memorisation (and its pejorative counterpart, rote-learning) have fluc-
tuated over time, it is generally acknowledged, as mentioned earlier, that fluency is a func-
tion of the ability to draw on a store of memorised formulaic utterances in real time and to
deploy these appropriately. Given that proficient learners have a mental ‘phrasicon’ of tens
of thousands of these items, it is unlikely that incidental learning through exposure alone
will increase this store, and hence intentional learning, involving memorisation, will be
necessary.
Research shows positive effects for phrase memorisation. For example, in a study of
six advanced learners who engaged in cycles of sentence memorisation and rehearsal in
advance of participating in real conversations:
The subjects reported finding the use of memorised sentences in anticipated conversa-
tions a liberating experience, because it gave them exposure to an opportunity to sound
nativelike, promoted their fluency, reduced the panic of on-line production in stressful
encounters, gave them a sense of confidence about being understood, and provided
material that could be used in other contexts too.
(Wray and Fitzpatrick 2008:143)
This argument supports the value of drama-based activities in the classroom, since these
usually require the memorisation and rehearsal of scripts. A recent study of the use of
drama in classrooms (Galante and Thomson 2017), which compared groups of learners who
received standard communicative instruction with groups who received similar instruction
but which also incorporated the scripting, rehearsal, and performance of plays, found posi-
tive effects on fluency, including the use of strategies that were generalisable to a variety of
different speaking tasks.
227
Scott Thornbury
Writers of educational materials might want to consider how memorisation tasks could
be more prominently integrated into activity sequences. The incorporation of electronic
vocabulary learning apps for self-study, of the type that are now commercially available,
such as Quizlet and Anki, would be a useful addition to both print-based and online courses.
These allow users to download existing word lists for self-study, or create their own – and
are not limited to single-item words, but can accommodate multi-word chunks.
‘Creative automaticity’
Memorisation requires repetitive practice, but, according to Gatbonton and Segalowitz
(1988, 2005), not of the kind associated with structure-based and decontextualised audio-
lingual drills: ‘What is needed is an activity designed to enable learners to practice (repeat)
many tokens of target sentences while they are engaged in real communication’ (1988:479).
Accordingly, they propose a pedagogical model that is designed to promote ‘creative auto-
maticity.’ Activities need to meet at least five conditions: they should:
·· be genuinely communicative – i.e. consistent with the criteria proposed by Harmer

(1982, see above);
·· be psychologically authentic: ‘The activity should be designed to allow learners to
experience some of the normal psychological pressures felt by people engaged in real
communication’ (op cit.:486);
·· be focused: ‘The activities should be designed around basic functions and notions that
learners are likely to have to handle in everyday life, such as directing, describing, and
apologizing’ (op cit.:487);
·· be formulaic: ‘The activity should be designed so that short, memorizable utterances or
utterance frames are naturally elicited’ (op cit.:488); and
·· be inherently repetitive: this, they argued, is the key requirement, since it aids memori-
sation. At the same time ‘the repetition should be natural to the activity’ (op cit.:488).
An activity that meets these conditions is the Find someone who… task, in which learners
survey one another in order to complete a rubric consisting of a finite number of questions,
usually formed from the same grammatical structure: Find someone who has never been
on a plane, etc. Many guessing games, such as What’s my line? (where learners ask yes/no
questions to guess their partner’s imaginary job), fulfil at least some of the criteria. Apart
from some rare but noteworthy exceptions (e.g. Dellar and Walkley 2004; McCarthy et al.
2005), speaking activities in coursebooks have been slow to incorporate a focus on formu-
laic language, despite the relatively long time since the ‘Lexical Approach’ (Lewis 1993)
was first popularised. This may be in part due to the gravitational pull of the canonical gram-
mar syllabus, which still tends to determine the linguistic focus of many speaking activities.
Task repetition
The value of repetition, as argued by Gatbonton and Segalowitz above, and of task repeti-
tion in particular, has been the subject of a number of research studies into task-based learn-
ing. Bygate (2001:43), for example, argues that ‘previous experience of a task is available
for speakers to build on in subsequent performance,’ showing gains not only in fluency but
also in accuracy and complexity.
228
However, coursebook speaking tasks generally do not endorse this principle, rarely if ever
suggesting that learners repeat a task. In arguing the case for task repetition, Goh (2017:250)
notes that she has ‘yet to see a speaking task in the course books at any level and context that
is repeated either in its entirety or in part.’ She partly attributes this to a lack of awareness
on the part of teachers and writers as to the value of task repetition. But it may also reflect
a general belief that learners themselves will resist repeating tasks: the challenge for teach-
ers – and materials writers – is to conceive of ways of introducing an element of repetition
by varying some features of the task while keeping other factors stable. This might involve
sequencing tasks so that the illusion of variety is maintained despite the tasks involving the
repetition of certain linguistic elements. To this end, Bygate (2018:13) provides a taxonomy
of task repetition activities, categorised according to their variable elements and their degree
of variation. A ‘Type 1’ task, for example, is where a task is repeated, the only difference
being the interlocutor, as when learners re-perform a communicative activity with a differ-
ent partner. ‘Partial’ repetition occurs in Type 5 tasks, such as when learners survey one
another, adjusting their follow-up questions to the different answers they receive. A ‘Type 6’
task, on the other hand, is one in which repetition requires transferring the content to another
medium, e.g. from speaking to writing. As Bygate (2001:18) notes, ‘the notions of rehearsal,
repetition and recycling pose interesting challenges to materials writers, since they imply
organising tasks to give pedagogically useful connections between them.’
Future directions
When considering future directions that speaking materials might take, it is tempting to look
to technology for pointers. A number of developments are suggestive. The use of electronic
flashcards for the memorisation of lexical phrases has already been mentioned. Technology
also allows learners to record themselves (either audio or video) and to upload the record-
ings onto a learning platform for feedback and evaluation from instructors or peers. Small-
group video conferencing allows learners to interact at a distance but in real time. Finally,
automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems, of varying degrees of sophistication, are read-
ily available, including on mobile devices. Combined with dictation software, these allow
learners to fine-tune the accuracy of their pronunciation. Some algorithms that are now
incorporated into test instruments (e.g. Versant) can also give an approximate estimate of
fluency, based on speech rate and pause length. It is expected that all these technologies
will continue to improve, and will be seamlessly integrated into course design in the near
future – with the proviso that computer-mediated communication (CMC) makes different
demands, and has different effects, than does face-to-face communication.
Conclusion
The argument has been advanced that learning to speak in a second language involves
more than applying lexical and grammatical knowledge, but also assumes both discourse
competence and automaticity. It would seem, on balance, that there is a case for at least
some indirect (or ‘experiential’) learning in the acquisition of discourse competence, and
that this learning would typically involve exposure to a lot of spoken data – preferably
authentic – from which learners can induce the features of spoken language that will best
serve their communicative needs. At the same time, some directed attention to these fea-
tures through, for example, explicit description may be beneficial. Learners also need
229
Scott Thornbury
activities, involving memorisation and repetition, that will facilitate the automatisation of
this knowledge, but, ideally, in situations which are maximally transferable to the expected
contexts of use.
Further reading
Goh, C.C.M. and Burns, A., 2012. Teaching Speaking: A Holistic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
This text explores the way cognitive, social, and affective factors might be integrated into a
pedagogy for teaching speaking.
Nation, I.S.P. and Newton, J., 2009. Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking. London: Routledge.
This guide for teachers and teacher trainees provides a wealth of suggestions for helping learners
at all levels of proficiency develop their listening and speaking skills and fluency.
Thornbury, S., 2005. How to Teach Speaking. Harlow: Pearson.
A practical guide to the teaching of the speaking skills, divided into activities that focus on
awareness-raising, on appropriation, and on autonomy.
Related topics
Theory and practice in materials development, writing corpus-informed materials.
References
Alexander, L.G., 1967. New Concept English: First Things First (Teacher’s Book). Harlow: Longman.
Bachman, L. and Palmer, A.S., 1996. Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., 2014. Pragmatics in second language acquisition. In Gass, S.M. and Mackey, A.,
eds. The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E., 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken
and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
Brumfit, C.J., 1984. Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching: The Roles of Fluency and
Accuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, M., 1987. Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bygate, M., 2001. Speaking. In Carter, R. and Nunan, D., eds. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching
English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, M., 2018. Introduction. In Bygate, M., ed. Learning Language through Task Repetition.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Byrne, D., 1976. Teaching Oral English. Harlow: Longman.
Canale, M., 1983. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In
Richards, J.C. and Schmidt, R.W., eds. Language and Communication. Harlow: Longman.
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M., 1995. Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics,
16/2:141–58.
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M., 1997. Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M., 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M., 2017. Spoken Grammar: Where are we and where are we going? Applied
Chambers, F., 1997. What do we mean by fluency? System, 25/4:535–544.
Dellar, H. and Walkley, A., 2004. Innovations Student’s Book Intermediate. Boston, MA: Heinle ELT.
Di Silvio, F., Diao, W. and Donovan, A., 2016. The development of L2 fluency during study abroad:
A cross-cultural study. Modern Language Journal, 100:610–624.
230
Dörnyei, Z., 2009. The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R., 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N., Simpson-Vlach, R., and Maynard, C., 2008. Formulaic language in native and second language
speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42/3:375–396.
Galante, A. and Thomson, R.I., 2017. The effectiveness of drama as an instructional approach for
the development of second language oral fluency, comprehensibility, and accentedness, TESOL
Quarterly, 51/1:114–142.
Gatbonton, E. and Segalowitz, N., 1988. Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency
within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22/3:473–92.
Gatbonton, E. and Segalowitz N., 2005. Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on
access to fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61/3:325–353.
Goh, C.C.M., 2017. Research into practice: Scaffolding learning processes to improve speaking
performance. Language Teaching, 50/2:247–260.
Grice, H.P., 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J.L., eds. Syntax and Semantics 3:
Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Hadfield, J., 1984. Harrap’s Communication Games. London: Harrap.
Harmer, J., 1982. What is communicative? ELT Journal, 36/3:164–168.
House, J., 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and
metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18/2:225–252.
Hughes, R., 2010. Materials to develop the skill of speaking. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language
Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K., 1979. Communicative approaches and communicative processes. In Brumfit, C.J. and
Johnson, K., eds. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Johnson, K., 1996. Language Teaching and Skill Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Johnson, K., 2013. An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. 2nd ed. Milton Park,
Abingdon: Routledge.
Kasper, G. and Rose, K.R., 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching. In Kasper, G. and Rose, K.R., eds.
Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martinez, R. and Schmitt, N., 2012. A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33/3:299–320.
McCarthy, M., 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McCarthy, M.J., McCarten, J. and Sandiford, H., 2005. Touchstone: Student’s Book 1. Cambridge:
McLaughlin, B., 1990. Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11/2:113–28.
Richards, J.C., 1990. The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W., 1968. Teaching Foreign-language Skills. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Rühlemann, C., 2008. A register approach to teaching conversation: Farewell to Standard English?
Applied Linguistics, 29/4:672–693.
Segalowitz, N., 2003. Automaticity and second languages. In Doughty, C.J. and Long, M.H., eds. The
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Segalowitz, N., 2010. Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. London: Routledge.
Simpson, R. and Mendis, S., 2003. A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL
Quarterly, 37/3:419–442.
Soars, L. and Soars, J., 1986. Headway Intermediate Teacher’s Book. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Soars, L. and Soars, J., 1996. Headway Intermediate Teacher’s Book. new ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
231
Scott Thornbury
Taguchi, N., 2015. Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should
be going. Language Teaching, 48/1:1–50.
Thornbury, S., 2016. Communicative language teaching in theory and practice. In Hall, G., ed. The
Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge.
Towell, R., Hawkins, R. and Bazergui, N., 1996. The development of fluency in advanced learners of
French. Applied Linguistics, 17/1:84–119.
Truscott, J., 2015. Consciousness and Second Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Wray, A., 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, A. and Fitzpatrick, T., 2008. Why can’t you leave it alone? Deviations from memorized language
as a gauge of nativelike competence. In Meunier, F. and Granger, S., eds. Phraseology in Foreign
Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
232
16
Materials for developing reading
skills
Claudia Saraceni
Introduction
Undoubtedly, one of the most effective ways of learning a language is related to rich,
varied, and authentic language exposure, and one of the key ways to provide such expo-
sure is through reading (Krashen 1993; Mcdonough et al. 2013). ‘Reading is the only
way, the only way we become good readers, develop a good writing style, an adequate
vocabulary, advanced grammar, and the only way we become good spellers’ (Krashen
1993:23).
In many ways, the importance of reading in the field of language teaching and learn-
ing is also reflected in a number of related areas, such as in the practices of the lan-
guage classroom and in language assessment and testing. Most language examination
papers, for example, involve a reading comprehension element, including some of
the examinations developed by Cambridge Assessment, which are recognised around
the world, such as the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) paper.
Consequently a large amount of the materials produced for language learning are heav-
ily influenced by assessment needs and the reading component tends to focus on testing
comprehension (see Masuhara 1998, 2013; Tomlinson 1997; Tomlinson and Masuhara
2010). Despite the above-mentioned significance of reading, however, there seems to
be a mismatch between theoretical, research-driven principles related to the process of
reading and their more practical applications in language teaching and learning. This
mismatch forms the central objective of this chapter.
More specifically, firstly, this chapter aims to define, describe, and explain the process of
reading and its interactive nature; secondly, it aims to compare this process with the type of
reading approach often encouraged in the language classroom and also evident in materials
produced for language teaching and learning. In its concluding section, it outlines some of
the main teaching and learning implications related to the issues presented here, with a few
practical suggestions for developing language teaching and learning materials for reading
skills. To begin with, however, the concept of reading needs to be defined in the following
section.
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-20 233

Claudia Saraceni

What does reading involve?
Reading can be considered from various different perspectives and defined in a number of
ways. A somewhat simplistic definition of reading is of a twofold process involving simul-
taneously deciphering written words, and interpreting a text (Saraceni 2010).
Consider, for example, the following extract from the opening page of a short story by
Mukherjee (2004:91) entitled ‘The Management of Grief.’
A woman I don’t know is boiling tea the Indian way in my kitchen. There are a lot
of women I don’t know in my kitchen, whispering, and moving tactfully. They open
doors, rummage through the pantry, and try not to ask me where things are kept. They
remind me of when my sons were small, on Mother’s day or when Vikram and I were
tired, and they would make big, sloppy omelets. I would lie in bed pretending I didn’t
hear them.
Dr. Sharma, the treasurer of the Indo-Canada Society, pulls me into the hallway. He
wants to know if I am worried about money. His wife, who has just come up from the
basement with a tray of empty cups and glasses, scolds him.
Reading this extract would involve not only understanding the individual words but also
interpreting the text in order to make sense of it and create coherence in an apparently inco-
herent extract. Thus the reader may create a number of assumptions so as to establish what
is happening, relate the story to their experiences, predict its context, visualise the scenes,
and also empathise with the protagonist’s emotional state of mind.
In essence, in the context of this chapter, reading refers to a mental process that aims to
create meaning through deciphering and interpreting a text in order to understand it. Reading
involves cognitively creating a range of different hypothetical interpretations related to the
text, which are gradually narrowed to fewer possibilities as reading continues, in order to
assign meaning to the text (Stockwell 2002). Due to the very open-ended nature of reading,
it is multi-faceted, diverse, and subjective, but is also a context-driven, interactive, cogni-
tive process.
Interaction in reading
Reading involves interaction between the writer, the text, and the reader, which can
involve a number of possible interpretations. Consider the following text message, for
example: Gone for a walk, dishes in the sink. Superficially, in this apparently discon-
nected and incoherent message, the writer seems to have simply informed the reader of
their whereabouts and perhaps reminded them to do the dishes. There are, however, a
number of possible interpretations which depend on the context. If, for example, this is an
exchange from a wife to her husband following an argument, then it may imply that she
is frustrated by the fact that dishes have been left in the sink, so has decided to go out and
leave a reminder for her partner. Her note may also mean she does not appreciate having
dirty dishes in the sink or having to remind him to contribute to the household chores.
She encodes these thoughts in her brief note. Her husband must then decode this message,
and choose an appropriate response based upon his interpretation of the message. This
process has been commented upon by a number of researchers, for example, Leech and
Short (2007).
234
Materials for developing reading skills
To summarise, reading involves context-driven interaction, the decoding of the meaning

of texts based on content and language, and reader response.
Reader response
According to Rosenblatt (1994 and 1995) and Hirvela (1996), there are two main dimen-
sions related to reader response: an aesthetic response and an efferent response. In order to
outline and clarify the characteristic features and the differences between these two dimen-
sions, it is useful to explore the following two extracts:
Efferent reading
Extract 1 – a recipe for cooking Samosas:
1. Heat the oil over medium heat and fry the onions until they are lightly browned.
2. Add the mince, garlic and ginger. Stir and fry until all the liquid evaporates and adjust
heat to low.
3. Add the turmeric, coriander, cumin, chilli powder and salt. Stir and fry until mince is
lightly browned.
4. Add the water and the peas, bring to the boil, cover and simmer for 25–30 minutes.
(Stewart 1993:8)
The above text may be produced and read in a number of possible contexts; for example,
a potential reader may want to find out how to prepare and cook meat samosas. The reader
would typically approach this text by checking the ingredients, assembling the necessary
tools, and following the instructions, perhaps whilst actually cooking this meal. This type
of approach to reading would be primarily an example of efferent reading, which, therefore,
involves reading for the main purpose of doing something with the information included in
the text. Generally texts that are typically read for efferent purposes are those that include
practical, step-by-step procedures and instructions, which would mostly need to be read and
understood with an interpretation which is as close as possible to the original intention of
the writer. Efferent reading is mostly functional to gain key information from a text: ‘the
reader’s attention is primarily focused on what will remain as a residue after the reading —
the information to be acquired, the logical solution to a problem, the actions to be carried
out’ (Rosenblatt 1994:23–24).
Aesthetic reading
Extract 2 – the opening page of Jhumpa Lahiri’s novel, The Namesake:
1968
On a sticky August evening two weeks before her due date, Ashima Ganguli stands
in the kitchen of a Central Square apartment, combining Rice Krispies and Planters
peanuts and chopped red onion in a bowl. She adds salt, lemon juice, thin slices of
green chili pepper, wishing there were mustard oil to pour into the mix. Ashima has
been consuming this concoction throughout her pregnancy, a humble approximation of
the snack sold for pennies on Calcutta sidewalks and on railway platforms throughout
India, spilling from newspaper cones.
(Lahiri 2004:1)
235
Claudia Saraceni
The two extracts presented here may have similar content in the sense that they are both
about food preparation. In contrast with efferent reading, however, the second extract is
typically approached through an aesthetic response.
Aesthetic readings are characteristically experiential in relation to the nature of the text and
the way readers access and appreciate the text. Certain stylistic features of the above extract,
for example, encourage readers to experience the description almost as if they were part of the
story: whilst reading one can smell the ingredients and spices, one can see Ashima’s kitchen
and the Calcutta sidewalks and railway platforms. One can also feel uncomfortable and sticky
with the heat and the humidity in the environment, as Ashima does. The reader may feel
empathy with the main character, relate to her sense of tiredness and generally feeling fed-up
in the last stages of her pregnancy, particularly if this resonates with their personal experience.
In essence, aesthetic response is spontaneous and affective. Iser (1978:X) defines it as
follows: ‘although it is brought about by the text, [aesthetic response] brings into play the
imaginative and perceptive faculties of the reader, in order to make him adjust and even
differentiate his own focus.’
In summary then, aesthetic response typically occurs when reading literary, narrative texts
(Rosenblatt 1994; Saraceni 2010), whereas efferent reading is a response to texts based on
instructions and step-by-step guidance. However both can be present in different degrees when
reading different types of texts, as there is clearly no distinct dividing line between aesthetic
and efferent readings. We can perhaps consider reading a newspaper article, which is undoubt-
edly a very different experience from reading a novel or a short story, yet they can potentially
all stimulate a combination of an aesthetic and an efferent response. At first, reading a news-
paper article may seem to fulfil the function of finding out what is happening in the world and
then using that information to arrive at a more informed, critically aware opinion. In addition,
reading this text also involves interpreting a possible point of view that is being put forward
by the way the news items are reported. Consider, for example, the propagandistic style of
certain media that seem to affectively target the reader’s mental associations, perceptions, and
experiences in order to create empathy and, in so doing, manipulate points of view thus creat-
ing opinions and encouraging readers to identify with one specific agenda (Simpson 1993).
The above examples demonstrate, therefore, that aesthetic and efferent readings share
common elements, some of which are listed below.
Function and purpose

Similar to any other language interaction, reading is always purposeful and functional. The
text and the context will determine, for example, whether we are reading to assemble a
wardrobe, develop an informed opinion about the latest events, achieve a deeper, critical
awareness of our experiences, or simply reading for entertainment and escapism.
Personalisation
Perhaps this is one of the core characteristics of an aesthetic dimension of reader response
which relates to a type of empathy that the reader feels when identifying and associating his/
her experiences with those described in the text. This aspect can potentially enhance reader
engagement with the text.
Prediction
The elliptical nature of certain texts seems to typically stimulate this aspect. Whilst read-
ing literary texts, for example, readers tend to go through a process of mentally asking
236
themselves questions in an attempt to fill in certain narrative gaps that may be found in the
text and the storyline. This involves predicting answers to those questions, hence creating a
number of possible hypotheses, as outlined by Stockwell (2002). This aspect can also create
a sense of anticipation and again, can enrich the reading experience.
Emotions
Perhaps one element that most distinctively contributes to creating an aesthetic response is
the connection that is generally created between the text, its content, and the reader. This is
achieved through an affective response based on feelings that can be understood and shared
by the reader.
Visualisation
In order to understand and make sense of a text we need to visualise it, in other words create
a mental picture of the text in our mind. Research seems to indicate that visualisation can
also, to some extent, help the reader relate to the text and create coherence whilst reading it
(Tomlinson 1996, 1997).
Association
Aesthetic and efferent reading would also involve certain associations the reader tends to
create between their experiences and the content of the text. Creating associations typically
facilitates accessing the text and contributes to creating meaning through reading.
The above characteristics of reader response are generally facilitated by certain reading
skills and strategies, as outlined in the following section.
Reading skills and strategies

The process of reading is very often associated with the notion of reading skills and strate-
gies, for example, identifying the gist or specific details from a text and inferring the mean-
ing of specific words from the rest of the text. Despite a lack of consensus as to how to define
them and identify their distinctive features, for the purpose of this chapter Olshavsky’s defi-
nition is adopted (1977): reading skills involve an ability that is acquired and is normally
used subconsciously, whereas a reading strategy can relate to a tool that is used consciously
generally to solve a problem or carry out a task. It may be argued that effective readers tend
to use skills rather than strategies in reading, as they would spontaneously use them without
necessarily being aware of them. In reality, there is no such clear dividing line between read-
ing skills and strategies, and readers may approach a text using a combination of the two. In
addition, the notion of skills and strategies has been questioned due to a noticeable lack of
research to justify their significance (Mcdonough et al. 2013; Masuhara 2013).
Nonetheless, in combination with certain stylistic and linguistic features of the text, read-
ing skills and strategies may, in fact, enable readers to engage with the text and to create
meaning and coherence. Some relate to a deeper reading of the text, such as those described
above (visualisation, association, and predictions), whereas others refer to reading based on
language decoding to decipher the text. Two of the most significant reading skills include
inferencing and activating mental schemata.
Inferencing
Inferencing involves inferring meaning from the text, whilst taking into consideration its
context. When reading we often come across new words, but generally readers continue
237
Claudia Saraceni
reading and use various elements associated with the text to make sense of it, for example, the
rest of the text and the associations they create in their mind between the text and their experi-
ences and perceptions. Short (1996:239) provides a useful possible definition of inferencing:
Our understanding of all human behaviour … appears to involve processes of inference

… It is the linking together of our schematic knowledge and ‘action-presupposition’
that allows us to arrive at our interpretation of this event. The main trigger for inference
in literature is, of course, the text itself.
Activating mental schemata

Activating mental schemata is a reading skill or strategy that is based on the main princi-
ples of schema theory as put forward and described by a number of researchers (see, for
example, Cook 1994; Semino 1995; Stockwell 2002). Mental schemata can be described as
mental representations of our experiences which are cognitively framed in what Stockwell
refers to as scripts (Stockwell 2002). Whenever we are exposed to new experiences, such as
reading a text, for example, we tend to relate them to our previous experiences and to exist-
ing concepts or mental frames in order to make sense of them.
Activating mental schemata in reading, therefore, involves creating meaning from a text
by associating it with previous mental concepts or frames that help readers create a connec-
tion between the text and their reading, and hence interpret and make sense of the text. This,
therefore, emphasises the interactive nature of reader response. A number of researchers draw
a close link between reading comprehension and activating mental schemata (Semino 1995).

Reading in language teaching and learning materials
This section describes and compares reading outside the classroom with the way reading
texts and tasks are used in the language classroom, and, more specifically explores the mate-
rials produced for language teaching and learning. It also provides an overview of some of
the most commonly found approaches to reading skills in published materials, and outlines
some of the characteristics of each approach with reference to relevant research.
Firstly, it is useful to distinguish and identify the concept of authenticity in relation to
reading, as there seems to be a general lack of consensus as to what this concept actually
refers to (Maley and Tomlinson 2017). In this chapter, authentic texts and tasks refer to
those that are not produced for the purposes of language teaching and learning and are
normally read outside the classroom. In contrast, inauthentic reading texts and tasks are
designed for the classroom to facilitate language learning.
A few examples of reading activities which are typically used in the language classroom
are critically discussed below.
Reading activities
Reading comprehension
Perhaps one of the most common types of activity involves answering a set of questions
about the content of a reading text to assess the learners’ comprehension of the text. This
type of activity often requires a rather superficial approach to reading, as the questions often
238
focus upon specific details in the text. In some cases, it may not actually be necessary to read
the whole text to find the answers. Comprehension questions tend not to be open-ended, nor
do they focus upon reader response or text type, but aim to elicit a correct response, show-
ing an accurate understanding of the text. In some cases, however, the answers may be more
implicit and inferencing skills may be necessary.
True or false exercises

These activities generally involve reading a short extract and deciding whether statements
about the text are true or false. Once again, the focus is upon comprehension, and the same
issues related to superficiality noted above apply.
Matching exercises
These activities generally require learners to match sentences or words/phrases with their
definitions. This type of activity usually follows the reading of a text which includes these
items, and whilst it could be used to test comprehension, it also has the potential to support
understanding by creating an effective link between the task and the text and helping stu-
dents deduce meaning from context.
Another type of matching exercise involves learners matching paragraphs with headings
or topics, for example. This may help learners to develop their understanding of the gist of a
text and also identify key concepts included in the text. Once again, however, this assumes
a ‘correct’ reading of the text in terms of the writer’s views or intentions, and the option of
having a number of possible interpretations of the text is disregarded.
Replacement exercises and fill-the-gap activities

These types of activities require learners to manipulate language extracted from the text by
filling in gaps or replacing words or expressions with a focus on vocabulary or syntax. In
some cases, grammatical or lexical rules are explained first so that learners can apply those
rules to complete the exercise. It is important to note that the aim of such activities is not
primarily to develop reading skills but to present and practice language items. There is an
underlying assumption that repetitive practice of this nature eventually leads learners to
mastery of the language item and thus the reading text becomes subordinate to the assess-
ment of the target language. One danger of asking learners to transform sentences in this
way, for example changing the active to the passive voice, is that they may fail to realise
how this impacts on meaning in the text.
The above examples do not provide an exhaustive list of reading activity types in lan-
guage learning materials, but they do represent common approaches, the main implications
of which are summarised below:
Reading activities generally test comprehension: they are based on the assumption that
there is one correct meaning of the text (Masuhara 2013) without leaving space for different
interpretations or reader response.
Texts are not always used to develop reading skills but are often exploited to introduce
grammar or vocabulary. The main assumption is that if structures are manipulated, meaning
can still be retained. In addition, there is limited focus on the text as a whole, on the interac-
tion between the text and the reader, or on its pragmatic context.
In language teaching and learning materials, texts are often approached in similar ways
irrespective of the text type. Outside the language classroom, different texts are read in
239
Claudia Saraceni
different ways: newspaper articles, for example, are not approached in the same way and for
the same purposes as short stories, or social media posts (Saraceni 2018).
The above points highlight some of the issues related to the treatment of reading skills in
many coursebooks and published materials. It is noteworthy, however, that developments in
language teaching methodology and research in reading and reading skills and strategies do
not seem to have had much impact upon materials.
The following section offers some recommendations to improve this situation.

Firstly, most learners are already proficient readers in their L1 (Saraceni 2010). Teaching
reading to second language learners may not, therefore, involve teaching them new reading
skills in the sense that they already know how to read (see Timmis this volume for a discus-
sion of transfer of reading skills). Developing the literacy skills of young or older learners,
or of those whose L1 is based on a different script, however, involves a rather different
approach and set of techniques (see Schellekens 2007).
Research indicates that there are a number of difficulties typically experienced by
readers in a second language (L2) even if their proficiency level is advanced. For exam-
ple, according to Masuhara (2013), L2 readers tend to focus on decoding the text and
unfamiliar language items (Masuhara 2013; Saraceni 2010), which may lead to a rather
superficial comprehension of the text. Difficulties associated with L2 reading may be
exacerbated by the type of activities included in materials and often used in the language
classroom, such as those mentioned above. Paradoxically, some research indicates that
materials which focus on decoding the text and concentrate on unfamiliar vocabulary
and grammar through comprehension-based activities or language manipulation thus
may have a detrimental effect upon the development of reading skills (Masuhara 2013;
Saraceni 2010).
Future directions
Given the above problematic issues associated with L2 reading, the type of approach
proposed here considers how to develop materials to enable L2 readers to transfer those
reading skills and strategies they are already subconsciously using in their first language
to reading in their second language. One example of this is the type of visualisation
involved with reading: if learners are encouraged to visualise whilst reading a descrip-
tion of a character or an event in a narrative text, they may be able to compensate for
their lack of vocabulary by drawing upon the image that they create in their mind, and
this in turn may promote the use of other strategies, such as inferencing, to further
interpret the text.
Future approaches to L2 reading should aim to shift the focus from a deficit position
where learners are preoccupied with unknown and unfamiliar language, to a more positive
one where they focus on what they do understand and the strategies they can use.
Materials focusing on reading development should primarily encourage a reader-cen-
tred approach, where both the type of text used and the reader response should determine
the main emphasis and objectives of the materials. This reader-response approach aims to
emphasise a more authentic, reader-text interaction, through engaging tasks which stimulate
interest and curiosity in the text.
240
If we take the initial extract presented in this chapter from a short story entitled The
Management of Grief by Mukherjee (2004:91), for example, learners could be encouraged to
predict the content of the story by looking at the following sentence, before reading the text:
A woman I don’t know is boiling tea the Indian way in my kitchen.

In order to facilitate their prediction, learners may be asked to discuss questions such as who
they think the protagonist ‘I’ refers to and also who they think the woman is and why she is
making tea in the protagonist’s kitchen. It would also be interesting to consider whether they
perceive the protagonist to be male or female. Use of prediction creates a number of possible
hypotheses in the readers’ minds which they check as they continue reading; the difference
here, however, is the use of prediction to encourage a subjective reader response to the text
through inferencing and visualisation.
One commonly held preconception related to reading is the view that learners are inex-
perienced readers who perhaps prefer other, more entertaining and less laborious activi-
ties. However, this view overlooks the intrinsic nature of reading in everyday life, such as
text messages, social media posts, and online newspaper articles. In view of this, materials
should exploit texts in genre-appropriate ways. It is also vital to expose learners to a wide
variety of text types and give them a more active role in choosing what to read from a large
bank of sources. This would enhance their motivation and engagement, as texts would be
more relevant and meaningful to them.
Reading materials and activities should provide opportunities for learners to develop
critical language awareness (Saraceni 2017). As proposed by Masuhara (2013), readers
should be encouraged to engage with a text first and then perhaps revisit the text to consider
the language used. However, instead of focusing on language through controlled practice
and assessment-driven exercises, the language focus should enable learners to develop their
understanding of how meaning is conveyed in that particular text. This can be achieved
through a number of techniques which facilitate learner discovery and awareness of lan-
guage use in the text. When reading a newspaper article, for example, once learners have
engaged with the meaning of the text, the use of specific linguistic features, such as the
distinction between the active and passive voice, can be explored. This allows them to criti-
cally evaluate how linguistic forms are used to report an event and implicitly put forward
a specific point of view. Learners could be asked to identify examples of the passive voice
in the text and then discuss and analyse its effect upon their interpretation of the article and
compare this with the impact that the active voice would have.
Conclusion
The type of approach to the development of reading skills suggested in this chapter aims
to encourage learners to focus on their own interpretations of a text rather than assess their
comprehension and arrive at one possible correct answer. Learners are then able to play a
more active role in developing reading skills and strategies, and become more critically
aware of features of a text and more autonomous in their learning.
Further reading
Arnold, J., 1999. Visualization: language learning with the mind’s eye. In Arnold, J., ed. Affect in
Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
241
Claudia Saraceni
In this seminal text on the affective factors that can determine success in language learning,
Arnold’s illuminating chapter focuses on the role of visualisation.
Iser, W., 1978. The Act of Reading, A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore and London: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
A comprehensive and informative seminal text on aesthetic reading and reader response.
McDonough, J., Shaw C. and Masuhara, H., 2013. Materials and Methods in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chapter 6: Reading Skills.
A very informative and accessible discussion of materials development and language teaching
and learning that clearly relates theoretical, research-driven principles with the practice of language
teaching and learning.
Rosenblatt, L., 1995. Literature as Exploration. New York: Appleton-Century.
Rosenblatt’s book is an engaging, informative account and analysis of reader response to literary
texts.
Related topics
Theory and practice in materials development, authenticity in language teaching materials,
materials for developing writing skills.
References
Cook, G., 1994. Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Mind. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hirvela, A., 1996. Reader-response theory and ELT. ELT Journal, 50/2:127–134.
Iser, W., 1978. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore and London: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Krashen, S., 1993. The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.
Lahiri, J., 2004. The Namesake. London: Harper Perennial.
Leech G. and Short, M., 2007. Style in Fiction, A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose.
Harlow: Longman.
Maley, A. and Tomlinson, B., eds. 2017. Authenticity and Materials Development for Language
Learning. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
Masuhara, H., 1998. Factors influencing the reading difficulties of advanced learners of English as
a foreign language when reading authentic texts. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Luton.
Masuhara, H., 2013. Materials for developing reading skills. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing
Materials for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London, New Delhi, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury.
McDonough, J., Shaw C. and Masuhara, H., 2013. Materials and Methods in ELT. 3rd ed. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Mukherjee, B., 2004. The management of grief. In Selvadurai, S., ed. Story-Wallah, Short Fiction from
South Asian Writers. New York: Thomas Allen Publishers.
Olshavsky, J. E., 1977. Reading as problem solving: an investigation of strategies. Reading Research
Quarterly, 12/4:654–674.
Rosenblatt, L., 1994. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press.
Rosenblatt, L., 1995. Literature as Exploration. New York: Appleton-Century.
Saraceni, C., 2010. Readings. An investigation of the role of aesthetic response in the reading of
narrative literary texts. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Leeds Metropolitan University.
Saraceni, C., 2017. A discussion of global Englishes and materials development. In Maley, A. and
Tomlinson, B., eds. Authenticity in Materials Development for Language Learning. Newcastle
242
Saraceni, C., 2018. Language diversity and language testing. In Bouckaert, M., Konings, M. and Van
Winkelhof, M., eds. Meaning-Focused Materials for Language Learning. Newcastle: Cambridge
Scholars.
Schellekens, P., 2007. The Oxford ESOL Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Semino, E., 1995. Schema theory and the analysis of text worlds in poetry. Language and Literature,
4/2:79–108.
Short, M., 1996. Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. London: Longman.
Simpson, P., 1993. Language, Ideology and Point of View. London and New York: Routledge.
Stewart, J., ed. 1993. Indian Cooking. Parragon Plus.
Stockwell, P., 2002. Cognitive Poetics: An introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
Tomlinson, B., 1996. Helping L2 readers to see. In Hickey, T. and Williams, J., eds. Language,
Education and Society in a Changing World. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Tomlinson, B., 1997. The role of visualisation in the reading of literature by learners of a foreign
language. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., eds. 2010. Research for Materials Development in Language
Learning. Evidence for Best Practice. London and New York: Continuum.
243
17
Materials for developing writing
skills
Clare Furneaux
Introduction
Writing can broadly be defined in three different ways. Firstly, writing is a product; it is the
text on the paper or the screen. Secondly, writing is a process; it is the act of producing that
text. Finally, writing is a sociocultural activity: communication in written form between
writer and reader. All three interpretations of the word ‘writing’ have influenced how it has
been taught over the years. Although it is possible to associate specific time periods with
different pedagogic approaches, all the approaches these interpretations have spawned are
still to be found in different teaching contexts. This Introduction looks at each in turn, iden-
tifying their main focuses (with exemplifying textbooks), main advantages, and criticisms
levied against them.
Product-focussed approaches
In product-focussed approaches, the focus is on writing as text. There are two notable exam-
ples. Early ‘traditional’ approaches influenced how writing was taught up to the late 20th
century: grammar-translation, sentence manipulation, paragraph-level writing. With the
arrival of Communicative Language Teaching in the 1970s, functions of written text began
to be considered (for example, invitations). Later genre-based approaches (e.g. Swales
1990) explored what successful writing does and looks like in different contexts: in business
and academic settings, for instance, with genres such as business/research reports.
These approaches focus variously (moving from the first to include the others over time) on:
·· language (grammar, vocabulary, and punctuation) (e.g. Jupp and Milne 1969);
·· cohesion and coherence (e.g. Jordan 1980);
·· genre norm (organisation, register style) (e.g. Swales and Feak 2004).
The advantages of these approaches are that they are relatively easy to explain/follow; they
promote linguistic accuracy and appropriacy; they feed well into syllabus/textbook design
(with headings such as grammar/vocabulary; text types); and they are easy to test/assess.
244 DOI: 10.4324/b22783-21

Materials for developing writing skills
Criticisms however have included the following: language-focused approaches are boring,
formulaic, and non-communicative, and often lead to inauthentic products (a text in one
tense only, for example). In addition, it is easier to ‘teach’ cohesion than coherence, and can
lead to the same criticisms as above (with, for example, overuse of sign-posting or sentence
connectors). Furthermore, genre-based approaches seem prescriptive and focus too much on
what to write, not how to write it.
Process approaches
Process approaches began in the 1960s, and had two influential manifestations: ‘expressive’
and ‘cognitive process-writing.’ The expressive approach was introduced by teachers such
as Murray (1968) and Elbow (1973). The main aim is to allow developing writers to get
their ideas down in their own voice without undue interference from teachers (e.g. Murray
1985). Cognitive process writing, expounded most clearly by White and Arndt (1991), was
grounded in Flower and Hayes’ (1981) psychological view of writing as a cognitive process.
It focuses on the writer’s composing processes: planning, drafting, revising, editing (e.g.
Pallant 2012). These approaches focus on generating and organising ideas, multiple drafts,
feedback, revising, and editing.
The advantages of process approaches are that they help learners develop useful writing
skills, they reflect what writers actually do, and they are greatly enabled by online tools
(especially word processing). Criticisms (e.g. Horowitz 1986) include that such approaches
are too focused on the writer and their self-expression and therefore often forget the reader.
The resulting texts may, therefore, not meet genre norms, leading to failure in academic
contexts, for example.
Sociocultural approaches
Beginning in the 1990s, sociocultural approaches define writing as situated social practice.
An influential example here is academic literacies (e.g. Lillis 2013), where the focus is
on writing as discourse, taking into account communicative purpose and the reader. The
advantages are that the learner is exposed to the sociocultural expectations behind genres,
which they may choose to adopt/challenge; reader expectations are made explicit, leading,
if the writer chooses, to the production of reader-based texts, and the satisfying of genre
norms. Criticisms of sociocultural approaches have included the challenges of classroom
implementation, and a lack of clarity regarding what materials following such an approach
would look like.
Materials for teaching writing

Hyland (2019) identifies the four roles of materials in writing instruction in the language
classroom, as providing:
1. authentic model/exemplar texts that illustrate target genres;

2. language scaffolding through linguistic examples;
3. reference materials, with information, explanations, and examples of relevant forms;
4. stimulus sources for writing, which can be hard-copy or online texts, visual or audio
material, or realia.
245
Clare Furneaux
Hyland goes on to identify the advantages and disadvantages of textbooks as materials for
teaching writing. The former include being a linguistic reference, an inadvertent source of
training and input for novice teachers, and the provision of ideas for tasks and texts. The
latter include the facts that general textbooks invariably give less importance to writing
than to the other skills and grammar; often reading and writing activities are deliberately
short, with inauthentic texts, to avoid overburdening students; but more importantly ‘they
often fail to reflect the ways writers actually use language to communicate in real situations’
(Hyland 2019:100).

A number of critical issues arise from the three approaches to developing writing skills
outlined above.
The process of writing

The process of writing is a cyclical iterative process that involves generating ideas (with
activities such as brainstorming or mind-mapping), drafting (in the light of self, peer, and/
or teacher feedback), developing a main point, or thesis (for example writing from different
perspectives), reviewing what has been written (e.g. editing for language errors), and evalu-
ating it based on certain criteria.
Writer-based writing vs. reader-based writing

Where does the responsibility for making writing understandable lie? Writer-based writ-
ing is text produced from the writer’s point of view; it puts the onus on the reader to do
the work of making the text comprehensible (Flower 1979). Reader-based writing puts the
responsibility fully on the writer, who bears the audience in mind throughout, seeking to
identify and meet their expectations. Writing in English is reader-based, writer-responsible,
and therefore it is increasingly seen that a sense of audience needs to be built into pedagogy.
L1 and L2 writing: contrastive rhetoric

In 1966, Kaplan published a highly influential, and now controversial, article identifying dif-
ferent rhetorical patterns in the English writing of students from different L1 backgrounds,
concluding that English writing was direct and followed deductive reasoning, whereas
Asian languages and Arabic favoured indirectness and inductive reasoning. He produced
memorable visual representations (‘doodles’) of these writing patterns, which were quickly
challenged for being too simplistic and based on student writers’ texts in English, not their
mother tongues (Belcher 2014). However, contrastive rhetoric was born, and has continued
to play a sometimes controversial role in the view of L1 impact on second language writ-
ing ever since; see Connor, Ene, and Travers (2016) for an overview. Debates raged in the
latter decades of the 20th century, especially linked to what genre norms should be: Anglo-
American native English speaker or English as a Lingua Franca (Seidlhofer 2011).
A recurring concern for writing teachers is how far the mother tongue is an aide or a hindrance
in second language writing. Answers vary depending upon the theoretical perspective of the pro-
tagonist and/or the L1 being referred to. If the two languages are close linguistically and cultur-
ally (such as French and Italian), then the mother tongue is a definite asset. Where they are very
246
far apart (such as Chinese and English) the mother tongue might be seen as an impediment to
learning to write in the second language. However, whatever one’s view, it is undeniably useful
to have an understanding of the similarities and differences between writing (linguistic forms and
sociocultural norms) across different languages, and this is an aspect of their writing experience
that learners should be encouraged to reflect and draw upon.
Integration of language skills, especially reading into writing

Language teaching programmes can focus on spoken or written language or seek to inte-
grate the two. Integration of language skills is, of course, common in the world beyond
the classroom, where many written texts draw upon spoken interaction and the reading of
other texts. Good materials will also encourage such integration, as appropriate to the target
learners’ needs.
It is also important not to routinely leave writing to the end of the skills sequence in a
unit of materials (typically listening, speaking, reading, writing), at which point learners
may have lost interest in the topic, and the role of writing as a heuristic, discovery tool is
lost. Writing can be a good way into a new topic, giving learners the opportunity to reflect
on what they already know.
English for academic purposes (EAP) teaching

EAP teaching has been hugely influential in the development of writing pedagogy. In par-
ticular, university-level pre-sessional English language courses have dedicated writing
components that draw upon what is known about writing and how to teach it. In addition,
embedded writing courses within disciplines have sought to develop students’ writing skills
in the specific context of their subject.
Major concerns in EAP writing include the appropriate use of sources, for example
addressing referencing conventions, appropriate citation, and the avoidance of plagiarism.
‘Textual borrowing’ needs sensitive handling as there are often cross-cultural differences
underpinning it (Pecorari 2008).
Academic vocabulary (individual words and chunks) has become an increasing focus,
with distinctions between semi-technical (e.g. ‘hypothesis’) and technical vocabulary (e.g.
‘haploid’), and with the development of academic wordlists materials writers can draw
upon (such as Coxhead 2000). Activities have become increasingly based on corpus-based
data and concordancing software, but few published language teaching materials or peda-
gogic discussions draw on these, with the notable exception of Charles (e.g. 2014).
In addition there has been discussion around authors’ voice in academic writing and
whether L1 English norms should prevail in student and published work (Canagarajah 2002,
Lillis and Curry 2006).
EAP vs. academic literacies approaches

EAP provision developed as support for international student writers. Academic literacies,
in contrast, grew out of work with a range of non-traditional ‘home’ students. Wingate and
Tribble (2012) point out the waste of effort and insight this leads to, arguing that EAP has
been too focused on the needs of non-native English-speaking writers to make an impact on
the mainstream teaching of academic writing. Academic literacies, meanwhile, has mainly
247
Clare Furneaux
focused on non-traditional students, and insufficiently acknowledged ‘the theoretical and

pedagogic potential of EAP for developing a mainstream instructional model’ (Wingate and
Tribble 2012:1). Wingate and Tribble argue that all students entering HE need academic
writing support, which the best of both these approaches can help provide.
The role of technology in writing

The arrival of ubiquitous computer-mediated communication (CMC) in the 21st century
has created an increasingly varied range of written genre types. Many of these social media
forms (such as instant messaging) are closer to speaking than ‘traditional’ writing. This has
created a continuum between written and spoken language, replacing what was previously
seen, especially in teaching, as an almost binary distinction. As well as affecting the kind of
texts learners produce, online communication has produced a range of new, and constantly
evolving, online genres, including email and Instagram messages, PowerPoint presentations,
blogs, and wikis. Many of these genres are multi-media, incorporating sound and still or
moving pictures; writers therefore often need to learn to integrate other media in their texts.
Technology has also transformed traditional genres, for example: how formal letters and
CVs are formatted. In addition, the affordances provided by technology, especially word
processing facilities with built-in language checkers, enable writers to re-draft their texts
in transformative ways, both as individuals or with others, producing polished, online final
drafts. Increasingly, these affordances mean students do not expect to handwrite texts, mak-
ing traditional examinations unpalatable.
Technology has also changed how students and teachers work with the texts they pro-
duce. The internet offers enormous access to resources, both authentic content and reference
aids. Examples of the latter are useful online sites dedicated to the teaching of writing, the
most influential being the Purdue (2020) Online Writing Lab. Technology also provides
opportunities for student written communication with peers and others, as well as automated
feedback on that writing. In addition, students can use technology to translate directly from
one language to another and, as this software improves, students will question why they
need to learn to write in the foreign language at all. They can also, of course, use technology
to engage others to do their written work for them.
Teachers can give feedback online, using software tools such as Turnitin, to add in-text
annotations and overall feedback comments in text or spoken form, and/or using marking
criteria. Such tools also allow originality reports of the work, enabling checking of referenc-
ing conventions and use of sources.
Feedback on written work

A major issue in current research and thinking about the teaching of writing is feedback (see
Hyland and Hyland 2019). Feedback is a crucial part of learning. As Hyland (2016:188)
notes, ‘Research shows it enables students to assess their performances, modify their behav-
iour and transfer their understandings (e.g. Hattie and Timperley 2007).’
Research questions about L2 writing include:
·· who gives the feedback: teachers, peers, and/or automatic feedback online?
·· what is feedback given about: language, content, appropriacy with regard to genre
style, vocabulary choice, content, organisation?
248
·· how should the feedback be given? Should it be direct (full correction given) or indirect
(e.g. using marking codes); written on the text and/or spoken face-to-face or online?
·· what feedback should be given on which draft of a piece of work? This has led to rec-
ommendations, for example, that feedback on language is left to the penultimate draft,
after the content is decided;
·· what is the purpose of the feedback and what should the learner do with it? Detailed
feedback on a text is not going to help the student much unless they have to use it to
improve that text. Students can use detailed formative feedback to produce another
revised draft; summative feedback should merely explain the reaction to the text (any
mark) and give advice for future work.
The answers to these questions depend on the view of writing, and the purpose of assess-
ment, the materials developer/teacher espouses. Most research has been done in ESL uni-
versity contexts (such as Ferris 2014), but Lee (2017) researches EFL school settings.
Correction of written work

This relates to the kind of feedback that is traditionally most common in language teaching:
written corrective feedback (WCF) of linguistic errors. Interest here centres on which error
types to focus on (grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, cohesion), and how such cor-
rection should be communicated. Although commonly used by teachers worldwide, WCF
is a hotly contested topic among applied linguists (see Bitchener and Storch 2016 for an
overview). Truscott (1996) challenged WCF’s influence, later arguing that ‘correction has a
small negative effect on learners’ ability to write accurately’ (2007:255) and that any actual
benefits are minimal. Ferris, Liu, Sinha, and Senna, in contrast, argue that ‘WCF is likely
here to stay, so we can most productively focus on questions about how to implement it as
effectively as possible’ (2013:308). Insights here include:
·· focused WCF (on specific types of error, e.g. use of tenses) is more valuable than com-
prehensive, unfocused correction of all errors;
·· for writing development, indirect WCF may be more valuable for the long term than
direct CF. However, direct WCF is more useful for language acquisition, because it
provides effective, clear information about targeted structure/s;
·· explicit CF (e.g. with labels, codes, explanatory metalanguage) may be more valu-
able for some students than unlabelled CF. For L2 learners whose EFL background
includes formal grammar instruction, explicit WCF can help trigger background lin-
guistic knowledge.
Writing and assessment

In the wider world of assessment, there are three ways of looking at this phenomenon (Earl
and Katz 2006):
1. assessment of learning (AoL) is the traditional summative assessment of writing per-

formance or achievement, typically via course-final exams and tests typically for place-
ment or certification purposes. For writing, such assessment typically takes the form of
a one-off, timed test (see section on marking criteria for examples);
249
Clare Furneaux
2. assessment for learning (AfL) is formative and designed to give teachers information to
modify and differentiate pedagogic activities. This might comprise writing tasks which
students then revise in the light of teacher feedback and class discussion;
3. assessment as learning (AaL) is a process of developing and supporting metacognition
for students. Assessment tasks here might involve peer and self-assessment, with reflec-
tions in a portfolio of work including drafts.
Proficiency examinations
The writing that is taught on language programmes is influenced by whatever programme-
final assessment there is. External examinations have a major impact here; not all teachers
‘teach to the test,’ but they cannot ignore the demands of learners’ target examinations. The
‘backwash effect’ phenomenon (the influence of tests on teaching) highlights the responsi-
bility of exam setters in their choice of assessment tasks and marking criteria.
Internal examinations within teaching contexts should reflect the local curriculum learn-
ing outcomes, and assess learners’ achievement. However, where a course prepares learn-
ers for an external proficiency exam, such as the Cambridge English suite of assessments,
university-entry level assessments (TOEFL or IELTS), or national high school or university
entrance exams, the materials used in class must prepare learners for these target examina-
tions. Such preparation includes:
·· the tasks (genres, typical content, expected register/style, language level);

·· the conditions in which the exam will be taken (on paper/online, the time allowed, the
resources available);
·· and the marking criteria that will be used.
In the past much writing in examination contexts was to enable assessment of products’ lin-
guistic accuracy, so students wrote sentences and paragraphs and/or essays for no particular
audience and with the main purpose of assessing language. The last 20 years, however, has
seen a broadening of genres in global examinations, although the essay remains a constant
in many.
Tests have to be valid (measuring what they claim to measure) and reliable (giving con-
sistent results when repeated), with the greater challenge for writing being validity. The
more assessment attempts to reflect real-world writing tasks, the greater the challenge:
range of genres and test-taking conditions being major limitations. It is not possible, for
example, to have a global proficiency exam that allows the time and resources writers have
in most real-world contexts.
Cambridge Assessment English has led the field in testing developments (see Weir et
al. 2013). For example, the Cambridge First Certificate (level B2) writing paper has two
writing tasks (Cambridge Assessment English 2020). The first is a more traditional prompt-
based essay, on topics such as pollution; the second, however, offers a choice of genres:
magazine book review, website article, letter, email, for example.
EAP has also produced innovations in assessment, led by the two main high-stakes
tests for university entrance. Both have a skills-based suite of exams, with separate writ-
ing papers, each comprising two tasks: an essay, again, and a more EAP-focused task. For
IELTS, test-takers must ‘describe, summarise or explain the information’ in a graph, table,
250
chart, or diagram (IELTS 2020). TOEFL has an integrated skills task, with a 150-word
response to a short reading text and lecture (ETS 2020).
The British Council’s Aptis test general writing component goes beyond the one-off
nature of most tests. Within a specific context (e.g. a club), the tasks typically move from
one-word answers, through longer answers to information requests, to answering questions
on a social network platform, and finally to writing two emails (one informal, another for-
mal) around some specific information.
All these tests require learners to write short texts, at speed, with little time for planning,
drafting, or evaluation. In real-world contexts, these tasks would absorb much more time
than test conditions allow. Tests can also only incorporate a very limited number of genres,
unlike most real-world professional/academic contexts. For these reasons, some teachers
argue for students to produce portfolios of writing, allowing display of developing different
texts over a number of drafts, using feedback.
Marking criteria
A positive aspect of all the above assessments is their range of marking criteria. All are
based upon variants of the following: task achievement/response, coherence and cohesion,
lexical resources, and grammatical range and accuracy (IELTS 2020).
L2 writing today should be assessed against a variety of similar criteria, including tra-
ditional linguistic accuracy, but also the degree to which the text fulfils task requirements
and genre norms, the relevance of the content, and the clarity and accuracy of expression
and of organisation/cohesion. This means teachers and materials developers must also focus
on these important features, which is a great improvement from the view of L2 writing as
simply a display of linguistic accuracy.

There are a number of implications and challenges arising from the above issues which are
discussed in greater detail below.
Clear decisions about the role of writing in the curriculum

Is writing integrated with other skills throughout the curriculum, or do the materials focus
on one skill? General English textbooks tend to integrate writing, traditionally adding it as
something of an afterthought or a consolidation of language and content already explored
through speaking, listening, and reading. English for specific purposes courses, on the other
hand, are more likely to include skill-specific materials and coursebooks. EAP courses tend
to have major sections, or whole textbooks, on developing writing skills and some that bring
together a range of skills, so for example the Garnet English for Academic Study series has
books on reading, writing, speaking, listening, and an extended writing and research course-
book (McCormack and Slaght 2012) that incorporates all skills and constitutes a complete
programme of pre-sessional study.
Identifying learners’ needs for writing in the L2

Materials writers need to identify and keep up-to-date on the writing needs of their tar-
get learners. For example, they must be aware of end-of-programme assessments and of
251
Clare Furneaux
present/future learner needs for L2 writing, in terms of genres and the conditions under
which they must be produced.
Theoretically informed pedagogic approach/es

It is important that materials writers are aware of current thinking on writing in terms of
expected products, writing processes, and sociocultural issues. Of course they must also
interpret these appropriately to identify the pedagogic implications of underlying theoretical
perspectives in target contexts.
Writing in the classroom

Writing is a challenging and time-consuming activity but should not just be left for home-
work. Different writers need different amounts of time to produce a text and will write
best under different conditions. This means that not all writing can take place in the class-
room. However, if no writing takes place in class, writing is being tested, not taught, as
learners attempt writing tasks on their own. It is therefore important to have materials that
encourage an approach to the teaching of writing that allows for in-class discussion of what
writing consists of, its challenges, different strategies that can be used for different writ-
ing sub-processes, and examples of good writing practices. Language teaching materials,
therefore, should promote a range of in-class writing activities. They must also promote
practical homework activities, such as drafting texts for subsequent in-class discussion and
evaluation.
Developing the learner’s awareness of what is involved in producing a piece

of writing
Good materials for the teaching of writing will raise learners’ awareness of what is involved
in producing a written text. For example, learners need to appreciate that L2 writing is more
than accurate linguistic forms. The development of approaches to writing that learners can
implement after the course is important; good materials will help learners develop lifelong
strategies for finding out what a writing task consists of, who/what can help them in produc-
ing it, and how it will be evaluated.
Developing the writing process

Apprentice writers need to practice different parts of the writing process, so they need help
in generating relevant ideas, for example, by identifying and exploring useful resources.
Such ideas for content can feed into a structure for their text which may well in turn lead to
an early draft. They will need to learn how to evaluate their ideas and the emerging text, in
light of the required task.
Developing awareness of genre and of relevant genre norms

Good writers read a lot, and it is important that learners are exposed to successful exemplars
of the kinds of text they need to produce. Materials should provide these. There also need
to be activities which encourage learners to focus on the text as apprentice writers. For
252
example, this could involve conducting a concordance search of a corpus of relevant texts
to find out how particular phrases are used in their context (Charles 2014).
Developing awareness of the sociocultural context in which the text will be

read
Building on their knowledge of the relevant genre, novice writers need to see their text as a
piece of discourse, of communication. They must decide what their message is and how they
want to communicate it in their chosen context to their specific audience.
Developing appropriate use of resources

Students need to learn appropriate use of the resources they have access to. Materials must
guide and give practice in how to identify and use a range of sources, for example, reading
activities which exploit hard copy and online texts. Writers also need to learn how to use
online tools that can help produce good written text: for example, search engines, and word
processing and presentation tools. They also need to identify and consult people who can
advise them, in and beyond the classroom.
Developing relevant language and editing skills

L2 writers need help to identify and develop the linguistic resources necessary for the kind
of written texts they must produce. This involves clear identification of useful semi-tech-
nical vocabulary and the development of strategies to identify technical vocabulary they
need for their own specific purposes. It is important not to give them outdated ‘mantras’
(such as ‘Never use “I” in academic English’); materials writers therefore need to be up-
to-date in terms of relevant written genre norms. L2 writers also need practice in becoming
their own proofreaders; online activities, with instant feedback, can help develop these
skills.
Understanding criteria for assessing writing

Working with good marking criteria, to assess others’ and then their own writing, is hugely
beneficial in developing learners’ sense of task requirements.
Peer feedback
Peer feedback (PF) is important in L2 writing. Through giving feedback to others, learn-
ers will become better evaluators of their own work. PF is a good way to bring discussion
of writing into the classroom. Integrating all skills, writers can then get feedback from a
range of readers. PF needs to be guided by checklists. These can be generic (‘Is the text on
topic?’) or linked to the specific task/input (‘How many points are made in favour of X?’).
Feedback should be from more than one peer, in case individuals are not well matched, and
to provide a majority opinion. Peer feedback groups of up to four learners can work well in
the classroom; any more is unwieldy. PF needs modelling in the materials, and discussing in
class, with examples of helpful and unhelpful feedback. The latter can be either too critical,
causing offence, or too complimentary, not providing any pointers for improvement.
253
Clare Furneaux
Working with feedback

Learners need to develop strategies for working with feedback. Therefore, the materials
should include activities that promote this: for example asking students to note down generic
points from received feedback such as ‘develop links between ideas.’ Other activities could
require learners to work with examples of feedback on student text, awarding grades using
set criteria, and/or identifying and evaluating subsequent revisions made.
Developing teacher’s notes to accompany materials

Good language teaching materials are usually accompanied by helpful teacher’s notes.
This is particularly important where teachers may be new to teaching or to teaching this
way. The materials’ introduction should explain the underlying theoretical and pedagogic
perspective/s and how the materials’ aims will be achieved. Teacher’s notes for each activ-
ity should give ideas for discussion around the activity and suggested answers/outcomes,
as appropriate.

Both teachers and materials developers should seek to implement the following
recommendations.
Integration of writing with other skills

As far as possible, writing should be integrated with other skills. In many ways, writing is
THE integrated skills activity: a task is set, read, and talked about; the text is drafted, read,
and discussed in class and online. The ‘traditional’ cycle of skills-based activities from lis-
tening to speaking, reading, and then, finally, to writing is unhelpful for the development of
writing skills. When writing comes at the end it is often seen as reinforcement of linguistic
form or recycling of ideas already worked to death. Authentic communication often starts
with a writing task, collecting sources and having discussions as appropriate. It would be
good to see this reflected more in teaching materials, with an occasional focus on writing
from the start of a unit of work.
The need for a focus on, and time for, writing

If writing is to be taught through your materials, writing must be given class time. There
needs to be time in class for the teacher to guide learners to the relevant skills and strategies
to produce written communication in the target language.
Process writing and genre-based activities

It is important for writers to develop the cognitive writing processes outlined in the
Introduction. In doing this, they also need to write for their identified reader, identifying the
genre and sociocultural norms of the discourse community that reader is a part of. Building
up genre awareness and sociocultural awareness means reading a large amount of relevant
text. This cannot all be provided in the teaching materials, but some can be. The read-
ing activities around these texts should develop awareness in the learner of the kinds of
254
questions that need to be asked about any new genre, about appropriate style and content for
component parts, for example.
Developing reader-based writers

Writers must identify, and work towards satisfying, their target readers’ expectations.
Activities here can ask the learner to consider, for example: ‘What does the reader already
know/need to know/want to know about this topic?’
A range of relevant writing tasks

Materials need to expose learners to a range of relevant writing skills; this range becomes
wider as we go beyond traditional written genres such as business letters and academic
essays to include the ever-expanding array of online genres. In addition, writing tasks
should be produced under differing conditions, ranging from the solitary writer through
online group writing to traditional exams.
Using technology in teaching writing

Writing materials need to help learners work with available technology. They need to learn
how to efficiently use search engines to explore content and word processing features. They
must also learn how to work effectively with multiple drafts and to organise online files
and folders. Software packages such as concordances (e.g. AntConc n.d.) allow learners to
explore corpora in a range of ways, enabling them to become linguistic detectives within
their own disciplines. Some software enables other genres (e.g. presentations), and materi-
als writers need to consider how to develop use of these resources to help learners develop
skills in new genres, including multi-modal ones.
Feedback
Developing writers need practice in giving and receiving feedback, in online or face to face
contexts, and from peers as well as teachers. There are also the issues discussed above with
regard to the focus of feedback on a particular draft, and activities should clearly guide stu-
dents in how to give feedback on what and when. The materials should also help students
explore what to do with the feedback they receive, in terms of making changes, but also in
terms of making decisions about its efficacy and relevance to their work.
Future directions
This section outlines some of the possible ways in which the teaching of writing may
develop in the future.
Better integration of product, process, and sociocultural approaches

The integration of the above three approaches has to happen if teachers and material writers
are to benefit from the research into writing and pedagogic developments over the last 50
years. Developing writers need an understanding of what successful texts look like in terms
255
Clare Furneaux
of linguistic accuracy and range, and genre norms. They also need to develop the cognitive
processes which lead to good writing. Finally, they need to see writing in the round in terms
of the sociocultural contexts in which it is produced and read. These approaches cannot be
adopted in sequence; they need to be developed together to encourage L2 writers to see writ-
ing for the complex activity that it is from the outset.
Technological developments in producing writing

It is hard to anticipate what future technological developments will bring to writing. As
noted earlier, translation software is becoming increasingly reliable, as is dictation soft-
ware, and linguistic checkers. New multi-modal genres currently unthought of will appear.
Teaching materials that stand the test of time will be those that encourage learners to develop
the critical writing skills necessary to adapt in this environment, that enable them to identify
genre norms and reader expectations, and to produce successful text, in familiar and new
contexts.
More online teaching of writing

Writing lends itself to online teaching. We have, for example, seen the development of a
number of writing massive open online courses (MOOCs) since their appearance in 2008 (see
Wright and Furneaux 2021 for an overview). Most to date have followed the standard MOOC
pattern of minimal instructor input, but in the future I predict that there will be more smaller,
specific open online courses with paid-for content and/or assessment leading to qualifications.
Apart from MOOCs, and especially post-COVID, more language schools and universi-
ties will teach writing online using the affordances of technology to bring learners together
when needed and to allow them to produce texts individually and in groups to share with
each other and their teacher.
Focus on peer feedback as a way of developing more autonomous FL writers

With online courses comes a greater emphasis on peer feedback as more writing is done
outside the classroom and writers are easily able to circulate their work to each other for
input and feedback. Many of the characteristics of successful writers (e.g. the ability to
identify genre norms, and to meet reader expectations) can be developed with PF. Indeed, a
peer from a similar professional or academic background is better placed than a generalist
language teacher to provide feedback on those crucial genre and content aspects of text.
Acceptance of lingua franca writing norms in English

There has been a developing dissatisfaction with native speaker norms imposed on the writ-
ing of non-native English speakers, as mentioned earlier. I believe this trend will continue
in more contexts with a growing acceptance of text that is clear enough to meet changing
genre requirements grounded in a more global English.
Conclusion
This chapter began by pointing to three definitions of writing: product, process, and socio-
cultural activity. Materials for developing writing skills in language teaching must draw
256
upon the research and resulting teaching approaches that have developed from this under-
standing of what writing is. Materials developers, therefore, need to keep abreast of current
thinking on the teaching of writing by accessing core texts on the topic from academic
experts (see ‘Further Reading’), and also by attending and presenting at language teaching
conferences – international (e.g. IATEFL and TESOL) and local (e.g. JALT in Japan). There
are also writing-specific conferences, such as the Symposium on Second Language Writing
(SSLW). They should also, if they can, explore developments in key journals, both more
general applied linguistics journals (e.g. System and Applied Linguistics), and specialist
ones, like the Journal of EAP and the Journal of Second Language Writing. There are, of
course, also important publications on materials writing (e.g. Tomlinson 2011, Tomlinson
and Masuhara 2012) and from associations of materials writers such as the Materials
Development Association (MATSDA).
Materials that are so innovative for their context that neither teachers nor students can
use them will fail. It is, therefore, essential that materials developers adapt and promote
approaches for their target teaching context/s. Many of the suggestions for teaching writing
have come out of EAP and the development of writing skills among students in university
settings. Many published language teaching materials, however, are aimed at other mar-
kets: primary and secondary schools and language schools catering for these age ranges and
adults.
Practices that are developed for a different context need to be adapted; new approaches
must be introduced carefully and clearly. Materials should be suitable for the context in
which they will be used, but this does not mean that materials writers should only include
familiar activities. Where this happens, it often means writing remains a Cinderella skill – a
service activity – providing linguistic reinforcement and consolidation, but not developed
in its own right. To do this misses the opportunity of using writing as the core skill it should
be: central to the development of the other language skills, but crucial in its own right in an
increasingly online world.
Further reading
Ferris, D.R. and Hedgcock, J.S., 2014. Teaching L2 Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice.
New York: Routledge.
This is a core text by two major US applied linguists in this field. Chapter 7 on feedback is an
excellent overview.
Hyland, K., 2019. Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
An excellent overview by a leading expert on L2 writing – read this if nothing else! See in particular
Chapter 4: ‘Texts and Materials in the Writing Classroom.’
Hyland, K., 2016. Teaching and Researching Writing. London: Routledge.
In particular, see Chapter 7: ‘Approaches to Teaching Writing,’ and Chapter 9: ‘Teaching Writing:
Materials and Practices.’
McDonough, J., Shaw, C. and Masuhara, H., 2013. Materials and Methods in ELT. 3rd ed. Chichester,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Chapter 9 ‘Writing Skills’ is a good overview.
Related topics
Theory and practice in materials development, using research to inform materials develop-
ment, writing EAP materials.
257
Clare Furneaux
References
AntConc, n.d. AntConc Homepage (online). Retrieved on 12 June 2020 from: http://www.antlab.sci
.waseda.ac.jp/antconc_index.html.
Belcher, D., 2014. What we need and don’t need intercultural rhetoric for: A retrospective and
prospective look at an evolving research area. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25:59–67.
Bitchener, J. and Storch, N., 2016. Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol:
Cambridge Assessment English, 2020. B2 First Exam Format. Retrieved on 12 June 2020 from:
https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/first/exam-format/.
Canagarajah, A.S., 2002. A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
Charles, M., 2014. Getting the corpus habit: EAP students’ long-term use of personal corpora. English
for Specific Purposes, 35:30–40.
Connor, U., Ene, E. and Travers, eds. 2016. Intercultural rhetoric. In Hyland, K. and Shaw, P., eds. The
Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. Oxford: Routledge.
Earl, L. and Katz, S., 2006. Rethinking Classroom Assessment with Purpose in Mind: Assessment
for Learning, Assessment as Learning, Assessment of Learning. Winnipeg: Manitoba Education,
Citizenship and Youth.
Elbow, P., 1973. Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
ETS, 2020. TOEFL iBT® Writing Section [Online]. Retrieved on 12 June 2020 from: https://www.ets
.org/toefl/test-takers/ibt/about/content/writing/.
Ferris, D.R., 2014. Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing
Writing, 19:6–23.
Ferris, D.R., Liu, H., Sinha, A. and Senna, M., 2013. Written corrective feedback for individual L2
writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22/3:307–329.
Flower, L., 1979. Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English,
41/1:19–37.
Flower, L. and Hayes, J., 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and
Communication, 32/4:365–387.
Hattie, J. and Timperley, H., 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,
77/1:81–112.
Horowitz, D., 1986. Process, not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20/1:141–143.
Hyland, K., 2016. Teaching and Researching Writing. New York and Oxon: Routledge.
Hyland, K., 2019. Second language writing. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K and Hyland, F., eds. 2019. Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues.
Cambridge: CUP.
IELTS, 2020. Test Format [Online]. Retrieved on 12 June 2020 from: https://www.ielts.org/about-the
-test/test-format.
Jordan, R.R., 1980. Academic Writing Course. London: Collins.
Jupp, T.C. and Milne, J., 1969. Guided Course in English Composition. London: Heinemann.
Kaplan, R., 1966. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16:1–20.
Lee, I., 2017. Classroom Writing Assessment and Feedback in L2 School Contexts. Singapore:
Springer.
Lillis, T., 2013. The Sociolinguistics of Writing. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lillis, T. and Curry, M.J., 2006. Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions
with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication,
23/1:3–35.
McCormack, J. and Slaght, J., 2012. Extended Writing and Research Skills. Reading: Garnet.
Murray, D., 1968. A Writer Teaches Writing. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Murray, D., 1985. Write to Learn. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Pallant, A., 2012. Writing: Course Book. Reading, PA: Garnet.
258
Pecorari, D., 2008. Academic Writing and Plagiarism. London: Continuum.

Purdue, 2020. Purdue Online Writing Lab [Online]. Retrieved on 12 June 2020 from: https://owl
.purdue.edu/.
Seidlhofer, B., 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swales, J.M., 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:
Swales, J.M. and Feak, C.B., 2004. Academic Writing Skills for Graduate Students. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Tomlinson, B., ed. 2011. Materials Development in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., eds. 2012. Applied Linguistics and Materials Development. London:
Continuum.
Truscott, J., 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning,
46:327–369.
Truscott, J., 2007. The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 16:255–272.
Weir, C., Vidaković, I., and Galaczi, E.D., 2013. Measured Constructs: A History of Cambridge
English Language Examinations 1913–2012. Cambridge: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
White, R. and Arndt, V., 1991. Process Writing. London: Longman.
Wingate, U. and Tribble, C., 2012. The best of both worlds? Towards an EAP/academic literacies
writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37/4:481–495.
Wright, C. and Furneaux, C., 2021. ‘I am Proud of Myself’: Student Satisfaction and Achievement
on an Academic English Writing MOOC. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language
Learning and Teaching, 11/1:21-37.
259
Part 5
Materials evaluation and
adaptation

18
The analysis and evaluation of
language teaching materials
Andrew Littlejohn
Introduction
The term ‘language teaching materials’ can, of course, refer to an enormous variety of
objects including, amongst many other things, teacher-produced exercises, newspaper arti-
cles, radio programmes, online practice, games, dictionaries, and full-length novels – as
well as the traditional coursebook. For the purposes of this chapter, however, and to make
it possible to operationalise a definition for research purposes, I will adopt a much more
specific view which sees materials as exclusively relating to a pedagogic purpose. To this
end, I will be using the term ‘language teaching materials’ to refer to a blend of language
content with instructions for how to interact with that content, with the aim of bringing
about second language development. This definition, then, will distinguish language teach-
ing materials from not only free-standing samples of language use (e.g. newspapers and
radio programmes), but also from reference materials, such as dictionaries and grammars,
which do not include any teaching/learning procedure.
Despite a long history of language teaching materials, stretching back more than half a
millennium (Howatt 2004), it is perhaps curious that it is only in very recent times, from the
early 1990s onwards (Littlejohn 1992), that a concerted effort has been put into systemati-
cally examining the nature of these materials. Since then, however, a considerable amount
of work has been done. Gray (2016:98) notes that there is now a substantial ‘vitality of
research’ into materials, and lists many of the recent publications in this area, many of which
are reviewed in this chapter. As this chapter will demonstrate, the net effect of this increased
attention to language teaching materials is that we now have a much better idea of what,
potentially, their use may imply in the classroom and a much better idea of how we may
fine-tune the relationship between aims and implementation in materials design.
Language teaching materials may emerge from many sources. These may include teach-
ers themselves, as they develop materials for their own classes. They may also include learn-
ers, as learners, too, may engage in materials production for themselves or their classroom
peers (Brown et al. 2013). Most commonly, however, and increasingly so, materials emerge
from specialist teams, such as those within ministries of education or language centres, or
from author teams commissioned by commercial publishers. In this case, then, the materials
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-23 263

Andrew Littlejohn
which teachers and learners bring into their classrooms will have been conceived of by
individuals remote from them, with whom they will probably never have direct contact, and
who will thus have no direct knowledge of the particular context or users of the materials. It
is this simple fact of remoteness, which Apple (2012) describes as the separation of the con-
ception of plans for classroom work from the execution of those plans, which has probably
been the main driving force in the rapid development of research into the nature of language
teaching materials. It is useful then, before I proceed with a discussion of this research, to
set out some of the reasons why this has prompted such interest.
First and foremost is the fact that materials often form an interface between all par-
ticipants in the classroom, setting out who is to say what to whom and when. How far
materials do this will, of course, depend on the nature of their design and the willingness
of users to follow the instructions as given, but, potentially, materials may determine what
it is ‘legitimate’ to say at any particular point. If, for example, an instruction indicates that
learners are to scan a text for general meaning and at that point one individual learner
attempts to ask about the meaning of particular words in the text, this may be deemed ‘ille-
gitimate’ at that moment, and the request postponed for later. Secondly, and more broadly
(as discussed below), a number of writers have also pointed to the potential existence of
‘hidden outcomes’ (whether positive or negative) in teaching materials as they will always
encode particular views of what language knowledge is, how learning is to happen, and the
roles teachers and learners are to have (Canaragarah 1999; Littlejohn 1997; Littlejohn and
Windeatt 1989; Wallace 2006). These concerns have gained greater weight as the presence
of published materials in the classroom has expanded enormously in recent years with the
provision of not only the traditional package of a student’s book, workbook, and teacher’s
guide but also items such as online resources, computer-assisted learning materials, elec-
tronic whiteboard materials, videos, test software, and more. The potential for published
materials to effectively structure almost every moment of classroom time has thus increased
significantly. Given this, it is perhaps not surprising that Littlejohn (1992:4, 2011:181) has
described this situation as potentially a ‘Trojan horse’ in that the use of published materials
may imply more than is immediately apparent.
In the study of published materials, we can distinguish two distinct perspectives (Gray
2016; Tomlinson 2012). One is the familiar activity of materials evaluation, an ‘ends and
means’ perspective, which refers to examining and making a judgement on the suitability
of a set of materials for a particular context and a particular teaching/learning purpose and
which necessarily implies a view of how the materials should be. A related but entirely dif-
ferent perspective is materials analysis. This refers to examining materials ‘as they are,’ to
arrive at a description of those materials, most usually from the vantage point of a frame-
work of analysis. Materials analysis is an activity in its own right, but it can also be seen as
a preliminary step before materials evaluation (as further discussed below).
Given this key distinction between analysis and evaluation, this chapter will examine
each of these in turn, firstly considering critical issues and topics, then exploring impli-
cations, challenges, and recommendations. The chapter then concludes with a discussion
of future directions for materials analysis and evaluation. It is important at the outset to
point out that the focus will be on already published materials, not materials development,
although both analysis and evaluation can offer much to writers during materials production.
I will be viewing materials as proposals for what teachers and learners are to do together in
the classroom. Following Breen (1987, 1989) I will be discussing materials as workplans,
something quite distinct from materials in action, the point at which materials are actu-
ally used. Precisely what happens when materials are used in the classroom may be very
264
The analysis and evaluation of materials
different indeed from what was proposed by their creators, as both teachers and learners
bring their own interpretations and purposes to bear on those materials. The latter is indeed
a very interesting and fruitful area of research, but one which stands beyond the focus here.
Critical issues and topics: materials analysis

As we shall see, many of the analytical approaches reviewed here do actually cross into
‘evaluation,’ as it is clear that a particular view of how materials in general should be often
motivates their study. The distinction here, however, is that what is prioritised first is an
analysis of the materials and it is only after that is done that the outcome of the analysis is
discussed. In addition, the analysis will most usually be general, and not for a specific teach-
ing/learning context.
Materials analysis has evolved considerably in both scale and approach since it first
made a significant appearance in the language teaching literature. The earliest contributions
to analysis can be termed illustrative commentaries. These generally offered a particular
perspective on materials and highlighted aspects for comment, usually supported by exam-
ples from published materials. They were, then, perspective-driven, most often reflecting
a particular viewpoint from social commentary, rather than any view on language teach-
ing pedagogy or language itself, and most often claiming to reveal a ‘hidden curriculum’
within the manifest language teaching curriculum. These commentaries had an important
role in broadening our understanding of the role of teaching materials, and the kind of
learning, in addition to language learning, that they may offer. One of the most well-known
of these is Porreca’s (1984) paper on pervasive sexism in ESL. Drawing on research on
textbooks in other areas of the curriculum, Porreca extended this to ESL texts and showed
how, for example, males and females were differently represented and how females were
ascribed particular occupational roles. A similarly revealing illustrative commentary was
provided by Auerbach and Burgess (1985), who examined textbooks in survival ESL for
newly arrived immigrants, and found they reflected a ‘hidden curriculum’ which prepared
students for ‘subservient social roles’ and which reinforced ‘hierarchical relations within the
classroom.’ Littlejohn and Windeatt (1989) extended the range of commentary to show, with
examples, how materials may advance learning in relation to many areas ‘beyond language
learning,’ such as the development of cognitive abilities, the learning of particular values
and attitudes, and the place of learners in classroom decision-making.
While illustrative commentaries have indeed raised our awareness of the ways in which
teaching materials may be carrying a ‘hidden curriculum,’ broader theory-driven analy-
ses have emerged to offer a stronger basis for analysing materials. Similar to illustrative
commentaries, theory-driven analyses usually provide a range of examples, rather than a
detailed analysis of one particular text, to support the theoretical perspective on offer. Many
of these analyses take as their starting point a Marxist or neo-Marxist argument that sees
ideology and ideas as being socially and temporally located, that is, reflective of a par-
ticular society and a particular point in time. A good early example of this is Dendrinos’
(1992) which shows how materials analysis can be situated within a macro-sociological and
macro-sociolinguistic perspective, drawing in particular on concepts from critical discourse
analysis, to analyse instructional texts and rubrics in teaching materials and reveal their
underlying ideology.
Starting from a sociological viewpoint, Littlejohn argues that materials ‘can be seen
as potentially resonating in tune with social forces far beyond language teaching itself’
(2012:284) and goes on to provide an historical perspective, with many examples from the
265
Andrew Littlejohn
1950s to recent years, to show how wider social changes have been intimately reflected in
the form and content of classroom materials. In a similar vein, a number of recent writers
such as Gray (2012), Gray and Block (2014), Copely (2017), Babaii and Sheikhi (2017),
and Bori (2018) (see also Bori, this volume) have focused in particular on the relationship
between contemporary neoliberalism and language teaching materials. Copely (2017), for
example, contrasts an analysis of UK ELT materials produced between 1975 and 1982
with those produced between 1998 and 2014 to show how there has been a marked shift
away from materials which included references to social issues, such as divorce, home-
lessness, and unemployment, towards neoliberalist concerns such as consumerism and
individual aspirations, with the erosion of any mention of the existence of hardship. Bori
(2018), in a substantial book-length work, takes a similar perspective but sets out in more
detail an underlying theoretical model derived from Marxist thinking. This allows him
to situate language textbooks in an examination of today’s capitalism, and to set out a
framework for quantitative and qualitative analysis in relation to neoliberal values and
practices.
Perhaps rather curiously, the number of theory-driven analyses which focus on issues
directly related to language and language teaching seem to be relatively thin on the ground.
Those that do exist usually highlight aspects of how language use is represented in text-
books, typically from the perspective of pragmatics. Usó-Juan (2007), for example, focuses
directly on how requests are presented in five popular textbooks, while Salazar Campillo
(2007), in the same volume, examines transcripts from ten textbooks to see how the miti-
gation of requests is represented. Related analyses are also found in, inter alia, Alcón and
Tricker (2000), Gilmore (2004), Boxer and Pickering (1995), and Usó-Juan and Salazar
(2002). In the main, these analyses tend to focus on the presentation of specific speech acts
or specific discourse markers in ELT textbook dialogues. A broader perspective, however,
is offered by Sercu (2000) who sets out the theory and techniques of data collection and
analysis for investigating how textbooks can contribute to the acquisition of intercultural
communicative competence.
Rather than emphasising a particular theoretical perspective on materials, data-driven
analyses, in contrast, aim to reveal the nature of materials ‘as they are,’ by the application of
a framework which collects data from the materials in respect of certain categories. To the
extent that any framework for analysis depends on a view of what is ‘significant’ in materi-
als, data-driven analyses are of course also theory-driven. The distinction here, however, is
that data-driven analyses aim to provide a minimal framework for data collection, with the
bulk of the categories of analysis depending on what is found in the materials, and with the
subjectivity of the analyst made explicit. One of the most frequently cited and used data-
driven frameworks is that developed by Littlejohn (1998, 2011), sometimes referred to as
the ‘Three Levels Analysis’ because of the way in which the framework moves from objec-
tive description, through subjective analysis, to subjective inference, as shown in Table 18.1.
The first level of the framework collects objective data for a description of the materials
by setting out ‘what is there,’ such as the way the material is divided up, the existence of
different components, the number of pages, etc. The next level, Level 2, moves to subjec-
tive analysis and focuses on identifying ‘what is required of users’ by conducting a detailed
analysis of the tasks in the materials. The final level, Level 3, relies on subjective inference
to determine ‘what is implied’ by using the materials. At this level, the analyst draws on
findings from Levels 1 and 2 to set out how the materials view the roles of teachers and
learners, and the underlying aims, principles of selection, and sequence of the materials and
their role in the classroom.
266
Table 18.1 Levels of analysis of language teaching materials
1 ‘What is there’ ‘objective description’
•• statements of description
•• physical aspects of the materials
•• main steps in instructional sections
2 ‘What is required of users’ ‘subjective analysis’
•• subdivision into constituent tasks

•• an analysis of tasks: what is the learner expected to do? Who with? With what content?
3 ‘What is implied’ ‘subjective inference’
•• deducing aims, principles of selection, and sequence

•• deducing teacher and learner roles
•• deducing demands on learner’s process competence
Source: Littlejohn 2011.
At the heart of the Three Levels Analysis lies the task analysis in Level 2, which is the
element of the framework most frequently used by researchers, evaluators, and postgradu-
ate students (see, inter alia, Nishiyama 2011, Humphries et al. 2014, Aliakbari and Tarlani-
Aliabadi 2017). To analyse a sample of teaching materials, the analyst first needs to divide
it into constituent tasks. For this purpose, a task is identified as ‘a task’ when it contains
three essential elements: (1) a process through which the learners are expected to go; (2) a
mode of classroom participation concerning with whom (if anyone) they are to work; and
(3) content with which they are to engage. Focusing on these aspects, the framework then
offers a schedule which seeks to identify how the learner is positioned in the learning dis-
course, the aspect of language they are to focus on (meaning/form), the cognitive process
they are to engage, who (if anyone) they are to work with, and the content involved. While
the framework offers some categories to select from, the bulk of the categories emerge from
what is evident in the materials, as shown in Table 18.2. It is for this reason that the resulting
analysis can be termed data-driven, allowing the materials to ‘speak for themselves.’
While the Three Levels Analysis is intended to be neutral in terms of a view of what leads
to successful language learning, Guilloteaux (2013) has modified the framework so materi-
als can be analysed and directly related to second language acquisition theory, from a psy-
cholinguistic viewpoint. Drawing on principles contained in Ellis (2005) and other works,
Guilloteaux sets out what she sees as ‘universal SLA criteria’ which can be related directly
to the outcomes of applying Littlejohn’s analytical framework. In this way, Guilloteaux
has shown how it is possible to move from a data-driven analysis of materials towards
evaluation of those materials against a set of desired characteristics that support language
acquisition.
Implications, challenges, and recommendations: materials analysis

A recurring assumption or claim in most approaches to analysis is that the outcome is
‘objective,’ that is, it is not dependent on the subjective, personal judgements or biases of
267
Andrew Littlejohn
Table 18.2 A task analysis schedule
Task number:
I What is the learner expected to do?
A Turn-take
initiate/open response
closed/scripted response
not required
B Focus on
language system/form
meaning
meaning/system relationship
C Mental operation
[detailed according to what is
found in the materials]
II Who with?
[detailed according to what is
found in the materials]
III With what content?

A Input to learners
form [detailed according to what is
source found in the materials]
Nature
B Output from learners

form [detailed according to what is
source found in the materials]
Nature
Source: Littlejohn 2011.
the analyst. This claim is underpinned by clear systematicity in the procedures of analysis,
in such a way that similar findings would emerge whoever undertook the analysis. No
framework for analysis is neutral, however. It is possible to analyse materials from any
number of different perspectives, depending on the specific interests of the analyst. We have
seen how gender roles, class representation, market orientation, and pedagogic aspects can
be the focus of analysis. One can also imagine a limitless number of other bases for analysis
– from content issues (e.g. diversity, age-roles, stereotypes) to language issues (e.g. cover-
age of language forms, explanations of language rules, text density) to production issues
(e.g. use of colour, fonts, layout) and beyond. By selecting a particular area, any framework
of analysis is immediately not ‘objective’ as, by implication, it stresses the significance of
that aspect.
A more difficult challenge is this regard lies in the analyst’s decision-making during the
process of analysis itself. Typically, in social science research, this problem is dealt with by
asking two or more analysts to examine the same data, and then to produce a score show-
ing the level of inter-rater reliability. This may certainly guard against a particular bias in
268
analysis, but it does not avoid the basic fact that all analysis is subjective. Littlejohn’s (2011)
Three Levels Analysis tries to account for greater levels of subjectivity by setting out how
the resulting description arises from increasing amounts of inference, yet, as noted earlier,
even Level 1, the ‘objective’ level, is the result of a subjective selection of what it is signifi-
cant to record.
There is probably no way to avoid these difficulties, but it does suggest that it will always be
incumbent upon designers of analytical frameworks and all users of such frameworks to explain
first and foremost why they have chosen a particular area to investigate and why it is to be con-
sidered significant, thereby revealing the basis for their subjective decisions.
Critical issues and topics: materials evaluation

Materials evaluation, as a defined activity, long predates the development of materials anal-
ysis. As noted earlier, the essential quality that distinguishes materials analysis from mate-
rials evaluation is that the latter is aimed at determining the ‘fit’ for a particular teaching/
learning context and purpose, whereas materials analysis will not normally focus on the
suitability or efficacy of materials. In common with materials analysis, however, the process
of doing evaluation can have a consciousness-raising role for all language teaching profes-
sionals (including teachers, researchers, and writers) by helping to identify key aspects of
a teaching-learning relationship. As discussed later, it is this latter aspect which has shaped
some of the more recent approaches to evaluation.
Materials evaluation can occur at one of three stages: pre-use, in-use (sometimes termed
whilst-use), and post-use. Most materials evaluation tools focus on the pre-use stage, with the
development of in-use and post-use tools still relatively underexplored (but see Tomlinson
and Masuhara 2018:73–75 for ideas). In-use and post-use evaluations of materials are much
more complicated endeavours than pre-use evaluation, for the simple reason that the fac-
tors involved are far more numerous (such as the unique aspects of the classroom) and it
is impossible to determine which aspect of a particular outcome derives solely from the
materials themselves. At the very least, additional methods of collecting and evaluating
classroom observation data (in-use) and additional methods of collecting achievement and
learner response data (post-use) will be required.
Pre-use evaluation systems appear in a variety of forms. The most common type is the
checklist in which ‘desirable features’ of materials are listed, and which the evaluator uses
to see if or how far those features are present in the materials under review. This may
result in quantitative data, by using a rating system, or in qualitative data, in which evalu-
ators consider their answers to open-ended questions. Two early examples of these differ-
ent approaches are Williams (1983) and Cunningsworth (1995). Williams (1983) sets out a
series of four ‘basic assumptions’ about the features materials should contain (for example,
‘an up-to-date methodology’) and then relates these assumptions to aspects of a language
teaching syllabus such as ‘speech,’ ‘grammar,’ ‘vocabulary,’ etc. Each area is then given a
weighting by the evaluator, and a score (0–4), such that, according to Williams (1983:25),
the numerical ratings can then ‘be used for absolute or comparative evaluations of text-
books.’ In contrast, a more qualitative approach is taken in Cunningsworth (1995), with a
checklist of 45 questions which the evaluator needs to consider, covering areas such as aims,
design, language content, skills coverage, and methodology. Rather than providing a rating
scale, Cunningsworth provides a series of reflective questions such as ‘Is the course book
suited to the teaching/learning situation?’ and ‘Will the topics help expand the students’
awareness and enrich their experience?’
269
Andrew Littlejohn
Since the early days of materials evaluation tools, many more checklists have appeared
(see Mukundan and Ahour 2010 for a good overview of four decades of such checklists).
These have continued to include both quantitative checklists of features (such as Gearing
1999, Miekley 2005, Nimehchisalem and Mukundan 2015, and Skierso 1991) and quali-
tative checklists of questions (such as McGrath 2002, Richards 2001, and Rubdy 2003).
While each of these checklists offers distinct points of emphasis (for example, authenticity
of texts may be highly significant in one checklist but absent in another), Mukundan et al.
(2011:22) found general agreement in their survey of evaluation tools on what needs to
be evaluated, which they used to develop their own checklist (see also Nimehchisalem et
al. 2015):
‘General’ attributes: relation to syllabus and curriculum, methodology, suitability to

learners, physical and utilitarian attributes, and supplementary materials.
‘Learning-teaching content’: general (i.e. task quality, cultural sensitivity, linguistic
and situational realism), listening, speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar,
pronunciation, and exercises.
While one may question some of the particular features that these instruments prioritise,
there is no doubt that such checklists can aid in guiding the examination of teaching materi-
als. That said, the checklist approach has been subject to a number of criticisms. Tomlinson
and Masuhara (2018:55), for example, show how many checklists slide uneasily back and
forth between providing analysis questions (with supposedly objective answers) and evalua-
tion questions (with highly subjective answers) making it difficult for the evaluator to deter-
mine if judgements are based on fact or opinion. For this reason, and following Littlejohn
(2011), Tomlinson argues that analysis and evaluation need to be kept as separate activities.
Littlejohn (1992, 1998, 2011) further warns that checklist items can often involve ‘general,
impressionistic judgements … rather than examining in depth what the materials contain’
(2011:181). There is also the danger that checklists which utilise a numeric scoring system
can give the false impression of a factual, objective outcome from what is essentially a
highly personal, subjective process. Evaluation checklists will tend to reflect the personal
experiences, reading, understandings, and priorities of their designers. This means that they
will often be reflective of issues and priorities in undisclosed contexts, and then offered as a
global tool, when they are actually local in origin and relevance.
These problems have motivated a number of developments in materials evaluation.
Firstly, many writers now insist that an analysis stage (as detailed in the section ‘Implications,
Challenges, and Recommendations: Materials Analysis’) should precede an evaluation
stage, so that the two activities can be clearly separated with the increasing levels of sub-
jectivity made clear. A second major development is a movement away from providing any
kind of checklists at all, by setting out a criteria-generating process which guides evaluators
in identifying their own criteria, relevant to the local context and their own beliefs about
successful language learning. To do this, Tomlinson (2003) distinguishes between what he
terms ‘universal criteria’ (broadly referring to the conditions in which people most effec-
tively acquire a second language) and ‘local criteria’ (such as factors relevant to a specific
group, individual, or culture). The procedure has strong echoes of the step-by-step question-
ing process outlined in Breen and Candlin (1987), in which evaluators are first asked to
identify what they think are requirements for successful language learning and the particular
requirements of their learners, before relating these to materials. Tomlinson and Masuhara
(2018:68–71) summarise a seven-stage procedure to do this, which takes evaluators from
270
debating their own beliefs, to creating a profile of the learning context, to finally developing
evaluation criteria. Initially developed as a procedure to adopt before beginning the devel-
opment of any materials, Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018:72) say that they
strongly recommend, in any selection procedure for an institution or especially for a

nation, that a formal criterion-referenced procedure is followed. In our view this means
going through the seven-stage procedure … and comparing the grades and comments
for each book evaluated before making a selection.
Implications, challenges, and recommendations: materials evaluation

In respect of the checklist approach to evaluation, and in addition to problems with the sub-
jective nature of the categories used and their often loose, impressionistic terminology, com-
mentators have also pointed to repeated problems in their design. Tomlinson and Masuhara
(2004:7), for example, summarise a list of questions for evaluating evaluation checklists,
highlighting five common errors (such as the lack of separation between analysis and evalu-
ation questions, unanswerable questions, and an underlying dogma). Nimehchisalem and
Mukundan (2015) further report that ‘in spite of their importance, these instruments are
often not tested for their validity or reliability … and are rarely tested for their practical-
ity.’ For this reason, Nimehchisalem and Mukundan (2015) developed their own checklist
through multiple draft stages and with validation and reliability checks that included reviews
by several ELT experts, checks for inter-rater reliability, and checks for a high degree of cor-
relation with a checklist of known validity. This, they argue, makes their scheme more time-
efficient, and the outcome of the evaluation more objective, than comparable checklists.
Criticisms of evaluation checklists and ideas for a more reliable design procedure cer-
tainly highlight the faulty nature of many evaluation tools, and suggest some pitfalls to
avoid in the development or use of checklists. However, if a checklist is to be used by
teacher-evaluators, it is perhaps of little relevance to hear that ELT experts agree on the
interpretation and application of checklist categories. ‘Experts,’ by definition, are members
of a particular professional community, and will be immersed in the vocabulary of that
community, be up-to-date with the literature, and be fully aware of the restricted mean-
ings that terms can have. Teacher-evaluators are likely to be part of a different professional
community, with different priorities, and so are likely to have quite different, perhaps more
personal, interpretations of the same terms. It is therein that the essential problem with
checklists lies: a tool devised by one professional community will always be subject to the
reinterpretation of users from a different professional community.
It is perhaps for this reason that Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) appear to favour the
abandonment of checklists altogether. It is clear from the procedure that they advocate that
they envisage a strong teacher development role in the process of materials evaluation.
Rather than simply being a consumer who is selecting ready-made materials using a ready-
made checklist, and who is dependent on outside ‘expert’ guidance, the teacher-evaluator
is viewed as being their own ‘expert’ in their context. This places evaluators in a much
more proactive, demanding relationship with language teaching materials, and immediately
directs them towards adapting, modifying, supplementing, selecting, or rejecting materials
as they see fit. As a counterbalance to the worries, discussed earlier, about materials poten-
tially being a ‘Trojan horse’ through their role as an interface between teachers and learners,
and the dangers in the separation of the conception of work plans from the execution of
271
Andrew Littlejohn
those plans (Apple 2012), the procedure usefully presents a view of the teacher-evaluator as
responsible for making curriculum decisions, not simply applying them.
An immediate issue that arises for designers of criteria-generating procedures, how-
ever, is the daunting and time-consuming process implied. For those involved in materials
development, it is indeed imperative that they make clear their beliefs about how language
learning effectively happens, particularly if the materials they will design are to be used by
others. In this case, the procedure has much to offer. For those involved in materials selec-
tion however, the situation is not so clear, particularly for inexperienced teachers or teachers
with limited exposure to different ways of working. In these cases, it seems quite likely that
developing their own criteria, without guidance, may simply lead to them reproducing how
they were taught, keeping the uninformed uninformed, in fact. The principal question in this
case, then, is ‘What is the role of “expert” knowledge?’ Checklists tend to discount local
knowledge in favour of the expert. Criteria-generating processes do the opposite, potentially
asking the teacher-evaluator to reinvent the wheel.
One of the key problems with checklists is that they suggest that evaluation is some-
thing anyone can do. I have yet to see a checklist that actually stipulates requirements of
the user of the list (for example, familiarity with particular literature, years of experience,
knowledge of other materials, and so on), and yet these attributes seem vital for an effective
and meaningful application of a checklist. On the other hand, criteria-generating processes
seem to assume that the teacher-evaluator already has the required knowledge, and that it
just needs to be made explicit. Neither assumption seems satisfactory to me. I think it would
be wise for the designers of evaluation tools, and those who advocate criteria-generating
procedures, to stress that evaluation is a highly specialised activity, which requires specialist
knowledge, and that there are considerable dangers (in terms of coming to a wrong conclu-
sion) in undertaking materials evaluation without the requisite background knowledge or
training. Enlisting the involvement of more experienced teachers may help, as may sugges-
tions for guided reading, but fundamentally we need to recognise that skills in using materi-
als may be quite different from skills in analysing and evaluating those materials.
Whether a checklist or a criteria-generating approach is taken, it is clear that effective and
reliable materials evaluation will always require materials analysis as a preliminary step, to
ensure that the full nature of the materials is revealed and so that personalised judgements
are not read into the materials. This suggests a three-stage operation:
1 analysis of the context of use and analysis of the materials;

2 match and evaluation of the materials in the light of the analyses;
3 decisions to adopt, adapt, supplement, critique, or reject the materials.
It further suggests, as noted earlier, that designers need to stress that analysis and evalu-
ation are both specialist activities that require a certain level of teaching experience and
background professional knowledge. Where this is not available, analytical and evaluation
tools should, at the very least, be accompanied by clear definitions, with examples, of how
particular terms and concepts are being used, readings on the key issues involved, and up-to-
date guidance on where teacher-evaluators may find further professional knowledge.
Future directions for materials analysis and evaluation

It is likely that in the coming years, new priorities for materials analysis and evaluation will
come to the fore. Two particular strands stand out for me, which point, in fact, in opposite
directions.
272
The first derives from a currently emerging convergence of issues in language teaching
with issues in educational research. One of the most obvious examples of this is in the devel-
opment of sociocultural approaches to language teaching research (see, for example, Lantolf
et al. 2018), and in methodologies which take a more explicitly constructivist, rather than
transmission-based approach (for example, negotiated syllabuses; see Breen and Littlejohn
2000). It seems likely that, in years to come, constructivism, already well-recognised in
mainstream educational literature (see, for example, approaches to dialogic teaching in
Alexander 2008), will come to take a more prominent role in language teaching methodol-
ogy. This will present a major challenge to the current orthodoxy of language teaching mate-
rials (which tend to emphasise defined classroom scripts for teachers and learners to enact
through mainly closed tasks), and we can expect to see materials developers experimenting
with new forms of teaching and learning, whether in classrooms or online. For this, then,
we will need new means of analysing and evaluating materials to take account of a much
more fluid use of materials and the likely nature of classroom discourse, something which
our current tools seem ill-suited for.
A second potential strand of development for materials analysis and evaluation derives,
however, from a quite different direction for language teaching. If the thrust of the theory-
driven analyses set out in the section ‘Critical Issues and Topics: Materials Analysis’ is cor-
rect, we can expect to see, perhaps rather worryingly, the pressures of neoliberalist thinking
begin to be reflected directly in the purposes of the analysis and evaluation of language teach-
ing materials. Evidence of neoliberalist thinking is already present in many global language
teaching materials in the packaged, commodified views of what language teaching and learn-
ing should focus on (as in, for example, the insistence on adhering to the prescriptions of the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages). It would seem entirely plausi-
ble to me that we will begin to see this directly reflected in systems of analysis and evaluation
through, for example, specifications of employment/market-related ‘skills’ and employment/
market-related ‘language competencies.’ This should cause us to pause, and reflect on what
language teaching is for and how it relates to a wider picture of human growth.
Conclusion
This chapter has provided an overview of the development and current state of the dis-
tinct activities of materials analysis and evaluation. We have seen how analysis may offer
illustrative commentaries (indicating how social themes are reflected in materials), theory-
driven analyses (in which mainly critical theory is related directly to materials), and data-
driven analyses, which aim to reveal materials ‘as they are.’ Evaluation, on the other hand,
considers materials in the light of a particular context and purpose. Two main approaches
to evaluation exist: checklists and criteria-generating procedures. We have seen some of
the problems surrounding both these approaches, and the need to be absolutely precise
and explicit in how evaluation is undertaken. The argument stressed in this chapter is that
both analysis and evaluation are highly specialised activities which require particular back-
ground knowledge and experience, and which should not therefore be undertaken without
detailed guidance.
Further reading
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., 2018. The Complete Guide to the Theory and Practice of materials
273
Andrew Littlejohn
This book draws together a wide range of themes related to materials development generally, but
specifically addresses (in Chapter 3) issues in materials analysis and evaluation. Drawing on many
years of experience, Tomlinson and Masuhara provide a grounded account of how their views on
evaluation have changed.
Gray, J., ed. 2013. Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials. Houndmills, Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
This is a stimulating collection of papers, providing a wide range of theory-driven analyses and
evaluations of materials. Topics covered include LGBT invisibility in ELT materials, neoliberalism
in EAP materials, practitioners’ perspectives on CLIL materials, and constructions of ‘frenchness’
in language coursebooks. Nimehchisalem, V. and Mukundan, J. and others at the Universiti Putra
Malaysia. Various publications freely available online.
An online search for these authors will generate a list of many useful papers which have come from
the Materials Development and Evaluation Unit at the Universiti Putra Malaysia. The team has been
particularly active in critiquing approaches to materials evaluation and in trialling and developing a
grounded, reliable checklist. In addition to the papers in the references list, see, for example:
Roslim, N., Abdullah, M., Aziz, A., Nimehchisalem, V. and Almuddin, A., 2020. Corpus research
applications in second language teaching: A look into corpus-informed materials development.
International Journal of Modern Languages and Applied Linguistics, 4:15–37.
Mat Hussin, N.I.S., Nimehchisalem, V. and Rezvani Kalajahi, S.A., 2015. Developing a checklist
for evaluating the presentation of new vocabulary in ELT textbooks. International Journal of
Language Education and Applied Linguistics, 2:27–38.
Related topics
The discipline of materials development, representation in coursebooks: a critical perspec-
tive, approaches to materials adaptation.
References
Alcón E. and Tricker, D., 2000. Teaching discourse competence in the classroom: An example based
on the discourse marker well in EFL materials. In Gallardo, P. and Llurdà, E., eds. Proceedings of
the 22nd International Conference of Aedean. Leida: Universitat de Lleida.
Alexander, R., 2008. Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. In Mercer, N.
and Hodgkinson, S., eds. Exploring Talk in School. London: Sage.
Aliakbari, M. and Tarlani-Aliabadi, H., 2017. Categorization of writing tasks in Iranian senior high
school English textbooks. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28/1:119–146.
Apple, M., 2012. Education and Power. New York: Routledge.
Auerbach, E. and Burgess, D., 1985. The hidden curriculum of survival ESL. TESOL Quarterly,
19/3:475–495.
Babaii, E. and Sheikhi, M., 2017. Traces of neoliberalism in English teaching materials: A critical
Bori, P., 2018. Language Textbooks in the Era of Neoliberalism. Abingdon: Routledge.
Boxer, D. and Pickering, L., 1995. Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: the
case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49/1:44–58.
Breen, M.P., 1987. Learner contributions to task design. In Candlin, C. and Murphy, D., eds. Language
Learning Tasks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Breen, M.P., 1989. The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In Johnson, R.K., ed. The Second
Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Breen, M.P. and Candlin, C., 1987. Which materials? A consumer’s and designer’s guide. In Sheldon,
L.E., ed. ELT Textbooks and Materials: Problems in Evaluation and Development. London:
Modern English Publications and the British Council.
274
Breen, M.P. and Littlejohn, A., eds., 2000. Classroom Decision-Making. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, H., Iyobe, B. and Riley, P., 2013. An evaluation of the use of student-generated materials. The
Language Teacher, 37/3:3–10.
Canagarajah, A.S., 1999. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Copley, K., 2017. Neoliberalism and ELT coursebook content. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies,
15/1:43–62.
Cunningsworth, A., 1995. Choosing Your Coursebook. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
Dendrinos, B., 1992. The EFL Textbook and Ideology. Athens: Grivas Publications.
Ellis, R., 2005. Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33/2:209–224.
Gearing, K., 1999. Helping less-experienced teachers of English to evaluate teachers’ guides. ELT
Journal, 53/2:122–127.
Gilmore, A., 2004. A comparison of textbooks and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 58/4:363–374.
Gray, J., 2012. Neoliberalism, celebrity and ‘aspirational content’ in English language teaching
textbooks for the global market. In Block, D., Gray J. and Holborow, M., eds. Neoliberalism and
Gray, J., 2016. ELT materials. In Hall, G., ed. The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Guilloteaux, M.J., 2013. Language textbook selection: Using materials analysis from the perspective
of SLA principles. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22/3:231–239.
Howatt, A.P.R., 2004. A History of English Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Humphries, S., Miyakoshi, M. and Miyoshi, K., 2014. Analysing textbooks using the Littlejohn
framework: Viewpoints from Japanese pre-service student teachers. Folio, 16/1:44–47.
Lantolf, J., Poehner, M.P. and Swain, M., 2018. The Routledge Handbook of Sociocultural Theory and
Second Language Development. New York: Routledge.
Littlejohn, A., 1992. Why are English language teaching materials the way they are? Unpublished
PhD thesis, Lancaster University. (Also available at www.AndrewLittlejohn.net)
Littlejohn, A., 1997. Self-access work and curriculum ideologies. In Benson, P., and Voller, P., eds.
Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. Harlow: Longman.
Littlejohn, A., 1998. The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan horse. In Tomlinson,
B., ed. Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Littlejohn, A., 2011. The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan horse. In
University Press.
Littlejohn, A., 2012. Language teaching materials and the (very) big picture. Electronic Journal of
Foreign Language Teaching, 9:283–297.
Littlejohn, A. and Windeatt, S., 1989. Beyond language learning: Perspectives on materials design. In
Johnson, R.K., ed. The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
University Press.
Miekley, J., 2005. ESL textbook evaluation checklist. The Reading Matrix, 5/2:9–17.
Mukundan, J. and Ahour, T., 2010. A review of textbook evaluation checklists across four decades
(1970–2008). In Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., eds. Research for Materials Development in
Language Learning. London and New York: Continuum.
Mukundan, J., Hajimohammadi, R., Nimehchisalem, V., 2011. Developing an English language
textbook evaluation checklist. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 4/6:21–27.
275
Andrew Littlejohn
Nimehchisalem, V. and Mukundan, J., 2015. Refinement of the English language teaching textbook
evaluation checklist. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 23/4:761–780.
Nishiyama, M., 2011. Task analysis for Japanese EFL textbooks: An application of the Littlejohn
model. Studies in English Language Teaching, 34:21–30.
Porreca, K.L., 1984. Sexism in current ESL textbooks. TESOL Quarterly, 18/4:705–724.
Richards, J.C., 2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rubdy, R., 2003. Selection of materials. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing Materials for Language
Salazar Campillo, P., 2007. Examining mitigation in requests: A focus on transcripts in ELT
coursebooks. In Alcón Soler, E. and Safont Jorda, M.P. eds. Intercultural Language Use and
Language Learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sercu, L., 2000. Acquiring Intercultural Communicative Competence from Textbooks: The Case of
Flemish Adolescent Pupils Learning German. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press.
Skierso, A., 1991. Textbook selection and evaluation. In Celce-Murcia, M., ed. Teaching English as a
Second or Foreign Language. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Tomlinson, B., 2003. Materials evaluation. In Tomlinson, B. ed. Developing Materials for Language
Teaching. London: Bloomsbury.
45/2:143–179.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., 2004. Developing Language Course Materials. Singapore: RELC.
Usó-Juan, E., 2007. The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in textbooks:
Focusing on modifiers. In Alcón Soler, E. and Safont Jorda, M.P., eds. Intercultural Language Use
and Language Learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Usó-Juan E. and Salazar P., 2002. Developing pragmatic competence in the EFL setting: The case of
requests in tourism texts. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 3:103–122.
Wallace, C., 2006. The text, dead or alive: Expanding textual repertoires in the adult ESOL classroom.
Linguistics and Education, 17/1:74–90.
Williams, D., 1983. Developing criteria for textbook evaluation. ELT Journal, 37/3:251–255.
276
19
Approaches to materials
adaptation
Hitomi Masuhara
Introduction
Materials adaptation involves changing materials to ensure a better fit for the learning context
(Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). In practice, teachers may make some intuitive and responsive
changes to existing materials prior to or while teaching or even after teaching in preparation for
future use. They may decide to make selective use of existing materials because of their learners’
level and interest or time constraints. They may add or delete texts and activities to suit the learn-
ers and the local contexts. They may replace, reorder the sequence, come up with creative uses,
or supplement texts and/or activities with ‘better ones.’ All these actions constitute adaptation.
Following common practice in the literature on materials adaptation, this chapter will
focus mainly on teacher adaptation. It is worth noting, however, that large-scale institu-
tional-, national-, and international-level adaptation projects do take place. Adaptation var-
ies according to the agent of change (who), context (where), reasons (why), objectives (what
for), time frame (when/how long), and approaches (how). For example, Al-Busaidi and
Tindle (2010) report an institutional-level materials development project in Sultan Qaboos
University, Oman, following a series of adaptation attempts by the Curriculum Development
Team. I have also been involved in some other large-scale projects in which the agents
were publishers, the British Council, or ministries of education. For example, in the British
Council Project for the 19 Sub-Saharan countries Leadership Development project, proto-
type materials were designed to be adapted for different countries. Likewise, publishers
may produce a coursebook for one or two target region(s) with an intention of adapting it
for the global market. It is also a common practice to adapt popular, global coursebooks to
better suit particular target countries or regions in collaboration with governments and other
organisations (see Buchanan and Norton this volume).
Historical developments and the growing significance of adaptation

In his state-of-the-art review of the field of materials development, Tomlinson (2012) notes
a relatively small number of published empirical studies on adaptation compared to those
on evaluation.
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-24 277

Hitomi Masuhara
Traditionally, materials adaptation has tended to be overlooked as something that teach-

ers do as part of their routines. In the 1970s when Communicative Language Teaching
was developing, publications which discuss materials evaluation and adaptation started to
appear (e.g. Candlin and Breen 1979; Cunningsworth 1984; Madsen and Bowen 1978).
Candlin and Breen (1979), for example, offer teachers a comprehensive set of questions
to ask themselves in evaluating their instructional materials that claim to enhance learn-
ers’ communicative abilities. Cunningsworth (1984:65–73) has a chapter on adaptation in
which he gives advice to teachers on ‘how to make the materials meet your requirement,’
‘making dialogues communicative,’ ‘meeting your learner needs,’ and ‘using authentic
language.’
Note here that adaptation is often discussed as a logical consequence of evaluation
(Candlin and Breen 1979; McDonough et al. 2013; McGrath 2016), especially when new
approaches or methodologies are introduced. If there are any shortcomings in the materi-
als, adaptation becomes necessary. Systematic evaluation helps to identify problems and
facilitate principled adaptation. Willis and Willis (2007), for example, devote a chapter to
adapting and refining tasks in relation to seven parameters (e.g. outcome and interim goals,
input and timing at the priming stage, interaction patterns and participant roles, post-task
activities).
All in all, what publications on adaptation since the 1970s share in common seems
to be that they are written primarily as guides for teachers based on experts’ experi-
ence and knowledge. In recent years, however, there has been a surge of empirical
studies on how teachers use and adapt textbooks (Garton and Graves 2014; Harwood
2014; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). This appears to have been driven by two major
forces. The first driving force behind the research interest in adaptation is the mismatch
between the materials supplied and the materials wanted by learners and teachers in
varied local contexts. Ottley (2016) provides a striking example. His job required him
to use global coursebooks developed by Western publishers aimed at international stu-
dents to teach university students in Iraqi Kurdistan, consisting of Muslims, Christians,
Sunnis, Shi’ites, Kurds from Iraq, Iran, and Syria and Arabs. He felt that the mass-
produced coursebooks given to him did not suit his students as they seemed to assume
international students invariably have the same aspiration to study in English-speaking
countries and share interests such as food, travel, and fashion. He could easily imagine
his students feeling disenfranchised, bored, and demotivated by the mostly irrelevant
and alien content. Adaptation, for Ottley (2016), was therefore a necessity rather than
an option.
The second reason behind the sudden increase of empirical studies on adaptation
comes from a demand for studies on teacher use of textbooks, especially in the field
of education in the USA (see Harwood 2014:11 for a brief review). From the perspec-
tive of national, regional, and institutional curriculum planning and implementation,
textbook adaptation can be a potential threat to achieving educational goals. Behind the
textbook lies a curriculum which reflects various factors, such as fundamental socio-
political aims, language policy, and learning philosophy. The textbook is a physical
realisation of the curriculum and, in practice, functions as the curriculum. Teacher
adaptation affects how the curriculum is enacted. Conducting the content analysis and
evaluation of a textbook as an artefact (i.e. materials as a work plan) is useful for some
purposes. The assessment of the learning outcomes of a particular coursebook, how-
ever, requires research into how exactly the coursebook is used and how it may or may
not facilitate learning.
278
Approaches to materials adaptation

Critical issue 1: diverging stakeholder viewpoints
Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) explore this question from the perspectives of the main
stakeholders. The following is a brief overview of each stakeholder’s viewpoint.
From a publisher’s point of view (see Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018 for further testi-
monials), Amrani (2011) explains how publishers develop coursebooks within constraints.
For example, ‘[a] publisher is normally preparing materials for unknown classes of stu-
dents’ and ‘[does] not have the same level of information about the students as individuals’
(ibid:271). They may also lack information about teachers’ approaches in different educa-
tional contexts. So-called global coursebooks may be used in different types of classes with
different expectations and previous knowledge of language, cultures, and technology. Some
teachers may be used to teacher-centred approaches but others may take student-centred
ones in which student autonomy is encouraged. It is not possible for the publishers to ensure
a match between the materials supplied and unknown users.
Publishers often attempt to reduce the potential incongruence between materials supplied
and materials required by compiling in-house market research data and by offering multi-
strand syllabuses which present different areas for teaching (e.g. vocabulary, skills, corpus-
based expressions). They also offer supplements such as workbooks and digital materials
both off- and online that allow users to pick and mix components from a menu of language,
skills, and whatever is in demand (e.g. developing capabilities identified in the Common
European Framework of Reference).
Publishers expect the end users to use materials flexibly to suit local requirements. Such
materials producers’ intent, however, may not always be understood by potential end users
who may think what is in the coursebook must be taught (Zacharias 2005). There is a more
fundamental issue. This pick-and-mix approach could potentially lead to a lack of princi-
pled coherence of objectives, methodology, and theoretical validity in terms of language
acquisition.
Coursebook writers similarly suggest flexible use of coursebooks as resources (e.g. Bell
and Gower 2011; Harmer 2001). For example, Bell and Gower (2011:136) argue that ‘[c]
oursebooks can provide a useful resource for teachers. Providing they are used flexibly, we
think they can be adapted and supplemented to meet the needs of specific classes.’ Harmer
(2001:8) says ‘coursebooks like any lesson plan … are proposals for action, not instructions
for use. Teachers look at these proposals and decide if they agree with them.’
Experts, researchers, and teacher developers explain the necessity of adaptation based
on theory and empirical studies (Garton and Graves 2014; Harwood 2014; Tomlinson and
Masuhara 2018) and provide guidance of principles and procedures for adaptation (McGrath
2016; Mishan and Timmis 2015; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018).
Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) point out two historical and sociological shifts that spur
the need for the adaptation of coursebooks. One of the shifts is the role divisions between
commercial materials producers (i.e. publishers and writers) and users (i.e. educational
administrators, teachers, and learners). ELT coursebooks flourished when communicative
approaches were widely welcomed as a potential facilitator of communicative competence in
the 1970s to 1980s (Graddol 2006). Masuhara (2011) explains that such global demands for
ELT and the proliferation of ESL/EFL commercial coursebooks promoted a ‘native speaker’
model of English and deepened the divide between the materials producers and users. Users
have little input in terms of how coursebooks are designed and developed. Materials exist in
the market regardless of their fit with the users’ social contexts, curriculum, needs and wants,
279
Hitomi Masuhara
or assessment. Thus, the role division between materials producers and users could inher-
ently give rise to incongruencies between the materials supplied and the materials wanted.
The other shift that potentially exacerbates the problem of mismatch between the materi-
als and users is the spread of global Englishes (Graddol 2006). As the need for global com-
munication increases, the mismatch between the materials wanted and supplied is becoming
apparent all over the world. Masuhara et al. (2017) presents 16 studies conducted by teachers
and researchers on their materials evaluation, adaptation, and development practice from 12
countries (i.e. Australia, Cyprus, Egypt, Hong Kong, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Oman,
Russia, UK, Vietnam). What these reports provide is startling evidence of how the expan-
sion of global Englishes and available technologies is resulting in a phenomenal diversity of
teaching situations and learner needs (e.g. English for firefighter training in Vietnam; the use
of social media and online resources in order to develop learner-generated materials in Italy).
The on-going advancement of technology seems to accelerate the diversification of delivery
modes of language learning – e.g. blended learning, mobile learning, individualisation of
learning (Kern 2013; Mishan 2017; Tomlinson and Whittaker 2013). Garton and Graves
(2014) similarly identify such tendencies in materials development based upon 15 studies
in 9 countries. The rapid expansion of global Englishes therefore creates huge demands for
materials that cater for diverse cultures, contexts, and learner needs and wants. Such diverse
and unexpected demands are beyond the remit of current commercial coursebooks. The
majority of learners around the globe do not necessarily wish to study or work in English-
speaking countries. They want to be able to conduct successful international communication
for whatever purposes through a mutually understandable lingua franca while maintaining
their own cultural identities (Kumaravadivelu 2012; Pennycook 2010; Saraceni 2015).
Based on their critical review of the up-to-date literature on adaptation and teacher use
of materials, Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018:83) conclude, ‘we have found overwhelming
evidence to support the fact that adaptation has become a necessity rather than an option
in most cases, whether the coursebooks are commercially produced or are nationally/ insti-
tutionally tailored.’ As we have seen in this section, materials producers, researchers, and
experts seem to all recommend user adaptation. Some educational authorities and teachers,
however, may not totally agree.
Critical issue 2: diverging teacher practices

Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) examined eight recent empirical studies of teacher adap-
tation in seven countries from primary to university level to identify factors that influence
teacher adaptation. The studies they chose were from China (Bolster 2014, 2015), Egypt
(Abdel Latif 2017), Ghana (Bosompem 2014), Oman (Tasseron 2017), Singapore (Loh and
Renandya 2015), the UK (Grammatosi and Harwood 2014), and the USA (Guerrettaz and
Johnston 2013; Shawer 2010).
The findings reveal that:
·· the majority, if not all, of the teachers in the eight studies feel the need to adapt their
coursebooks, regardless of experience, learners, and contexts or whether textbooks are
commercially produced or tailor-made and supplied by their authorities;
·· examination washback has pervasive effects on adaptation, replacement, and supple-
mentation, especially in Middle Eastern and Asian countries;
·· regardless of experience, expertise, and restrictions in the teaching environment, some
adapt while others hesitate or choose not to do so (Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018).
280
Questions arise as to why some teachers adapt but others do not. Teachers may prefer not to
adapt because it is a safer option. The institution may stress coverage of syllabus content in time
for tests and exams. The students, parents, and school authorities could reprimand teachers who
‘deviate’ through adaptation if exam results are not as high as expected. Teachers tend to have
a heavy teaching and marking workload due to their large classes. They may feel that they lack
formal teacher education and confidence in the target language to dare to make changes to the
given textbook. Their reverence towards coursebooks may not be a blind one. Despite not being
entirely happy with their textbook, they know that they have no viable alternatives in terms of
content, appearance, and availability (e.g. Zacharias 2005).
There is, however, a more fundamental issue in terms of perceived legitimacy of adapta-
tion within educational contexts. Whilst materials producers, researchers, and experts may
insist that adaptation is inevitable and necessary, administrators in educational institutions
at national and regional levels may disagree with such a view. They are obliged to ensure
a high level of accountability in terms of curriculum development, implementation, and
assessment. A manager of a language school may face a similar dilemma if one teacher
freely adapts and supplements the coursebook while the others do not. The manager might
welcome consistency in terms of content, pace, learning, and assessment in order to ensure
student satisfaction. Teacher adaptation could therefore be a creative enhancement or lead
to a lack of standardisation.
This is where educational studies on curriculum fidelity (i.e. how closely a teacher imple-
ments a curriculum) become very relevant to our discussion on adaptation. Textbooks in
practice function as de facto curricula (Guerrettaz and Johnston 2013) as they determine, or
at least strongly influence, the content and sequence of classroom discourse and assessment.
Shawer (2010) studied ten L1 teachers with varying amounts of training and experience in
a foundation ELT course in three different US colleges requiring different degrees of adher-
ence to the curriculum. Based on his multiple analysis data, he proposes three categories of
teachers in terms of curriculum fidelity: Curriculum Makers, Curriculum Developers, and
Curriculum Transmitters. Curriculum Makers are those who select topics and organise con-
tent based on learner needs and wants. They use multi-sources rather than a single textbook
and create a lot of their own materials, though they may occasionally make use of some
topics or activities from textbooks as resources. Curriculum Developers adapt textbooks
to make them appropriate for their students. If they think the textbooks are not satisfactory
they add, subtract, modify, or supplement by using their own materials but not so exten-
sively as Curriculum Makers. Curriculum Transmitters rely solely on the specified materi-
als, unit by unit, page by page, exactly as the guide instructs.
What is surprising is that Shawer’s study (2010) provides counter evidence to widely
accepted assumptions in past studies (e.g. Tsui 2003). For example, experience, gender and
institutional control did not predict how much teachers adhere to the curriculum. In fact,
the two Curriculum Transmitters (one male, one female) are textbook-bound even though
they were trained and experienced and had freedom regarding the use of the textbook, and
the Curriculum Makers could be working in ‘a context that imposed restrictions through
prescribing and strictly monitoring the teaching of a textbook’ (Shawer 2010:177).
Being aware of different kinds and degrees of adaptation styles is useful but we are still
not clear why some teachers adapt when others do not. Bosompem (2014) provides interest-
ing insights based on her study of 12 Ghanaian teachers with different levels of experience
and training in a government-run university. She investigated teachers’ actions and attitudes
towards adaptation through questionnaires, interviews, and observation. She found that the
majority of teachers report positive attitudes towards adaptation and even acknowledge the
281
Hitomi Masuhara
legitimacy of adaptation of the textbooks supplied by the government. They felt that adapta-
tion was warranted due to the diversity of their teaching contexts and learner attributes, such
as reading ability. What is surprising is that despite these teachers’ positive views towards
adaptation, only a few said that they adapted their textbooks. A word of caution is required
here in that what teachers voice publicly may not always match their real practice during
observation (Bosompem 2014; Tasseron 2017). It is possible that teachers may be quietly or
inadvertently making minor changes without realising that they are adapting their textbooks.
Bosompem’s study (2014) reveals some teachers’ reservations towards adaptation which are
often overlooked in the literature. For example, one teacher who had seven years of teaching
experience commented that he ‘not only feared making changes at the initial stages of his teach-
ing career’ but also ‘felt guilty challenging the authority of the book writers and that of the lead-
ers who gave … the books’ (ibid.:112). Another interviewee with three years of experience also
pointed out ‘the absence of a formal directive by the school authorities’ as the reason for his res-
ervation. An interviewee with two years of experience lacked confidence and felt apprehensive
about the possible negative outcomes of her adaptation on her lesson and her students.
Bosompem’s study (2014) seems to testify to a fundamental tension between teacher
adaptation and the curriculum. Likewise, Mukundan (2008) describes the situation in
Malaysia where the government develops and distributes high school textbooks to ensure
coverage of their national agenda of fostering multicultural, united nationhood, good citi-
zenship, and family values. The problem is that adolescent learners in Malaysia may not feel
fully engaged with the constant diet of government ideals fed through artificially written
dialogues and texts in the coursebooks. Some of these Malaysian teachers feel as if they
are caught between the government and the learners. Strict adherence to the government
curriculum would mean no adaptation. On the other hand, teachers may wish to attempt
adaptation to raise learner motivation.
If we consider adaptation as part of curriculum realisation, the question of ‘To adapt or
not to adapt?’ should also be a major issue for governments and local educational institu-
tions as well as for teachers. Systematic consideration, clear policy, and guidance for adap-
tation can potentially offer a creative solution to the problem of teacher engagement and
development as part of sound curriculum realisation.
Critical issue 3: validity of adaptation

Adaptation, due to its inherently subjective nature, should be explored in relation to teacher
perceptions, beliefs, and the value judgements behind their actions. For example, when a
teacher says, ‘I’ve made changes to the textbook because it works better with my students,’
we might like to ask what ‘works better’ may exactly mean. Does it mean that the adapted
materials are likely to facilitate acquisition and development in the light of current theories
in language learning? Does it mean the adapted materials genuinely address the needs and
wants of the learners? It could in fact mean that the coursebook communication activities
are replaced with accuracy-centred grammar workbook exercises to prepare students for an
examination which may or may not be helpful to the learners.
Abdel Latif (2017) and Tasseron (2017) report similar phenomena in relation to teacher
adaptation of commercial coursebooks. Abdel Latif (2017), for example, used observation
and semi-structured interviews to investigate how male and female Egyptian secondary
school teachers adapted so-called communicative coursebooks and their accounts of why.
All the teachers had a BA degree in either English language teaching or English literature
282
and linguistics and had had 10–30 years of teaching experience. The findings of the study
include the following:
·· teachers spent longer on grammar explanations on the board than they did working with
the textbook grammar activities;
·· teachers preferred to teach grammar using their own instructional materials with self-
designed activities rather than those in coursebooks;
·· teachers tended not to use the main inductive and communicative activities in the
coursebooks;
·· examination washback and teachers’ beliefs regarding the value of teaching explicit
grammar deductively were influential factors;
·· teachers favoured the workbook more than the student book as the former provided
more grammar activities that matched the final year examination papers.
The teachers in these studies blamed the exams as one of the major reasons for their adaptation.
For example, the lack of an oral test resulted in less attention being paid to communicative activi-
ties in the coursebooks. Similar findings have been reported across the Middle East and Gulf
countries (e.g. Bacha et al. 2008) and in Asia (Loh and Renandya 2015; Thomas and Reinders
2015; Zheng and Borg 2014). Negative washback from the exam system features repeatedly in
teacher adaptation studies, testifying to the fact that it is one of the most influential determiners
of how teachers adapt materials. The crux of the matter is that there is often a discrepancy in the
policies of many governments between their directives for Communicative Language Teaching
and existing traditional examination systems that mainly focus on language knowledge. This
discrepancy has always affected commercial coursebooks too. The global demands for com-
munication skills may be getting stronger but if the market still demands a grammar/vocabulary
syllabus and traditional methods of teaching and testing then commercial coursebooks will cater
for such demands to increase sales.
Similar situations regarding the dynamic tension between national directives for
Communicative Language Teaching, exam systems, and teacher adaptation might exist in
other contexts. The degree of conflict may become more profound when curriculum innova-
tion is introduced. For example, Thomas and Reinders (2015) report how task-based lan-
guage teaching is modified in many Asian countries, and Zheng and Borg (2014) show three
different cases of adoption and adaptation of TBLT in China.

We have looked at adaptation from different perspectives so far. What has become evident
is that materials adaptation deserves greater recognition from all stakeholders. If adaptation
plays a vital role in successful language learning, it could be repositioned in curriculum
planning, teacher development, and materials development. The next section explores this
issue more fully.
Adaptation and curriculum realisation

Teacher adaptation can be considered a form of curriculum infidelity and could possibly
result in inconsistency or even failure to enact the curriculum. Should educational authori-
ties defend the use of existing textbooks, discourage teacher adaptation, and regulate through
283
Hitomi Masuhara
training and inspection what teachers do in classrooms? Such a top-down approach tends
to cause confusion and resistance (Menken 2008; Shawer 2010; Zheng and Borg 2014). To
address this question, the following facts need to be ascertained:
1) is the curriculum plan (including the assessment system) coherent, theoretically valid,
and feasible in terms of achieving successful language learning?
2) are commercial coursebooks or tailor-made textbooks underpinned by language learn-
ing theories which promote effective language learning?
3) do teacher adaptations support the philosophy and goals of the curriculum?
4) are the students achieving success in their learning? If so, why? If not, why not?
Teacher adaptation does not necessarily mean an undesirable deviation from the expected norm
of curriculum implementation. If teachers have genuinely understood the fundamental essence
of the curriculum and materials, adaptation can be what teachers do to breathe life into the curric-
ulum in a way that best suits their students to achieve the curriculum goals. If teacher adaptation
results in motivating students to the extent that they become willing and autonomous learners
inside and outside the classroom and their proficiency is improved, then teacher adaptation may
enable the successful delivery of the curriculum in more creative and innovative ways. The
challenge, however, remains as to how teachers can be guided and supported in their materials
adaptation to realise the goals of the curriculum.
Adaptation and teacher development

Graves and Garton (2014:275), on the basis of empirical studies on the use of materials in
nine countries, argue that ‘the effective use of materials depends on the teacher’s under-
standing of the materials, on the fit with their beliefs, expertise, and experience, and on
their ability to adapt the materials to their particular learners.’ They draw attention to the
paucity of teacher development opportunities related to materials use, but acknowledge
there is a growing awareness of its importance both pre- and in-service (Graves and Garton
2014; McGrath 2013; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). It should however be noted that the
content, quality, and time devoted to such teacher development might vary considerably. In
addition, Masuhara (2006) and Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) emphasise the importance
of experiential approaches in which participants actually adapt materials for their specific
learners and contexts rather than just learning about adaptation in the abstract. In this way,
principles and procedures of materials evaluation, adaptation, and development are acquired
in a situated and concrete way. McGrath (2013:219) shares a similar view: ‘Teacher educa-
tion has a vital part to play in shaping teachers’ attitudes and developing their abilities, and a
carefully designed, contextually sensitive and practice-based approach to teacher education
in materials evaluation and design … could make a real difference’ (see also his discussion
on pre- and in-service courses in McGrath 2013:89–92).
Adaptation and materials development

Adaptation has been discussed in terms of the role divisions between materials producers
and users in the era of global Englishes. We could reduce the need for materials adaptation
by narrowing the distance between the two groups or even eliminating this role division
altogether.
284
One possible approach would be to design proto-type materials which are amenable to
adaptation to suit local conditions. Choices of texts and activities for different proficiency
levels could be included. This would provide a more flexible approach to materials develop-
ment, thereby reducing the need for extensive adaptation.
Another possible approach would be to eliminate the gap by involving teachers collaboratively
in materials development for their own contexts. The most successful example of collaboration
I have experienced was the Namibian Coursebook project (1995) for secondary schools led by
Brian Tomlinson, coordinated by the British Council Namibia, and supported by the Ministry
of Education (MOE), international aid organisations, and the publisher, Macmillan Gamsberg.
What was unique about this project was that teachers were recruited from different regions of the
country to represent local cultures and contexts, trained to write materials, and worked collabo-
ratively during a week-long workshop to produce a new national coursebook There was a tight
coherence between curriculum, creative realisation of aims and methodology, and SLA theories
and assessment. Local needs and wants were reflected in the choice of texts and methodology,
and the teachers/writers went back to their regions to trial and refine their drafts. The teachers
involved in the project functioned as mentors among local teachers.

Adaptation and teacher development
Masuhara (2006) describes how experiential materials adaptation tasks can lead to teacher
development, and Tomlinson and Masuhara (2013) report how they used simulation and
problem-solving approaches to materials adaptation and development on MA courses, pre-
service, and in-service professional development courses. The participants:
1) analyse the learner needs in specific contexts

2) consider appropriate methodology
3) develop evaluation criteria for the current materials
4) evaluate a unit of the materials
5) adapt the materials for the specific learners and context
6) trial the materials and evaluate their effectiveness
During the process, participants consult relevant literature and reflect to develop a more
critical understanding. As the simulated tasks are often done collaboratively, the participants
need to articulate and justify their beliefs and learn from each other. What makes the experi-
ential approach potent is that adapted materials are trialled in peer teaching and the teachers
receive feedback and guidance from peers and facilitators.
Whilst the above recommendations for practice might be useful on teacher training pro-
grammes and many teachers may welcome principled guidance on materials adaptation,
techniques should not be too prescriptive and space must be allowed for teacher creativity
and intuition in this process. For detailed discussions of principles and procedures of adapta-
tion, see Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018).
Small-scale adaptation for everyday teaching

The kind of teacher development course on adaptation discussed above may not be read-
ily available for many teachers. Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018:106–107) discuss more
285
Hitomi Masuhara
accessible options by exploring ‘minor adaptations which can have a major effect.’ They
argue that a very small change to a unit of materials made before or even during a lesson
can have a significant impact on the engagement, motivation, and on-task attention of the
learners. Tomlinson (2015, 2017) gives many examples of minor changes which could make
coursebook activities more engaging and challenging and which could open up the many
closed questions often found in coursebooks. Other writers who have suggested and exem-
plified minor changes include Timmis (2013) and Ur (2015). Timmis (2013:149) suggests
small ‘single line’ extensions to coursebook dialogues so as to ‘enliven’ them as well as
such other modifications such as changing the mood, characters, register, and dialogues to
achieve greater engagement and plausibility. Ur (2015:11) suggests ways of making adapta-
tions which are simple in ‘preparation and administration’ and increase the learning value,
learner interest, and accessibility to students at different levels in a heterogeneous class.
Future directions
In this chapter, the role adaptation plays in the effective realisation of the curriculum has been
explored, taking into account different stakeholder perspectives. It is important that teachers
have the flexibility to implement the curriculum in ways that meet the needs of their students.
This might entail adapting learning materials; however, to achieve this, greater professional
training and opportunities to collaborate with colleagues would be welcome. Greater research on
the efficacy of adapted materials would also be welcome. We have seen a remarkable increase in
reports of how teachers use and adapt materials, but we also need empirical studies on the effect
of adapted materials based on in- and post-use materials evaluation.
In addition, the potential contribution learners could make as stakeholders in the adaptation
process should be acknowledged. Saraceni (2013), for example, advocates including learners in
the adaptation process and proposes ways of supporting their contribution. Such an approach
may offer a more direct, alternative way of incorporating learner needs and wants in the materi-
als, and could even bypass some of the reported problems associated with needs analysis studies
(e.g. learners’ impressionistic, contradictory, and often elliptical responses which are difficult for
teachers to interpret) (cf. Long 2005; Masuhara 2011; and Young 2000). In this respect, it is reas-
suring to see an increasing number of publications on learner contributions to materials evalua-
tion, adaptation, and development (Edwards and Burns 2016; Jolly and Bolitho 2011; McGrath
2013). (See also Choi and Nunan this volume.)
In the cases of Jolly and Bolitho (2011) and Edwards and Burns (2016), the distinction
between materials development and adaptation seems to be blurring in the sense that mate-
rials development involves feedback and adaptation within a materials development cycle.
The digitalisation of materials development could facilitate such incorporation of adapta-
tion in materials development. Indeed, the interactivity that technology brings and its effect
on materials adaptation are an interesting area for investigation, though the availability of
digital devices and expertise in using them could create a digital divide between those who
have and those who have not.
Conclusion
Our ultimate pursuit should be to provide language learners with the most effective lan-
guage learning experience possible. Adaptation is a way of ensuring such an endeavour
providing that we accept that:
286
·· adaptation is an inevitable and necessary procedure to ensure a match between materi-

als and learners;
·· it can improve coherence between curriculum development, materials development,
assessment, and teacher education;
·· to effectively adapt materials, teachers need support, encouragement, and guidance;
·· pre- and in-service teacher education would benefit from an experiential materials
evaluation, adaptation, and development component in which teachers are helped to
become reflective teachers, researchers, and materials developers.
Further reading
Development for Language Learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Chapter 4: Materials
Adaptation.
This chapter offers a comprehensive discussion of materials adaptation in relation to theory,
principles, and procedures.
Tomlinson, B., 2015. Challenging teachers to use their coursebook creatively. In Maley, A. and
Peachey, N., eds. Creativity in the language classroom. London: British Council.
This chapter, in a freely downloadable book, presents ideas for adaptation through creative use of
existing coursebooks.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., 2021. SLA Applied: Connecting Theory and Practice. Cambridge:
This book provides concise summaries of current SLA thinking and connects theory to curriculum,
teacher development, and materials development including adaptation.
Related topics
The analysis and evaluation of language teaching materials, learner contributions to materi-
als in language teaching.
References
Abdel Latif, M.M.A., 2017. Teaching grammar using inductive and communicative materials:
Exploring Egyptian EFL teachers' practice and beliefs. In Masuhara, M., Mishan, F. and Tomlinson,
B., eds. Practice and Theory for Materials Development in L2 Learning. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Al-Busaidi, S. and Tindle, K., 2010. Evaluating the impact of in-house materials on language learning.
Amrani, F., 2011. The process of evaluation: A publisher's view. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
Bacha, N., Ghosn, I. and McBeath, N., 2008. The textbook, the teacher and the learner: A middle
east perspective. In Tomlinson, B., ed. English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review.
London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
University Press.
Bolster, A., 2014. Materials adaptation of EAP materials by experienced teachers (Part I). Folio,
16/1:16–22.
Bolster, A., 2015. Materials adaptation of EAP materials by experienced teachers (Part II). Folio,
16/2:16–21.
287
Hitomi Masuhara
Bosompem, E.G., 2014. Materials adaptation in Ghana. In Garton, S. and Graves, K., eds. International
Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Candlin, C.N. and Breen, M.P., 1979. Evaluating and designing language teaching materials. Lancaster
Practical Papers in English Language Education, 2:172–216.
Cunningsworth, A. 1984 Evaluating and selecting EFL Teaching Materials. London: Heinemann.
Edwards, E. and Burns, A., 2016 Action research to support teachers’ classroom materials development.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10/2:106–120.
Garton, S. and Graves, K., eds., 2014. International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Graddol, D., 2006. English Next: Why Global English May Mean the End of ‘English as a Foreign
Language’. London: British Council.
Grammatosi, F. and Harwood, N., 2014. An experienced teacher's use of the textbook on an academic
English Course: A case study. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content,
Graves, K. and Garton, S., 2014. Materials in ELT: Looking ahead. In Garton, S. and Graves, K., eds.
International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guerrettaz, A.M. and Johnston, B., 2013. Materials in the classroom ecology. Modern Language
Journal, 97/3:779–796.
Harmer, J., 2001. Coursebooks: A human, cultural and linguistic disaster. Modern English Teacher,
10/3:5–10.
Harwood, N., 2014. Content, consumption, and production: Three levels of textbook research. In
Harwood, N., ed. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production.
Jolly, D. and Bolitho, R., 2011. A framework for materials writing. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
Kern, N., 2013. Blended learning: Podcasts for taxi drivers. In Tomlinson, B. and Whittaker, C., eds.
Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course Design and Implementation. London:
British Council.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 2012. Individual identity, cultural globalization, and teaching English as an
international language: The case for an epistemic break. In Alsagoff, L., McKay, S.L., Hu, G. and
Renandya, W.A., eds. Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language.
London and New York: Routledge.
Loh, J. and Renandya, W.A., 2015. Exploring adaptations of materials and methods: A case from
Singapore. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 4/2:93–111.
Long, M.H., 2005. Methodological issues. In Long, M.H., ed. Second Language Needs Analysis.
Madsen, H.S. and Bowen, D.J., 1978. Adaptation in Language Teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Masuhara, H., 2006. Materials as a teacher development tool. In Mukundan, J., ed. Readings on ELT
Materials II. Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia.
Masuhara, H., Mishan, F. and Tomlinson, B., eds., 2017. Practice and Theory for Materials
Development in L2 Learning. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
McDonough, J., Shaw, C. and Masuhara, H., 2013. Materials and methods in ELT. 3rd ed. Chichester:
Wiley.
McGrath, I., 2013. Teaching Materials and the Roles of EFL/ESL Teachers. London: Bloomsbury.
Menken, K., 2008. English Learners Left Behind: Standardized Testing as Language Policy. Clevedon:
288
Mishan, F., 2017. Authenticity 2.0: Reconceptualising authenticity in the digital era. In Maley, A. and
Tomlinson, B., eds. Authenticity in Materials Development for Language Learning. Newcastle
Press.
Mukundan, J., 2008. Agendas of the state in developing world English language textbooks. Folio,
12/2:17–19.
Ottley, K., 2016. Why one-size-fits-all is not fit for purpose. In Tomlinson, B., ed. SLA Research and
Materials Development for Language Learning. Oxon: Routledge.
Pennycook, A., 2010. The future of Englishes: One, many or none? In Kirkpatrick, A., ed. The
Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. Oxon: Routledge.
Saraceni, C., 2013. Adapting courses: A personal view. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing Materials for
Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury.
Saraceni, M., 2015. World Englishes: A Critical Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Shawer, S.F., 2010. Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-
developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education,
26:173–184.
Tasseron, M., 2017. How teachers use Global ELT coursebooks. In Masuhara, H., Mishan, F. and
Tomlinson, B., eds. Practice and Theory for Materials Development in L2 Learning. Newcastle
Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Thomas, M. and Reinders, H., 2015. Contemporary Task-based Language Teaching in Asia. London
and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
45/2:143–179.
Tomlinson, B., 2015. Challenging teachers to use their coursebook creatively. In Maley, A. and
Peachey, N., eds. Creativity in the Language Classroom. London: British Council.
Tomlinson, B., 2017. Making typical coursebook activities more beneficial for the learner. In Bao,
D., ed. Creative Concerns in ELT Materials Development: Looking Beyond the Current Design.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Development for Language Learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., 2021. SLA Applied: Connecting Theory and Practice. Cambridge:
Tomlinson, B. and Whittaker, C., eds., 2013. Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course
Design and Implementation. London: British Council.
Tsui, A.B.M., 2003. Understanding Expertise in Teaching: Case Studies of Second Language Teachers.
Ur, P., 2015. Using the coursebook: A teacher's perspective. In The European Journal of Applied
Linguistics and TEFL, 4/2:5–17.
Willis, D. and Willis, J., 2007. Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Young, J., 2000 Comment: Who needs analysis? ELT Journal, 54/1:72.
Zacharias, N.T., 2005. Teachers' Beliefs about Internationally-Published Materials: A Survey of
Tertiary English Teachers in Indonesia. RELC Journal, 36/1:23–37.
Zheng, X. and Borg, S., 2014. Task-based learning and teaching in China: Secondary school teachers’
beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 18/2:205–221.
289
Part 6
Materials for specific contexts

20
Developing a primary coursebook
series for Turkey
Seyit Gok
Introduction
Most countries have recently begun to introduce English at primary and pre-primary levels
as part of their education policy (see Enever 2011). One reason for this is that English has
become more established as the lingua franca in the 21st century under the influence of
swift technological advances and globalisation. Furthermore, the inherent value of learn-
ing a foreign language in childhood, the common belief that ‘younger is better,’ and the
significance of the ability to communicate in English for the purpose of exploiting global
economic opportunities are also among the main motivations of the policy-makers’ decision
to introduce foreign language teaching at younger ages in most countries across the world
(Arnold and Rixon 2008; Cameron 2001; Enever 2011; Garton and Copland 2019). The
global expansion of teaching English to young learners (TEYL) has also inevitably resulted
in a rapid increase in the number and variety of materials for young learners (YLs) across
the world.
This momentum in TEYL has also been reflected in the academic world and, as a conse-
quence, contributions, which provide theoretical, pedagogical, and empirical perspectives,
have grown in recent years (e.g. Bland 2015; Copland and Garton 2014; Copland et al.
2014; Garton and Copland 2019; Garton and Graves 2014a, 2014b; Nunan 2011; Pinter
2017; Rich 2014; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). However, while it is acknowledged that
materials design and development for YLs is a distinctive area in many respects (Tomlinson
2015; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018), empirical studies specifically focused on YL mate-
rials remain thin on the ground. To the best knowledge of the author, there are only a few
studies focusing on YL materials in the Turkish context, and the ones available mostly deal
with the evaluation of coursebooks using surveys or checklists (Kirkgoz 2009; Tok 2010)
rather than reporting on their production, in-use evaluation, and consumption.
The aim of this chapter is to discuss the critical issues and topics in materials design and
development (MDD) for YLs in light of a local, primary coursebook development project
in Turkey reported in Gok (2019). This chapter also aims to look at salient implications of
recent research into materials development for YLs and offer recommendations for practice
as well as suggestions for future directions in the MDD field.
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-26 293

Seyit Gok
‘Young learners,’ defined in the broadest sense of the term in the field of ELT, refers to
any learners under the age of 18. It is acknowledged however that huge differences exist
between age groups within such a broad age range. In order to avoid ambiguity and over-
generalisations in the field, it seems necessary to break this broad category down into more
specific age groups based on children’s cognitive, physical, psychological, social, and emo-
tional development (Read 2016). A variety of terms describing children of different age
groups are available in the literature; nonetheless, a common terminology must be adopted
for the sake of precision and consistency. Most recently, in an attempt to seek consensus
in precise global descriptors in light of the terms commonly used in the ELT profession
and educational systems, Ellis (2014) introduces terms for specific age ranges of children.
Following his descriptors, this chapter is concerned with ‘primary’ English language teach-
ing (PELT), involving learners aged between 6 and 11.
Context
English has been taught from fourth grade (age nine/ten) onwards as the compulsory foreign
language in state schools in Turkey since the Education Reform in 1997. However, owing
to the recent changes to the Turkish education system in 2012, which entail a transition
from the ‘8+4’ (8 years of primary education + 4 years of secondary education) educational
model to the new ‘4+4+4’ (4 years of primary education, first level + 4 years of primary
education, second level + 4 years of secondary education) system, English instruction has
been implemented from the second grade (6 to 6½ years of age) onwards in state schools
since 2013 (see Kirkgoz et al. 2016). English lessons in state schools fluctuate between
two to four hours per week, depending on the age group and resources. In private schools,
which currently constitute almost 9% of the whole education sector, in contrast, English
has been taught intensively from the ages of five or six for a long time. Unlike the state
schools, most private schools in Turkey have always had 6 to 20 hours of English lessons
per week depending on the language policy and resources of the school. Nevertheless, up
until 2013, there had been neither a curriculum nor materials developed for pupils under ten
years old by the Turkish Ministry of Education; private schools, therefore, had no choice
but to design their own curriculum and use materials created mainly by big international
publishers. Although a new curriculum has recently been developed for children under ten
by the Ministry of Education, due to the huge difference in the weekly English lesson hours
between state and private schools, private schools seem to maintain their own curriculum
and continue choosing international materials accordingly or develop their own materials.
This chapter focuses on the development of a coursebook series specifically created
for a chain of over 200 private primary schools in Turkey, and through this lens, explores
issues related to materials development for young learners more generally. To summarise,
the coursebooks for primary level had always been a problem for these schools. The materi-
als chosen in the past did not fit the needs, wants, interests, and cultural values of both the
teachers and students. In addition, the coursebooks chosen did not correspond to the hours
scheduled for English lessons each week, and they, therefore, needed to be supplemented
with additional materials, which increased costs for parents. As a result, the materials cho-
sen in the past were often only used for a year on a trial-and-error basis in an attempt to
find suitable materials for this teaching context, which gave the impression of failure to the
students, their parents, and the school administrators as well as the teachers.
After lengthy negotiations, the coursebook project commenced in 2006. A local pub-
lishing house which was in search of a breakthrough opportunity agreed to undertake the
294
A primary coursebook series for Turkey
project. The publishing house then hired two British authors, who had previously created
an award-winning coursebook series for YLs but were not based in Turkey. After a long and
meticulous needs analysis period, the project team started creating the series. In 2009, the
first level was launched, Levels 2 and 3 followed in 2010, and the project was completed in
2011 with the creation of Levels 4 and 5.
The coursebook project considered here is unique to the Turkish context in the way it
was developed, and this particularly attracted the author’s attention initially to investigate
it as part of his doctoral research (see Gok 2019). Indeed, it is important to report on this
local coursebook series as there are no other studies to the author’s knowledge that helped
document this process.

Local vs. global materials: the opportunities local projects can offer
Localised versions of successful, global ELT materials, which are known as ‘glocal materials,’
and materials locally developed for a specific audience have recently mushroomed around the
world to address local needs more satisfactorily and create materials that are more culturally
appropriate (see Buchanan and Norton, this volume). The rationale behind those localised
projects is that materials writing can be more productive and effective when focused on a par-
ticular audience (Jolly and Bolitho 2011). Gok (2019) revealed that, when planned carefully
and systematically, local projects are likely to provide a number of opportunities that global
projects fail to offer. In the coursebook project he studied, for example, the authors did not
live in Turkey, but they were involved in almost all crucial stages of the design and develop-
ment process. They acquired micro-level knowledge and cognisance through frequent school
visits, classroom observations, and meetings with the end users, in addition to conducting
questionnaires in the target context. Such familiarisation and direct involvement appear cru-
cial because they allow authors to interpret feedback more accurately and thus contribute
to the degree of suitability and effectiveness of the series in the target context. Timmis’s
(2014:259) conclusion, based on his own frustrating experiences writing for a context that he
did not know well, also testifies to this: ‘there is no real substitute for going to the place your-
self to assess the context.’ Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) similarly note that the less distant
the producers and users are geographically, culturally, and linguistically, the more likely the
congruence between the materials and the target users’ needs and wants. Though such an
approach might yield a diverse range of feedback and impose constraints on an author, forc-
ing her to make compromises in terms of her ideas and ambitions at times, materials seem to
benefit from the process to a great extent in the end, especially when compared to ‘armchair
writing,’ where writers are producing materials in a location remote from the end users.
Needs analysis and involving children in the development process

There are a number of ways of collecting data when conducting needs analysis. Jordan
(1997:38) suggests there is no single approach and it will mostly depend on time, budget,
and the resources available. The needs analysis stage of the coursebook project Gok (2019)
examined was found to be particularly thorough, involving a range of tools for data collec-
tion, such as classroom visits by the authors and editors, lessons taught by the authors, meet-
ings with administrators and teachers, seminars with teachers, questionnaires with teachers
and students, and countless e-mail exchanges.
295
Seyit Gok
It is certainly important to consult various stakeholders’ views in a coursebook develop-

ment project; however, teachers and learners are the most critical ones of all. Involving
children in his research and seeing that they are capable of making reasonable comments on
various aspects of the coursebook materials and articulating their needs and wants clearly
despite their young age, Gok (2019) argues that direct access to children’s perspectives,
e.g. through the use of questionnaires and focus-group interviews during a coursebook
development process, can add a further dimension to the appropriate shaping of course-
book materials by triangulating with other stakeholders’ perspectives. This is in line with
Pinter and Zandian’s (2014:66) argument that ‘children are capable of providing useful and
reliable insights into their own lives, and they can be resourceful and knowledgeable, espe-
cially concerning their own experiences.’ It can, therefore, be concluded that coursebooks
for YLs can benefit immensely if children are also involved in the development process.
Such ‘child-negotiated and co-constructed coursebooks’ can enable developers to take into
account children’s perspectives in their writing, which will surely maximise effectiveness
and suitability. For example, a group of YL representatives could be involved in every stage
of a coursebook development process.
What really shapes materials

Any author must be equipped with a good understanding of recent approaches and research
in the field of applied linguistics so that they can adopt a more principled approach in their
writing (Dubin 1995; Richards 2006; Timmis 2014). Furthermore, coursebook authors need
to have relevant teaching experience to have first-hand awareness of the realities of the
classroom. This seems essential because an author’s role is to operationalise learning theory
for the classroom. However, Gok’s (2019) study shows that the development of a course-
book series is a highly complex process in which various other factors are at work (see
Figure 20.1).
For example, Gok (2019) demonstrates that, in addition to the recent research and
authors’ knowledge, experience, and beliefs, the results of the needs analysis and piloting
Figure 20.1 The factors that shaped the locally developed coursebook series (Gok 2019).
296
also contributed significantly to the shaping of the end product. Consequently, the authors
occasionally compromised their beliefs, as they had to respect the contextual and cultural
realities.
Gok’s (2019) study also indicates that constant feedback throughout the production pro-
cess, especially during the piloting stage, not only ensures appropriate fine-tuning of the
course materials, but also helps avoid serious mistakes prior to publication. For example, a
draft syllabus was presented to teachers for their comments, as a result of which, the writing
strand of the syllabus, an important issue for the context, was revised early in the project. On
another occasion, particular content, in this case the inclusion of multiplication in the early
units of Level 1 of the coursebook series, was revised as a result of the teachers’ immedi-
ate feedback. This is clearly an advantage of involving teachers in content selection and
syllabus design. The issue concerning the writing syllabus also showed the importance of
understanding the local educational culture, and required the authors to adjust their personal
beliefs that it was too late to start learning how to write after the first term of Year 1 (age
six or seven). In global materials usually, however, every choice made by an author, editor,
or illustrator is often influenced by their own beliefs and culture (Nelson 1995) and for this
reason may not fit each unique educational context.
Deciding on content and syllabus design

YLs’ schematic (both content and textual) knowledge is believed to be less developed com-
pared to older learners (Pinter 2017). Their schemata are generally constructed in childhood
in their native language culture (Cameron 2001). Thus, ‘unfamiliar tasks, unfamiliar con-
texts, and unfamiliar adults can cause children anxiety and, as a result they may perform
well below their true ability or not respond at all to the questions or tasks’ (Pinter 2017:9).
Indeed, there is evidence in Gok’s (2019) study that familiar content not only motivates
children but also helps them make connections with their own world and, in turn, develop
ownership of the coursebook and target language. Student reactions during classroom
observations Gok (2019) conducted also testified to the fact that familiar content increases
their participation in lessons.
Teaching grammar to YLs is an issue which provokes some controversy in the litera-
ture, e.g. how to explain grammar rules and how to make grammar appealing to children.
It is claimed that ‘[w]hile focus on form is one useful way of making language features
salient, an explicit focus on form is not the most efficient means for most children of pri-
mary-school age’ (Bland 2015:3); thus, meaning must come first (Cameron 2001; Hughes
2010; Tomlinson 2015). It is suggested that a grammar focus should emerge from meaning-
focused input (Pinter 2017). Because children ‘do not have the same access as older learners
to metalanguage that teachers can use to explain about grammar or discourse’ (Cameron
2001:1), explaining linguistic features explicitly can be challenging and tedious for YLs.
Indeed, children seem to pay attention to what language says, not how it works (Littlejohn
2016). Consequently, as Littlejohn (2016) contends, two main ingredients are vital for a
child’s effective language development: rich (natural) exposure and (meaningful) interac-
tion. It could be argued that ‘younger is better if all the essential ingredients are available’
(Littlejohn 2016:32).
On the other hand, focusing on form and noticing some linguistic features seem to be
necessary when teaching YLs (Cameron 2001), especially when they are aged ten and
upwards – ’when learners’ cognitive capabilities make it increasingly possible for them
297
Seyit Gok
to think about language in more abstract and explicit ways’ (Puchta 2019:204). Cameron
(2001) recommends, however, that this should still be realised through meaningful activities
requiring children’s active engagement. She notes, for example, that a teacher will need to
identify the language patterns in the stories, songs, and tasks, and use a variety of techniques
to help children notice them and to provide meaningful practice. She underlines, however,
that this will require specialised knowledge, expertise, and skills for a teacher.
Taking into account the cognitive and psychological changes in children from 6 to 11, the
authors of the coursebook series that Gok (2019) examined adopted an evolving methodology
throughout the series; that is, they began with a story-based approach in the lower levels with
little or no explicit linguistic focus and then gradually moved towards a topic-based approach
by adding more formal study of language as the levels went up. Gok’s (2019) analysis of
the coursebook series using Littlejohn’s (2011) framework revealed that learning by doing
was one of the key principles of the coursebook series, as it mostly consisted of meaning-
focused, communicative activities and tasks. Another critical topic related to syllabus design
for primary language teaching is that vocabulary and structures need to be recycled and
revised systematically to ensure repeated and meaningful exposure to language (Cameron
2001; Ghosn 2019; Nordlund 2016; Pinter 2017; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). However,
it may be challenging to organise the scope and sequence of linguistic features across the
units of a coursebook within a meaning-based, holistic syllabus framework, especially when
aiming for the systematic recycling of vocabulary and structures (Arnold and Rixon 2008).
This is because linguistic features might only emerge once suitable texts have been selected.
This indicates that ‘[i]t can be difficult to ensure that language that fits particularly well with
one topic area is not lost sight of as other topics come into play’ (Arnold and Rixon 2008:43).
Implications and challenges for material development

The importance of recent research and approaches
As previously noted, coursebooks for YLs, and learners more generally, are likely to be
more effective if informed by theoretical principles based on research (Tomlinson 2015;
Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). Hence, it is important to examine YL materials to ascertain
whether they match with what is known about children’s characteristics, language learn-
ing, memory, and motivation (Ghosn 2013). Reviewing the literature on TEYLs, it can be
concluded that, in order to write developmentally appropriate materials for YLs, developers
must initially be aware of:
·· the similarities and differences between children’s and adults’ language learning;
·· theories of child development;
·· first and second language acquisition and learning processes in childhood;
·· the cognitive, psychological, social, and emotional development of different age groups
in childhood.
However, as discussed earlier, being armed with this knowledge alone would not help develop
effective and appropriate YL materials, as there exist other factors such as contextual realities.
The criticality of using appropriate content

As Ghosn (2019) illustrates using a dialogue, irrelevant and unfamiliar content in global
YL coursebooks might bring about unintended results inside the classroom. By contrast,
298
locally developed materials are likely to present more appropriate, relevant, and meaningful
content, which seems essential for children when their cognitive development and psycho-
social needs are considered. There is evidence in Gok’s (2019) study, for example, that
familiar and culturally appropriate content appears to stimulate children’s schemata, put
them at ease, and encourage them to take risks, and gives them the message that learning
English is not something completely independent of their culture, which further increases
their motivation to learn the target language.
In addition to familiar and culturally appropriate content, the suitability of the con-
tent for the learners’ cognitive and proficiency levels must also be considered. Gok
(2019) observes that, whenever content beyond the cognitive and proficiency level of
the children is introduced, children feel discouraged and lose concentration. When this
happens frequently, it may even cause the children to lose their motivation to learn
English. However, it is almost impossible to develop a coursebook which is com-
pletely relevant to the cognitive and proficiency levels of every learner in a particular
context, even if the book has been specifically developed for them. As both teachers
and children in Gok’s study (2019) emphasise, the teacher’s role is critical in mak-
ing the materials accessible and providing fine-tuning and ‘scaffolding’ (Wood et al.
1976:90), when appropriate. In other words, the teacher must ensure comprehensible
input (Krashen 1982). Linse (2005) suggests several ways of making input meaningful
for YLs, e.g. providing context, building schema, providing a variety of input, ensur-
ing rich classroom language, modelling instructions, supporting language with actions.
Indeed, research shows that teachers endeavour to fulfil this role, either consciously
or tacitly, by applying both pre-planned and spontaneous adaptations (see Gok 2019).
Differentiation nevertheless seems to be one of the greatest challenges that teachers
face in teaching YLs across the world. It, therefore, seems crucial to train teachers how
to deal with mixed-ability classes during their initial primary teacher education course
(Copland et al. 2014). From the materials development perspective, it might be an effec-
tive solution to provide teachers with multilevel materials, such as graded e-versions
of the same material. Indeed, multilevel materials have the potential to offer learners
the choice of working at their own level while achieving the same learning objectives
(Naungpolmak 2014). Even though novice teachers might find them difficult to manage
in the first place, they still might not only provide support for teachers but also signifi-
cantly contribute to student learning.
The influence of technology

Both global and local YL materials have continued to evolve in parallel with the develop-
ments in ICT over the last two decades. For example, a variety of digital components such
as interactive whiteboard (IWB) tools, learning management systems (LMS), mobile phone
applications, and online resources have been added to the core components (student’s book,
practice book, and teacher’s book) and supplementary components (audio CDs, flashcards,
storyboard cards, etc.). Moreover, the way teachers use certain coursebook materials has
also evolved in line with the rise of digitalisation. For example, hardcopy visual components
such as flashcards and storyboard cards used to be one of the most desired elements of les-
sons with YLs in the recent past; however, Gok (2019) reveals that teachers either use them
for other purposes such as classroom decorations or never use them. Gok (2019) found that
many teachers draw upon the IWB tools, which contain the digital forms of all the course-
book components, including audios and animation videos.
299
Seyit Gok

The importance of teacher training
When developing a primary coursebook series, it is important that the methodological prin-
ciples underpinning the materials are transparent to their users (Arnold and Rixon 2008)
and that teachers receive training, support, and guidance regarding how to use them. This
is because ‘[w]ithout the provision of suitable teacher training, young learner teachers may
inadvertently contribute to the development of negative attitudes towards language learning
through the provision of impoverished learning experiences’ (Rich 2014:7). It is indeed cru-
cial for young learners to have positive experiences when they first start learning English to
sustain their motivation. Therefore, training and guidance should be ensured through vari-
ous channels such as teacher’s books and technological tools, e.g. online forums, training
courses, webinars, video-conferences, and video-recorded demo lessons. These might not
only help teachers develop professionally but also use the course materials appropriately.
Meaning and activity-based learning

Engaging children in meaningful activities and tasks rather than exposing them to explicit
grammar explanations is endorsed as the most suitable way of teaching YLs in the literature
(Cameron 2001; Nunan 2011; Pinter 2017; Puchta 2019; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018).
This is mainly because YLs, particularly the ones under the ages of nine and ten, are believed
to learn holistically: they tend to acquire the language as a ‘whole’ without analysing the
input (Cameron 2001, 2003; Ghosn 2016; Nunan 2011; Tomlinson 2015; Tomlinson and
Masuhara 2017). This suggests that they are likely to benefit from meaning-based activities
rather than explicit, formal instruction. Bourke (2006:280) claims, for example, that ‘in their
world there are no tenses, nouns, or adjectives; there are no schemas labelled “grammar”,
“lexis”, “phonology”, or “discourse”.’ Tomlinson (2015:86) thus argues that ‘imposing a
too heavy or too analytical cognitive load on them could not only impede their cognitive
development but also inhibit affective engagement and prevent L2 acquisition.’ Indeed, the
use of discourse and formulaic language offers more beneficial approaches to developing
materials for YLs (Arnold and Rixon 2008; Bland 2015; Cameron 2003). Some useful ways
of exposing YLs to such language are stories, drama, songs, chants, cartoons, and poetry,
which are already widely used in coursebooks for YLs (Ghosn 2016; Hughes 2013). Such
components are also helpful for engaging children affectively, which is believed to be sig-
nificant for YLs because ‘without affective engagement there is no chance of effective and
durable acquisition’ (Tomlinson 2015:86). Tomlinson (2015) argues, however, that it is nec-
essary for those components to provide sufficient exposure to language in use in addition to
affective engagement to facilitate acquisition.
As a consequence, a meaning-oriented approach needs to be adopted and YL materi-
als need to be supported with visuals and audio visuals to make things as comprehensible
as possible. A topic-based approach integrated with a story-based approach seems to be a
powerful way of exposing children to meaningful language input. The data in Gok’s (2019)
study also suggests that materials which promote activity-based learning, in which children
learn by doing, are of particular value.
Stories and story-based approaches in YL materials

The power of stories for YLs has been frequently emphasised in the literature on TEYL (see
Arnold and Rixon 2008; Cameron 2001; Ghosn 2013; Nunan 2011; Pinter 2017; Read 2008;
300
Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). For example, Pinter (2017:99) argues that ‘[s]tories are an
excellent vehicle for teaching vocabulary and grammar together in a holistic way.’ Given the
significance of stories for YLs, Ghosn (2013:69) suggests that ‘illustrated stories can be used
as a starting point to develop motivating thematic units that integrate all four skills while also
fostering children’s cognitive development.’ Whilst a story-based approach may yield positive
results, Gok (2019:211) notes that the following issues also need to be taken into consideration:
·· stories can be demotivating if the texts are lengthy and above the level of children;
·· a story-based approach may not work effectively if the teacher does not have the knowl-
edge and skills to apply it appropriately. For example, some teachers attempt to analyse
the texts of the stories to teach the target structures and vocabulary, which goes against
the principles of a holistic approach;
·· starting a unit with a story might be effective (Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018), but if
a complete unit is built upon a story which does not appeal to the children, the teacher
may face challenges using the materials;
·· stories are usually culture-bound and may require background information. If this
information is missing, both the teacher and children are likely to face difficulties;
·· it is almost impossible to use the original version of authentic stories in a coursebook
for YLs because of their length and language difficulty. Thus, they have to be abridged
and simplified. However, if this process is not handled carefully, stories may end up
being meaningless, boring, and ineffective.
Improving the effectiveness of vocabulary in YL materials

There are two points that might help further improve the vocabulary content of a coursebook
and make it more systematic. First, because familiar content facilitates YLs’ acquisition, it
might be beneficial to introduce lexical items that the children already know in their own
language. This resonates with Nunan’s (2011:48) argument that ‘[c]hildren should not be
expected to learn things in a second language that they have not yet learned to do in their
first language.’ A cross-curricular approach, which takes into account the content of the pri-
mary school curriculum, might be helpful to ensure that topics children are studying in their
L1 are also encountered in the English language syllabus. Such an approach is believed to
be advantageous in the sense that students can notice the relevance of what they are doing
(Maley 2011). Second, a coursebook with a cyclical syllabus is more likely to be effec-
tive in terms of language acquisition, especially for YLs, as their attention span is limited,
and they often learn quickly but also forget easily. Indeed, studies have shown that the
amount and frequency of encounters with a specific lexical item matter immensely in terms
of language acquisition. Recent research on vocabulary acquisition, for example, suggests
that ‘the greater the number of repetitions, the more likely learning is to occur’ (Webb and
Nation 2017:64). Furthermore, ‘[t]o acquire breadth and depth as well as both receptive and
productive knowledge of words and to firmly anchor them in long-term memory, vocabu-
lary items need to be used and encountered in many different contexts’ (Nordlund 2016:50).
This highlights the importance of systematic recycling of grammar and vocabulary items in
YL coursebooks to yield more effective learning outcomes.
It may, however, be challenging for an author to produce a cyclical syllabus, after choos-
ing to adopt process-based approaches such as topic-based, content-based, and task-based,
in which the grammar and vocabulary items emerge naturally and learning is usually
301
Seyit Gok
incidental. This is reported as one of the technical difficulties in developing a framework

using meaning-based approaches in the literature (Arnold and Rixon 2008). Another concern
is that cyclical gradation can bring about coursebooks that are excessively long (Cameron
2001). It can therefore be concluded that teachers of YLs must be aware of the power of rep-
etition and revision; even if a coursebook fails to provide enough recycling, they should take
the responsibility to ensure systematic repetition inside their classrooms (Nordlund 2016).
Incidental vocabulary learning

Nordlund (2016:49) criticises the fact that ‘vocabulary included in textbooks seems to be
haphazard and rather dependent on the personal preferences of the writer(s).’ Gok (2019)
finds, however, that, though the coursebook series he examined was not based on predeter-
mined lexical sets, nor did it primarily aim to teach vocabulary overtly and systematically,
rich vocabulary acquisition was one of the positive outcomes reported by teachers. This
suggests that contextualised and incidental presentation of language also has the potential
to expand children’s vocabulary knowledge with the proviso that the materials are closely
related to the children’s world and suitable for their cognitive and proficiency levels.
Teacher’s role
The effectiveness of coursebook materials often depends on how a teacher mediates the materi-
als for her students: ‘As the orchestrators of classroom practice, teachers play a critical role in
how materials are used, which, in turn, depends on the teacher’s understanding of and skill in
using them’ (Garton and Graves 2014a:273). They therefore need to know how to adapt course-
book materials to address their students’ needs, interests, and wants satisfactorily. According to
Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018:110), there is insufficient training and research in this area.
In addition, in the case of TEYL, teachers must be aware of the characteristics of differ-
ent age groups. Due to their low level of proficiency and cognitive capacities, YLs tend to
be dependent on their teachers, and teachers, therefore, have to play more active roles in
mediating coursebook materials for children. They must have a large repertoire of activities
and techniques and benefit from various resources to supplement materials whenever neces-
sary. Gok (2019) highlights the significance of teachers’ ability to interpret feedback from
students about the materials accurately and act accordingly. Consequently, it is so true that
‘[a]t the heart of most successful learning in a school situation are teachers professionally
trained and experienced to provide, at a minimum, appropriate input, structured learning
opportunities and feedback that supports learning’ (Rixon 2015:40).
Future directions
There has been a noticeable growth in published research on language teaching and learning
materials in recent years; however, there are relatively fewer studies focused on materials
for YLs compared to the pedagogy of TEYL. As Garton, Copland, and Burns (2011:17)
argue ‘materials development and their use should become a key area for research and
development’ in the field of YLs. For example, we need further insights into how YL mate-
rials are developed and what factors and principles inform developers to shape them in dif-
ferent contexts, whether local or global, around the world. Also, analysis and evaluation of
materials for YLs from the perspectives of teachers and students might provide evidence for
302
what components are found suitable and effective and why. In addition, studies providing
insights into how research findings and theories, such as theories of child development and
second language acquisition, are operationalised in terms of classroom materials for YLs,
and how effective they are in practice would make an invaluable contribution. Such stud-
ies would surely yield important implications for publishers, materials developers, teacher
educators and trainers, and teachers working with YLs.
More importantly, ‘not many articles or books have been written on how to make the most
effective use of materials’ (Tomlinson 2012:156). It might thus be extremely informative to
explore in depth how materials for YLs are used by teachers and students in various contexts and
why. As Harwood (2014) points out, the majority of coursebook consumption inquiries focus on
teachers, but learners’ consumption of materials is given almost no attention, even though they
are greater in number and their involvement can make an invaluable contribution to research.
For example, Gok’s (2019) study, which explores the interaction between students and mate-
rials, provided invaluable insights from primary learners. Further studies which explore how
coursebook materials are used by students and how they respond to and re-interpret them would
address a huge gap as student voice is currently missing in the MDD literature.
Last but not least, as Harwood (2014) argues, it is important to investigate coursebooks
at three different levels of production, content, and consumption (see Figure 20.2). The field
of materials development for YLs would benefit considerably as a result of the coursebook
investigations in light of his framework.
Conclusion
This chapter highlights current issues related to the development of materials for YLs and
discusses them critically in relation to recent research in the field. It shows that the develop-
ment of a coursebook series for YLs is a highly complex and demanding process involving
Figure 20.2 A framework for coursebook investigations (adapted from Harwood 2014).
303
Seyit Gok
various stages and factors. It also emphasises the criticality of involving children in every
stage of the development process no matter how young they may be. It further suggests
that it is beneficial to include content that is familiar and culturally appropriate for YLs.
The most important lesson is that giving authors the freedom to innovate, while involving
them in every stage of the process and ensuring their direct contact with the end users, is
beneficial for the development of appropriate and effective materials for a specific context.
Following such an approach, locally developed coursebooks can provide a viable alternative
to global and glocal coursebooks because of the fact that local projects allow closer com-
munication and rapport between their audience and developers.
Further reading
Ghosn, I-K., 2019. Materials for early language learning. In Garton, S. and Copland, F., eds. The
Routledge Handbook of Teaching English to Young Learners. London and New York: Routledge.
This chapter provides a review of a variety of materials for young learners and inquires into what
‘good’ instructional materials and practices for TEYL are. It also focuses on the issue of how YL
materials are actually used in the classroom.
Tomlinson, B., 2015. Developing principled materials for young learners of English as a foreign
language. In Bland, J., ed. Teaching English to Young Learners: Critical Issues in Language
Teaching with 3–12 Year Olds. London: Bloomsbury.
This chapter argues for the significance of principled materials development through both local
and universal criteria. It also suggests some key young-learner criteria for materials development and
evaluation. Finally, it provides examples and details of principled young-learner materials in action
across the world.
Development for Language Learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Chapter 10: Developing Materials for
Young Learners.
This chapter reviews the literature specifically focused on materials development for young
learners. It mainly draws on recent research and discusses the possible implications. It further offers
recommendations for developing and using materials for young learners.
Related topics
Why do we need coursebooks?, Research in materials development: what, how, and why,
materials for teaching grammar, learner contributions to materials in language teaching.
References
Arnold, W. and Rixon, S., 2008. Materials for teaching English to young learners. In Tomlinson, B.,
ed. English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review. London: Continuum.
Bland, J., 2015. Teaching English to Young Learners: Critical Issues in Language Teaching with 3–12
Year Olds. London: Bloomsbury.
Bourke, J., 2006. Designing a topic-based syllabus for young learners. ELT Journal, 60/3:279–286.
Cameron, L., 2001. Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, L., 2003. Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children. ELT journal,
57/2:105–112.
Copland, F. and Garton, S., 2014. Key themes and future directions in teaching English to young
learners: Introduction to the special issue. ELT Journal, 68/3:223–230.
Copland, F., Garton, S. and Burns, A., 2014. Challenges in teaching English to young learners: Global
perspectives and local realities. TESOL Quarterly, 48/4:738–762.
304
Dubin, F., 1995. The craft of materials writing. In Byrd, P., ed. Material Writer’s Guide. Boston, MA:
Heinle and Heinle.
Ellis, G., 2014. Young learners: Clarifying our terms. ELT Journal 68/1:75–78.
Enever, J., 2011. ELLiE: Early Language Learning in Europe. London: The British Council.
Garton, S. and Copland, F., 2019. Introduction. In The Routledge Handbook of Teaching English to
Young Learners. London: Routledge.
Garton, S. and Graves, K., 2014a. Identifying a research agenda for language teaching materials. The
Modern Language Journal, 98/2:654–657.
Garton, S. and Graves, K., 2014b. International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Garton, S., Copland, F., and Burns, A., 2011. Investigating Global Practices in Teaching English to
Young Learners: A Project Report. British Council.
Ghosn, I-K., 2013. Language learning for young learners. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Applied Linguistics
and materials development. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Ghosn, I.-K., 2016. No place for coursebooks in the very young learner classroom. In Tomlinson,
B. ed. SLA Research and Materials Development for Language Learning. New York: Routledge.
Ghosn, I-K., 2019. Materials for early language learning. In Garton, S. and Copland, F., eds. The
Routledge Handbook of Teaching English to Young Learners. London and New York: Routledge.
Gok, S.O., 2019. How are materials actually used in classrooms? Towards a systematic evaluation
of a locally published coursebook series for young learners in Turkey. Unpublished PhD thesis,
Harwood, N., 2014. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production.
Hughes, A., 2010. Why should we make activities for young language learners meaningful and
purposeful? In Mishan, F. and Chambers, A., eds. Perspectives on Language Learning Materials
Development. Bern: Peter Lang.
Hughes, A., 2013. The teaching of reading in English for young learners: Some considerations and next
steps. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Applied Linguistics and Materials Development. London: Bloomsbury.
Development for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jordan, R.R., 1997. English for Academic Purposes: A Guide and Resource Book for Teachers.
Kirkgöz, Y., 2009. Evaluating the English textbooks for young learners of English at Turkish primary
education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1/1:79–83.
Kırkgöz, Y., Çelik, S. and Arıkan, A., 2016. Laying the theoretical and practical foundations for a
new elementary English curriculum in Turkey: A procedural analysis. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi,
24/3:1199–1212.
Krashen, S.D., 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Linse, C., 2005. Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Littlejohn, A., 2011. The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan horse. In
Tomlinson, B. ed., Materials Development in Language Teaching 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Littlejohn, A., 2016. How young learners learn language. IATEFL Young Learners & Teenagers SIG
Newsletter: C&TS Digital Special Pearl Anniversary Edition: Retrieved on 12 November 2021
from: http://www.andrewlittlejohn.net/website/art/arthome.html.
Maley, A., 2011. Squaring the circle: Reconciling materials as constraint with materials as
empowerment. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials Development for Language Teaching. 2nd ed.
Naungpolmak, A., 2014. Multilevel materials for multilevel learners. In Garton, S. and Graves, K.,
eds. International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nelson, G., 1995. Considering culture: Guideline for ESL/EFL textbook writers. In Byrd, P., ed.
Materials Writers’ Guide. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
305
Seyit Gok
Nordlund, M., 2016. EFL textbooks for young learners: A comparative analysis of vocabulary.
Education Inquiry, 7/1:47–68.
Nunan, D., 2011. Teaching English to Young Learners. Anaheim, CA: Anaheim University Press.
Pinter, A., 2017. Teaching Young Language Learners. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pinter, A. and Zandian, S., 2014. ‘I don't ever want to leave this room': Benefits of researching 'with'
children. ELT Journal, 68/1:64–74.
Puchta, H., 2019. Teaching grammar to young learners. In Garton, S. and Copland, F., eds.. The
Routledge Handbook of Teaching English to Young Learners. London: Routledge.
Read, C., 2008. Scaffolding children’s learning through story and drama. In CATS: children and
teenagers the newsletter of the young learner Special Interest Group. IATEFL 08/2:6-9.
Read, C., 2016. An ABC of changes in primary English language and teaching over the last 30
years. IATEFL Young Learners and Teenagers SIG Newsletter, C&TS Digital Pearl Anniversary
Edition:33–41.
Rich, S., 2014. International Perspectives on Teaching English to Young Learners. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Richards, J.C., 2006. Materials development and research: Making the connection. RELC Journal,
37/1:5–26.
Rixon, S., 2015. Primary English and critical issues: A worldwide perspective. In Bland, J., ed.
Teaching English to Young Learners. Critical Issues in Language Teaching with 3-12 year olds.
London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Tok, H., 2010. TEFL textbook evaluation: From teachers' perspectives. Educational Research and
Reviews. 5/9:508–517.
45/2:143–179.
Tomlinson, B., 2015. Developing principled materials for young learners of English as a foreign
language. In Bland, J., ed. Teaching English to Young Learners: Critical Issues in Language
Teaching with 3–12 Year Olds. London: Bloomsbury.
Webb, S. and Nation, P., 2017. How Vocabulary is Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G., 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17/2:89–100.
306
21
Versioning coursebooks
Introduction
The content of global coursebooks has been the subject of considerable debate in the litera-
ture (see Norton and Buchanan this volume), ‘[t]he core criticism’ being that they lack ‘cul-
tural appropriateness and/or relevance for many of its target markets’ (Mishan and Timmis
2015:46). This has reinforced the view in some circles that local coursebooks are more
appropriate for the needs of students in these contexts and has led to the championing of
locally based materials development projects. For example, Tomlinson (2011) reports on
the development of a coursebook for Namibia which brought together, in writing teams,
teachers and a range of other experts, such as curriculum developers, publishers, university
lecturers, and researchers, to create context-specific materials. In recent years, the issue
of global versus local materials has gained more attention in the literature. For example,
Garton and Graves (2014) include a number of chapters which document how materials
have been developed to meet local conditions (e.g. al Majthoob 2014; Messekher 2014). It
is also widely acknowledged that teachers have always adapted their coursebooks to make
them more suitable for their own learners. A more formal approach to coursebook adapta-
tion for specific contexts is ‘versioning,’ which forms the focus of this chapter. Versioning is
a type of materials adaptation which aims to ‘[make] changes to a coursebook for particular
conditions in a country or region’ (Buchanan and Norton 2018), usually to address a lack of
cultural appropriacy. Although common in the ELT publishing industry, little has been writ-
ten about versioning, especially in the academic literature, where versioning only receives a
brief mention in chapters about adapting materials (e.g. Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). It
is a topic that ‘often goes under the radar’ according to one of the participants in our study,
which is reported later in the chapter.
We first became aware of the extent of versioning in ELT publishing during a visit to
the headquarters of an international ELT publishing house several years ago. In one meet-
ing room, there was a large bookcase full of copies of a bestselling coursebook. On closer
inspection, we noticed that each copy was different, because not only were different levels
and editions of the coursebook represented, but also numerous versions of the coursebook
series, which had been adapted for different international contexts. We had seen American
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-27 307

and British versions of these coursebooks before, but this thriving division of the publish-
ing industry was a revelation to us, and the sheer volume of texts piqued our curiosity. We
wanted to know more about how and why different versions of best-selling coursebooks
were created and the principles which underpinned the decisions that were taken regarding
materials adaptation.
Successful global coursebooks are often versioned by publishers so that they can be
used in contexts they were not originally designed for, building on the reputation of the
original series. A distinction can be made between versions that retain the branding of the
original coursebook, usually in the case of well-established coursebooks, and those which
are introduced as a new ‘brand’ for the educational context. The well-known, best-selling
New Headway series by Soars and Soars, for example, was versioned as New Headway Plus
for the Middle East, featuring a similar cover, design, and content as the original series. The
Navigate series published by Oxford University Press, on the other hand, was given a new
name (Milestones in English) and a different cover and design.
Given the lack of literature on this topic, Buchanan and Norton (2018) conducted a
small-scale study with ELT professionals to gain greater insights into the versioning pro-
cess. The study, which is reported in greater detail below, identified a variety of different
types of versioning, including market versioning, where a coursebook is adapted for a par-
ticular country or group of countries, customer versioning, where a version of a coursebook
is created for a particular institution or chain of schools, and cosmetic versioning, where
the title or the cover of a coursebook, for example, might change but the content does not
substantially. Clearly, these are not mutually exclusive categories: for example, it is possible
to create a version of a coursebook where the only change is the addition of the name of the
chain of schools to the front cover (customer and cosmetic versioning). It is also possible
to create a version of a coursebook for use in a chain of schools in a particular region of the
world (customer and market versioning). Market versioning will often involve relatively
extensive changes to make the coursebook more culturally appropriate; however, customer
versioning can also involve significant adaptation to embed local curriculum requirements,
for example. The focus of this chapter is market versioning, aimed primarily at making a
coursebook more culturally relevant. Participants in our study discussed versioning in a
range of contexts, but countries in the Middle East were the primary focus.
This chapter aims to raise awareness of the practicalities of coursebook versioning, and
to critically discuss a number of related issues. It draws on the small-scale qualitative study
conducted in 2018, which aimed to uncover what versioning is, and how and why it is car-
ried out. We interviewed editors, publishers, and authors involved in versioning in ELT and
aimed to address three research questions:
1. what is involved in versioning a global coursebook?

2. what roles do the different stakeholders play in the process?
3. how is the original text changed in terms of cultural content, language, methodology,
and design, and why?
Practical, theoretical, and political issues discussed in the chapter include the tension between
materials as educational resources and materials as commercial products, which have been
described as ‘innately conservative’ (Hall 2018:235). Recommendations are made for the
effective implementation of versioning for the Middle East, and our hopes for the future are
also discussed. The central argument of the chapter is that, in order to produce a high-quality
version of a coursebook, it is vital for all stakeholders to critically examine their role in the
308
process of versioning, to reflect on their own views on language and language learning,
and to work collaboratively using a set of mutually agreed and explicit principles (see also
Tomlinson this volume).

This section aims to give an overview of practical, theoretical, and political concerns in
relation to the versioning of coursebooks. It is organised in relation to our three research
questions and presents the interview data generated in our 2018 study, in order to clarify
the processes involved in versioning and to identify the practical, theoretical, and political
issues involved.
What is involved in versioning a global coursebook?

The resounding response to this first question was, ‘It depends.’ Participants discussed a
range of variables: the length of the course, the course content, the package components,
design and images, level, publishing cycles, and budget. These seven variables are explained
briefly below.
The length of the course is a key consideration when adapting coursebooks for any
particular context. Units may need to be lengthened or shortened to fit the number of
teaching hours, for example, and the length of the whole coursebook may need to be
adjusted to suit the length of the course. This is particularly relevant when versioning
for primary or secondary school contexts, where the expectation is for students to com-
plete the coursebook in a school year.
Another key area that may need to be adapted is course content, for example cultural con-
tent, language content, or content designed to meet curriculum specifications, such as mate-
rial that caters for special educational needs (SEN). The driver for such changes may be the
curriculum in use in the particular institution or market, as well as the wider educational
context. The coursebook ‘package’ can also be adapted, perhaps to combine components
(for example, a combined student book and workbook) or to add digital components to fit
the specific requirements of the customer or market.
Furthermore, design and choice of images need to be carefully considered when adapting
coursebooks for a particular context, and participants reported that design is one of the most
commonly changed aspects of materials. One of our interviewees talked about the ‘toast
rack factor.’ British artists who are asked to draw a picture of a breakfast table often include
a toast rack on the table; however, in other countries, including the US, toast is commonly
placed on plates, making the inclusion of a toast rack potentially confusing for students.
Other examples given included images of particular types of electric socket, appliances, and
vehicles driving on the ‘wrong’ side of the road, all of which can make the materials feel
alien to learners.
Level is another important area to take into account. Materials can be adapted in various
ways to raise or lower the level of challenge. One example given was the use of L1 rubrics
in a beginner coursebook, versioned for a particular country where classes were assumed to
be monolingual.
‘Publishing cycles’ also have to be considered carefully when determining the extent of
the adaptation. If a particular market or customer expects multiple levels of a series to be
309
published at the same time and timeframes are short, compromises may have to be made.
Similarly, budgets may constrain the extent of the agreed changes. If the budget is limited,
then the adaptations need to be as minimal as possible. As one of our participants pointed
out, ‘Unpicking something and putting it back together is a very expensive business.’
What roles do the different stakeholders play in the process?

When asked about the roles of the different stakeholders in the versioning process, one of
our participants commented, ‘It’s almost like making a mini-product,’ as the process is simi-
lar to any other coursebook production process (see Mishan and Timmis 2015; Tomlinson
and Masuhara 2018 for an overview of the publishing process). The stakeholders mentioned
by our participants consisted of local focus groups used for market research; local sales
teams, who provide ‘grassroots knowledge’ of what is needed in the market and then con-
tribute to promotion and teacher training; editors, who are involved in driving the changes
to the content, controlling the quality of the brand, and managing the budget; reviewers and
consultants, who review the original coursebook, decide what should be changed, and then
also review drafts of the new version; publishers, whose role is strategic and involves over-
seeing the development of the brief; the production team, who manage the printing or digital
production of the coursebook; the sales and marketing team, who work with editors on con-
cepts and sample materials; authors (see below); and customers, whose role varies depend-
ing on whether the product is commercial or not. It is common for versions of coursebooks
used in mainstream education to have to be approved by the Ministry of Education, which
is a possible additional stage in the process.
The role of the author deserves special attention, as there are several possibilities. In
some cases, the original author(s) are invited to adapt content or to write new material, but it
is far more common to recruit authors who specialise in versioning materials for a particular
market (e.g. ‘Americanisers’). In this case, sometimes the original authors maintain some
control by overseeing changes and approving content; in other cases, the original authors are
not involved in the process. One participant, however, commented, ‘good manners suggest
that [the original authors] ought to be consulted.’
In summary, a range of stakeholders are consulted before a version is produced, or are
involved in the production of the version. Interestingly, however, according to one of our
participants, ‘students are very rarely asked.’
How is the original text changed in terms of cultural content, language, methodology,
and design, and why?
How texts are changed

The following sections report our findings in relation to the changes made to coursebooks
in the versioning process, specifically with regard to design, language, methodology, and
cultural content. More detailed examples of some of these changes will be given in the sec-
tion ‘Implications and Challenges.’
Language
Linguistic changes in the versioning process take various forms, and our participants
mentioned the following five areas: adding to the syllabus, grammar, bilingual word lists,
accents, and phonemic symbols. These changes are described in more detail below.
310
Extra strands are sometimes added to the syllabus, in line with course aims and national
curriculum requirements. Examples provided by our interviewees included a different writ-
ing syllabus, a study skills strand, specific exam practice, and an academic English strand.
Most participants reported that the grammar in versioned coursebooks is rarely adapted
significantly, apart from changes between UK and US varieties of English: for example, dif-
ferent uses of the present perfect tense, and have versus have got. Other linguistic changes
are likely to be linked to the students’ L1, for example focusing on typical errors, or differ-
ences between the L1 and L2 (see Krantz et al. this volume). Some publishers use learner
corpora to analyse what language points are needed and what errors are typical of speakers
of the particular L1, and sometimes less problematic grammatical items are dropped from
the syllabus to create space for more challenging language points, depending on the learn-
ers’ L1.
In addition, one participant mentioned changes to the sequence in which grammar items
were presented in coursebooks, based on the level of challenge and linguistic similarity
between the L1 and L2. However, it was noted that changing the sequence of language
items in a coursebook is problematic from the point of view of recycling. For example,
coursebook authors often work painstakingly to ensure language that has been presented is
recycled later in the book, but if the sequence of items in the syllabus is changed, a language
item could appear in practice activities before it has been introduced to the students.
An additional aspect of the linguistic content of a coursebook that can be adapted relates
to accents in audio and video components. Accents can be changed to include accents that
represent the local context, or as part of a change between British and American English,
for example. Our participants informed us that in the case of video, the changes are usually
made by ‘dubbing’ the original content or adding or changing voiceovers. In line with such
changes to accents, phonemic symbols and charts may also need to be adapted throughout
the coursebook, for example by changing from UK phonemes to US ones.
Methodology
Participants were in agreement that methodology is an area that should not be adapted too
heavily because, as one reasoned, it is ‘part of the essence of a coursebook.’ In addition,
at the market research stage of the versioning process, needs will be established, and the
publisher will choose the coursebook with the best fit as a starting point. Minor changes to
methodology are sometimes implemented, however, such as increased oral skills work, the
use of L1 rubrics or grammar references, extra practice activities, and more grammar boxes
on the page to give additional support.
Another possible change that affects the methodology of a versioned coursebook is the
use of bilingual word lists. This can be a useful addition in monolingual contexts where the
L1 is used in the classroom, but is clearly impossible in a global coursebook.
Cultural content
Surprisingly, one of our participants reported that cultural changes constitute less than 5%
of the adaptations made in the versioning process. Another participant mentioned that some
of the large publishing houses have a division which specialises in producing and adapt-
ing materials for ‘sensitive’ markets such as the Middle East. The specialised nature of
versioning for the Middle East and the ‘light touch’ cultural changes reported in our data
may not be completely incompatible, but more research is needed to explore the extent of
311
the cultural changes made in Middle Eastern versions. Examples are provided in the section
‘Implications and Challenges’ for illustration, but these do not demonstrate the extent of the
changes to a coursebook overall.
Our data indicated that in some markets, it is common practice to change cultural content
to represent the national identity, for example, references to familiar places, festivals, tradi-
tions, the national sport, or to events in the country’s national history. As one participant put
it, these changes are ‘more about adding things than taking things out’ and are made in order
to help learners to identify with the materials.
The range of possible cultural changes when versioning a coursebook is vast, and our
participants discussed numerous different cultural elements that can be changed within a
coursebook, including appropriate topics, texts, images, and video and audio material. The
reasons given for making these content changes included trying to achieve a balanced rep-
resentation of relevant cultures in the materials, providing material that is relevant to the
students’ life experience, and the erasure of diversity, for example by removing references
to disability and different races. Some of these are discussed in more detail below.
Regarding topics, participants reported that coursebooks do not generally contain very
sensitive topics anyway. The use of the acronym PARSNIP (politics, alcohol, religion, sex,
narcotics, -isms, and pork) is well documented in the literature to refer to the list of taboo
topics in ELT materials (see, for example, Meddings 2006; MIshan and Timmis 2015) and is
generally applied to most global materials. Participants commented that the sensitivities of
different markets are accepted in the publishing world, and must be respected. Examples of
additional taboos for particular markets that our participants mentioned include the avoid-
ance of celebrities representing a certain religion, conversations between mixed-sex cou-
ples, parties, and dogs inside the home.
When versioning for the Middle East, one participant reported that individual countries
vary considerably in their cultural conservatism and so it is difficult to produce a coursebook
that satisfies the whole region. In some Middle Eastern countries, for example, women who
drive cars and have jobs are taboo, whereas in others, materials aim to represent women in
a range of different roles. As Pathare (2019) observes, ‘the reality is that the region is just as
varied as, for example, Europe or the Americas … The region is, in fact, founded on myriad
distinct, ancient, tribal cultures.’
A balanced representation of cultures was important in many markets, according to our
participants, but it is a delicate balance. An over-representation of one cultural context (e.g.
English-speaking countries) is often undesirable because it is seen as cultural imperialism.
This includes the places represented in the book, names of characters, and images. Markets
varied in their requirements: for some, the inclusion of local contexts was important, but for
others, it was important for students to learn about different places in the world, especially
other non-English-speaking countries. This debate is reflected in the literature. For exam-
ple, Mishan and Timmis (2015:40) refer to the ‘cultural “bind”, in which stretching cultural
horizons and relevance/familiarity are so finely balanced.’
The erasure of diversity in versioned coursebooks, particularly for the Middle East, could
be the most controversial aspect of the versioning process. Erasing references to certain
races, sexual orientations, and to disability, for example, can constitute significant change
to the content of a coursebook, and is often part of the process of making materials ready
for Ministry approval and the remit of specialised teams. As Pathare (2019) observes,
‘Breaching [the specified] constraints will not only prevent uptake of the materials, but
could get the person responsible for purchasing them into serious trouble.’ Meanwhile, in
the Western world, both in the academic literature and among materials writers’ groups such
312
as the IATEFL Materials Writers’ Special Interest Group (MaWSIG), there have been calls
for an increase in diversity in materials, to include wider representation (e.g. Bori this vol-
ume; Gray 2010; Gray and Block 2014; Seburn 2019). As Bilsborough (2016) argues, the
‘issue of whether to include or actively exclude material of a sensitive nature is complicated.
Increasingly, teachers around the world are showing an interest in global – and often contro-
versial – issues, for which they need materials.’ Swan (2018:258), however, warns against
‘slogans’ such as ‘ensure social relevance’ and ‘raise cultural consciousness,’ reminding us
that ‘the main business of language teaching is, actually, teaching language.’ This debate
will be explored further in the next section.
Design
In our data, three areas were discussed in relation to design: images, covers, and page lay-
out. Each of these will be described below.
According to our participants, images constituted the most important element of cul-
tural representation, but were also the most costly and time-consuming part of versioning
a coursebook. Publishers often rely on the use of stock photographs, which are far cheaper
than commissioned photographs. However, one participant commented that ‘it is extremely
hard to get library photos of things like parties and picnics and dinner parties which don’t
have wine glasses on the table’ and which include ‘modestly dressed women,’ because the
photographs were not taken for educational coursebooks. In addition, it is very difficult to
obtain family photographs in some cultures, where photography is not a tradition and fam-
ily photographs are not put on public display, so are very unlikely to be shared with a photo
library.
Versioned coursebooks also have slightly different covers to the original, but they should
have a family resemblance to maintain the brand of the series. Participants reported that
page layout, on the other hand, can change, according to the norms of the particular market,
or student needs. Some markets, for example, request more white space on the page, and a
less complex layout. This may be achieved simply by removing unnecessary images, but
sometimes the page layout has to be changed altogether, for example from a two-column to
a single-column design, or from a double-page spread design to a single-page design.

In order to exemplify and explore the critical issues discussed in the previous section, this
section begins with a comparison of four sample lessons from a global coursebook (New
Headway Elementary, third edition, Soars and Soars 2006) and a version of New Headway
for the Middle East (New Headway Plus Elementary Special Edition, Soars and Soars
2013). The comparison of the material is used as a springboard for further discussion of the
challenges of versioning materials for this particular context.
Comparison of sample lessons: global vs. versioned coursebooks

Sample lesson 1: Patrick’s family (New Headway Elementary pp. 14–15; New Headway
Plus Elementary pp. 14–15)
The double-page spread in the original coursebook presents the possessive ’s in the con-
text of ‘Patrick’s family.’ Vocabulary for male and female family members is presented,
including boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife, uncle/aunt, and so on. There is a large
313
photograph of a family group sitting in their dining room (Patrick, his wife, son, daughter,
and daughter’s boyfriend), with a description of the family. The task is to read about the
family and to label the family members’ photographs with their names. On the right-hand
side of the double-page spread is a range of happy family photos including members of dif-
ferent generations smiling at the camera.
The New Headway Plus material has fewer photographs overall, and more white space
on the page. The family group includes only four members (Patrick, his wife, son, and
daughter), and the words ‘boyfriend/ girlfriend’ have been omitted from the vocabulary
exercise. The female members of the family are wearing hats and scarves, and the photo-
graph is taken outside. The two illustrative photographs on the right-hand page show family
groups in traditional Middle Eastern dress.
Sample lesson 2: directions (New Headway Elementary p. 43; New Headway Plus p.
43)
In this lesson, a street plan is used to present language for asking for and giving direc-
tions. The plan in both versions is the same, but some of the names and featured points of
interest are different. The differences between the two plans are summarised in Table 21.1.
Several places on the map are unchanged too, for example, the bank, the baker’s, the
railway station, the travel agent’s, the Italian restaurant.
The accompanying exercise also contains small changes: ‘have a drink’ has been replaced
by ‘have a meal,’ and ‘read a book’ has replaced ‘see a film.’
Sample lesson 3: Seumas McSporran – the man with 13 jobs (New Headway Elementary
pp. 24–25); the man with 12 jobs (New Headway Plus pp. 24–25)
The topic of this lesson is a human interest story about a man who lives on a small
island in Scotland and has numerous part-time jobs, including postman, policeman, fire-
man, and accountant. The material focuses on the present simple tense (e.g. He helps in
the shop. He collects the post from the boat). The material in this double-page spread has
undergone a ‘light touch’ adaptation, the only difference being the eradication of one of
Seumas McSporran’s jobs, that is, working in the local pub in the New Headway Plus ver-
sion. The photograph of Seumas taking out a barrel of beer has been removed, and the text
and exercise adapted to remove all reference to this job. The design of the page has also
been changed: the original version shows photographs of Seumas doing his 13 jobs, with a
background image of the island. The New Headway Plus page has a more boxy design that
shows the photographs of him doing only 12 jobs and is set against a white background.
Sample lesson 4: reading and speaking (New Headway Intermediate pp. 10–11; New
Headway Plus Intermediate pp. 10–11)
Table 21.1 Differences between the two street plans
New Headway Elementary New Headway Plus Elementary
Bus stop is labelled on the outskirts of the park. Bus stop has been removed. The park itself is labelled.
A church is labelled on the plan. The church has been replaced with a Lebanese
restaurant.
A pub is labelled on the plan. The pub has been replaced by a museum.
One of the streets is called Church Street. Church Street has been renamed Silver Street.
A cinema is labelled on the plan. The cinema has been replaced by a library.
A music shop is labelled on the plan. The music shop has been replaced by a flower shop.
314
In New Headway Intermediate, Unit 1 is called ‘A World of Difference’ and in New

Headway Plus Intermediate, the unit is called ‘It’s a Wonderful World.’ The unit reviews
tenses and auxiliary verbs. The third lesson in the unit, a double-page spread, focuses on
reading and speaking skills. The material in the two versions is completely different: in
New Headway, there are two reading texts about families in Kenya and China (‘Welcome to
Our World’) and in New Headway Plus, there is one text entitled ‘Wonders of the Modern
World,’ which covers topics such as international travel, medical science, and the internet.
Critical reflections on the changes identified

Comparing the two versions raises awareness of what was changed in the respective course-
books, but does not always reveal why these changes were made or how principled they
were. The following section explores critically the types of changes that have been identified
in the sample lessons, which include the extent of the changes, the roles of the stakeholders
in terms of determining these changes, design issues, and cultural values and materials writ-
ing principles. We speculate upon the reasons for some of these changes and also discuss
insights from our data.
Extent of the changes

Some of the sample lessons are more heavily adapted than others: some changes emanate
from market research, others from cultural sensitivities. Sometimes, only minor changes are
made, for example in sample lesson 3, described above, whereas in other cases a complete
lesson, or spread may be changed in the versioned coursebook, for example sample lesson
4. We can only speculate about the reasons for this, but clearly cultural relevance must be
a major factor. One of our participants suggested permissions are also a possible factor in
some cases. For example, if the original lesson contained an authentic text, for which per-
missions were sought, the copyright holder may not have endorsed the changes that were
requested for the new version. This scenario can lead to a completely different lesson being
written. On a positive note, it can also create an opportunity for more relevant cultural con-
tent to be added, in accordance with the needs and wants of the market.
Sample lesson 3 is an example of a lesson that has been adapted superficially by remov-
ing unfamiliar or taboo references such as ‘have a drink,’ churches, and bus stops and
replacing them with more relevant ones, such as ‘have a meal’ and a Lebanese restaurant. In
order to implement these changes, the street plan has been recreated, but the target language
and pedagogy are unchanged.
Roles of the stakeholders

Potential conflicts between stakeholders may arise due to their differing priorities and beliefs
about the versioning process. For example, versioning authors may have different pedagogi-
cal principles compared to those in decision-making or commercial roles, and changes to
the materials which impact upon the cost of the project might be deemed necessary by some
stakeholders, but rejected by others (e.g. the budget-holders).
Participants in our study highlighted other issues which are relevant here, such as whether
the versioning authors are local or not, and the tension which exists between expertise in
writing and publishing versus local knowledge. Whilst the reputation of well-known, local
versioning authors may enhance the commercial success of the coursebook, if changes to
315
the materials are only made locally and local expertise is limited, the quality of the final
product might be compromised. For example, one participant commented that versioning
can be ‘extremely fiddly,’ as in the case of resequencing a grammar syllabus, mentioned
earlier. Additional technical work, such as checking page references and practice activities,
is entailed in this process, requiring the skills of an experienced editor with a background in
teaching. The reality is that such complex editorial skills may be more commonly found in
international publishing houses.
Design issues
As previously mentioned, design is a key area to consider in the versioning process, and ver-
sions for the Middle East need to be created with care and sensitivity. In sample lesson 1, for
example, the photographs have been replaced to show more culturally appropriate clothing
and to remove the inclusion of a boyfriend in the family photograph. Family groups in more
relatable clothes and situations have also replaced the Western family group photos. We noted
that there were far fewer photographs in the Middle Eastern version than in the original New
Headway coursebook. This may be due to local requirements for more white space on the page
and a simpler overall layout, or it may be due to the expense of commissioning new photo-
graphs. One of our participants reported that sometimes the versioned coursebook is concep-
tualised and created after the production of the original (as was probably the case with the New
Headway coursebooks), but in other cases, the two different versions are planned from the
outset and developed at same time, or the local version is anticipated in the market before the
original book is published. In the latter two scenarios, photographs can be taken for the differ-
ent versions at the start of the project, which can save a great deal of time and money. Another
approach would be to use the same photographs for both versions of the text where possible.
Cultural values and materials writing principles

Sample lesson 4 reflects how content is adapted due to cultural sensitivities. In this lesson,
the photograph showing Seumas McSporran working in a pub is removed and the reference
to alcohol thus eliminated. This approach raises a number of moral and ethical issues related
to writing materials for different cultural contexts. These may include reconciling the princi-
ples of the writer with the requirements of the writing brief. The challenges and complexities
of this should never be under-estimated, as Hall (2018:236) contends: ‘producing a market-
able product that does not ignore global and local realities and contexts is a difficult chal-
lenge.’ The participants in our study reflected a range of views in terms of the compromises
they were prepared to make. For example, some authors approached the task from a practical
point of view, accepting that it was necessary to adhere to the writing brief and be tolerant of
cultural differences. This position is recognised in ELT materials writers online communities:
We may believe that it is always inappropriate to make moral judgments about the
behaviour of people from cultures we do not belong to; or we may feel that the historical
and ongoing sins of our own culture make it impossible to take the moral high ground.
(Davies 2018)
One of our participants also highlighted that cultural norms and values ‘may intertwine with
the law, so it is not a question of defining your own values and imposing them through your
materials’ (Pathare 2019).
316
Other members of the ELT online writers community adopt a different stance, particularly
with regard to the representation of, for example, homosexuality and disability in materials.
Some have expressed reservations about compromising their principles and argued that,
although they may feel pressure to work cooperatively with publishers in order to make a
living, writers need to meet other stakeholders to agree upon principles before engaging in
paid work (Bilsborough 2016). Davies (2018), however, argues that, rather than ‘refus[ing]
to work in or write for countries that do not uphold what we regard as basic human rights,’
writers should aim for engagement with teachers in other cultures who share values such
as tolerance, democracy, and equity by continuing to write for these markets but refuse to
compromise on principles. In his view, adopting such a stance involves the risk of ‘losing
some sales (in some markets, all sales) and almost certainly damaging our relationships with
publishers and marketing teams’ (Davies 2018).

Coursebook writers and publishers are often aware and concerned about the issues dis-
cussed above, and there is also recognition that ‘textbooks are not “neutral” but reflect a
particular view of society’ (Hall 2018:236). Awareness of these issues does not, however,
necessarily make it any easier to resolve them, or to reconcile their principles with specific
market requirements. Timmis (2014:241) explores what happens when the writer’s beliefs
conflict with other stakeholders, such as publishers and education authorities, in the process
of writing a coursebook for use in secondary schools in a South-East Asian country. He
reflects critically on whether writers should compromise their principles or engage in prin-
cipled compromise, and recommends the latter, acknowledging:
in a discipline such as applied linguistics the views of practitioners and other stakehold-
ers are part of the theoretical equation and that some compromise between research-
based principles and local realities is, therefore, not only necessary but also desirable.
For such compromise to be principled and constructive, however, we need a set of
principles to help us to mediate between theory and practice in materials design.
It is, however, perhaps easier for writers to compromise research-based principles about lan-
guage learning than it is to compromise their beliefs regarding diversity and human rights,
and how these impact on the world represented in coursebooks, due to the deep-seated and
personal nature of these beliefs. The aforementioned debates on diversity, inclusivity, and
representation in coursebooks when writing for different cultural contexts provide a healthy
opportunity for critical discussion and reflection which will deepen understanding of the
complex issues, leading to a more informed stance which could potentially enhance profes-
sional development.
One of the issues that we have confronted when writing this chapter is how little informa-
tion is provided by international publishers regarding versioning and how it is conducted
in different markets, and also the lack of discussion in the academic literature. Whilst this
may be due in part to commercial sensitivities, greater transparency about the versioning
process would be beneficial for the ELT professional community to further understanding of
materials development for different cultural contexts. Also if there was greater transparency
regarding this topic in the academic literature, this could lead to a more principled approach
to versioning.
317
Greater collaboration between all stakeholders in the versioning process could also lead
to the development of agreed principles, as Bilsborough (2016) advocates. Discussion of
both pedagogical and practical considerations is a crucial part of this process and merits
serious debate. Whilst recognising market pressures, it is our view that pedagogy should be
prioritised above budget constraints.
Future directions
In this section, we outline our hopes for the future of versioning, which involve greater
collaboration between stakeholders, the pooling of expertise and training opportunities,
exploiting the affordances of digital materials, and further research into this area of materi-
als adaptation. We also express one concern about the role of authors and publishers in the
versioning process in the future.
Different types of expertise are required in the versioning process, for example, knowl-
edge of the local context, and writing and editorial skills. A key question remains as to how
to harness these effectively to ensure a high-quality adaptation of the original text. In this
endeavour, the training of local versioners and editors is important, as is establishing close
working partnerships between local and international teams. For example, a local versioner
could co-write with an international one to pool knowledge and draw upon their differ-
ent strengths. This could also make the versioning process more democratic. Another step
towards this would be greater involvement of students in market and academic research on
versioning to address the omission of student voice reported in our study.
One way to address the lack of homogeneity in Middle Eastern countries, mentioned
by one participant in our study, would be the use of digital materials which afford greater
flexibility, as different versions of the same lesson can more easily be created and made
available to teachers. This could work particularly well in contexts where tablets rather than
print materials are used, and this mode of delivery seems compatible with current classroom
practice in many Middle Eastern countries.
As we have noted throughout this chapter, there is a paucity of research on versioning.
Our study was very small-scale, and larger-scale studies of the process are needed, including
evaluations of versioned materials, investigations of publisher, writer, teacher, and student
perspectives, and case studies of versioning projects.
On-going changes in ELT publishing, such as the move to publisher-led coursebook
development and the payment of fees instead of royalties, have resulted in writers having
less influence in decision-making processes and less control of the materials they originally
created. Failure to consult the original authors in the versioning process may be a reflection
of their diminished status which could negatively affect the relationship between publishers
and authors. Whilst we recognise that authors who feel the integrity of their work is being
compromised might be obstructive to the process, we believe they should have some input
regarding the proposed changes before versions of their work are published. We highlight
this point because mutual respect is crucial for successful collaboration and creativity in the
versioning process.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have discussed approaches to versioning, given an overview of the
process, reported on a small-scale study, and provided a comparison of sample lessons
318
in different versions of a coursebook. We have argued that all stakeholders involved in

the process should critically examine their roles, be open to greater collaboration, and
be willing to share expertise in a more democratic way to achieve high-quality learning
materials.
Thorny issues, including cultural sensitivities and ideological and political concerns make
this a challenging topic to write about, but we hope this chapter will open up the debate and
lead to more transparent, principled approaches to versioning, based upon greater academic
research and practitioner insights on the topic.
Further reading
There are limited texts on the topic of versioning but the following may be of interest.
Davies, P., 2018. Should ELT writers refuse to write for certain markets? [Online]. Retrieved from:
https://mawsig.iatefl.org/should-elt-writers-refuse-to-write-for-certain-markets/.
Pathare, G., 2019. Writing in the Middle East. MaWSIG, Materials Writing Special Interest Group.
Retrieved from: tps://mawsig.iatefl.org/writing-in-the-middle-east/.
These blog posts give a flavour of online discussions about writing materials for specific cultural
contexts in professional ELT writer forums.
Palgrave Macmillan.
This chapter gives an account of the author’s experience of writing materials for a South-East
Asian context and the compromises involved in the process.
Related topics
Theory and practice in materials development, representation in coursebooks: a critical per-
spective, culture and materials writing, approaches to materials adaptation.
References
al Majthoob, S., 2014. Adapting materials to meet the literacy needs of young Bahraini learners. In
Garton, S. and Graves, K., eds. International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bilsborough, K., 2016. Emerging principles for ELT materials writers [Online]. Retrieved on 10 April
2021 from: https://mawsig.iatefl.org/emerging-principles-for-elt-materials-writers/.
Buchanan, H. and Norton, J., 2018. Versioning coursebooks for different contexts: What, how and
why? In Conference Presentation at IATEFL 2018, Brighton, UK.
Davies, P., 2018. Should ELT writers refuse to write for certain markets? [Online]. Retrieved on 10
April 2021 from: https://mawsig.iatefl.org/should-elt-writers-refuse-to-write-for-certain-markets/.
Garton, S. and Graves, K., eds. 2014. International Perspectives on Materials Development.
Gray, J. and Block, D. 2014. All middle class now? Evolving representations of the working class in
the Neoliberal Era: The case of ELT textbooks. In Harwood, N., ed. English Language Materials:
Content, Consumption, Production. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hall, G., 2018. Exploring English Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Messekher, H., 2014. Cultural representations in Algerian English textbooks. In Garton, S. and Graves,
K., eds. International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
319
Meddings, L., 2006. Embrace the Parsnip. The Guardian. Retrieved on 19 March 2021 from: https://
www.theguardian.com/education/2006/jan/20/tefl4.
Press.
Pathare, G., 2019. Writing in the Middle East. MaWSIG, Materials Writing Special Interest Group.
Retrieved on 20 May 2021 from: tps://mawsig.iatefl.org/writing-in-the-middle-east/.
Seburn, T., 2019. MaWSIG in Malta: This post will make you gay (or your materials anyway).
MaWSIG, Materials Writing Special Interest Group. Retrieved on 20 May 2021 from: https://
mawsig.iatefl.org/mawsig-in-malta-this-post-will-make-you-gay-or-your-materials-anyway/.
Soars, L. and Soars, J., 2006.New Headway Elementary. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Soars, L. and Soars, J.,2013.Headway Plus, Special Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swan, M., 2018. Applied linguistics: A consumer's view. Language Teaching, 51/2:246-261.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Tomlinson, B., 2011. Introduction. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials Development in Language
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
320
22
Writing EAP materials
Yasemin Kırkgöz
Introduction
As English is the most commonly used language in academia, an increasing number of
students study English for academic purposes (EAP) in many different higher education
settings around the world. Dudley-Evans and St John (1998:34) define EAP as ‘any English
teaching that relates to a study purpose.’ For Gillett (2004:11), EAP is ‘the language and
associated skills that students need to undertake study in higher education through the
medium of English.’ Hyland (2006:2) provides a more elaborate definition of EAP as ‘spe-
cialised English language teaching grounded in the social, cognitive and linguistic demands
of academic target situations, providing focused instruction informed by an understanding
of texts and constraints of academic contexts.’ Hadley (2015:23) adds contextual informa-
tion by defining EAP as ‘tertiary level English instructional training that enables learners
to improve their language proficiency within higher educational institutions, irrespective
of the country within which that instruction takes place.’ In exploring the topic, I will also
draw upon de Chazal’s (2014:4) definition of EAP as ‘the teaching and learning of English
so that students can operate effectively in the disciplines, i.e. in their specific subject(s) in an
academic institution, typically a university.’ EAP is thus viewed as primarily needs-driven
in that students learn English with a particular purpose in mind, which is identifiable and
describable to form the basis of an EAP programme and thus to develop EAP materials.
The first section of this chapter, ‘Critical Issues,’ looks at the major influences of evolv-
ing theoretical approaches on the development of EAP materials. Three strands of theory are
surveyed: register analysis, discourse and rhetorical analysis, genre analysis and a discourse
community perspective, each illustrated by theory-informed pedagogical materials. This
is followed with a discussion of international perspectives on developing EAP materials.
A framework for developing EAP materials is outlined in ‘Implications and Challenges
for Materials Development.’ In the section entitled ‘Recommendations for Practice,’ I then
provide three case studies of EAP materials development projects in Turkey. In this sec-
tion, I draw upon my own experience as an EAP materials writer, having taught EAP in
three different Turkish higher education academic settings and disciplines. Two main issues
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-28 321

Yasemin Kırkgöz
– creating theory-informed pedagogical materials, and teachers’ competence in developing

EAP materials – are addressed in the ‘Future Directions’ section.

The historical development of EAP materials
This section examines the theoretical approaches which have usefully informed and influ-
enced the development of EAP materials. Firstly, however, the emergence of EAP with two
main sub-branches is discussed.
EAP emerged as a sub-discipline within the broader field of English for specific purposes
(ESP). EAP is distinct from ESP because of its focus on academic contexts. The develop-
ment of EAP in the 1990s gave rise to two distinctions: English for general academic pur-
poses (EGAP) and English for specific academic purposes (ESAP). Such a distinction is
crucial in illustrating how different approaches can inform and empower the EAP teacher in
producing materials. EGAP aims to equip students with generic academic skills, language,
and knowledge to meet students’ needs in a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary context.
EGAP requires the EAP teacher to have a general knowledge of academic conventions,
skills, and language covering a wide range of disciplines (de Chazal 2014).
ESAP is distinct from more general EGAP in that it aims to meet students’ specific needs,
prioritising knowledge of the student’s discipline. It favours the development of discipline-
and context-specific EAP materials, whether globally or locally written, based on needs anal-
ysis, focussing on the immediate demands of disciplinary study. The EAP teacher is expected
to have detailed familiarity with the discipline in order to conduct a needs analysis, as well as
have in-depth knowledge of the discourse and academic practices of their students’ specific
disciplines (de Chazal 2014:38). The students’ more specific needs can thus be addressed.
Teaching English for agriculture, economics, or engineering are common examples of ESAP.
Register analysis
In the 1960s and 1970s, register analysis, which operated on the principle that the English
of different disciplines constituted a specific register, was influential in EAP. Barber (1962)
identified distinctive features of scientific texts such as complex noun and adjective phrases,
subordinate clauses, and use of the passive and the simple present tense. These findings
were incorporated into ESAP materials production. The best known early EAP publication
reflecting this approach is A Course in Basic Scientific English (Ewer and Latorre 1969).
Register analysis, which paid attention to sentence-level, formal characteristics of language
at the expense of function, received criticism, however, and this led to a shift in emphasis
from form to function (Flowerdew 2016) which is described below.
Discourse/rhetorical analysis
The next approach was discourse or rhetorical analysis, which drew attention away from
linguistic analysis at the sentence level to the way sentences are combined to produce
meaning (functions and notions) at the paragraph or discourse level (Widdowson 1983).
Tribble (1996:84–85) notes that ‘instructional materials in the rhetorical tradition focussed
on Exposition (including: exemplification, process, cause and effect, comparison and con-
trast, definition, division and classification), Description, Narration, Argumentation, and
Classification, with writing tasks progressively moving from sentence, to paragraph, to
322
whole text.’ The main criterion for EAP materials production was purpose and rhetori-
cal functions, which determined grammatical choice (Tribble 2009). Dominating the field
from the 1970s to the late 1980s, this approach had significant influence in EAP teaching
materials, for example, the English in Focus (Allen and Widdowson 1977–1983) series,
which highlighted key functions in scientific and academic language. English in Agriculture
(Mountford 1977) adopts this approach.
Whilst the discourse/rhetorical approach has significantly influenced EAP materials pro-
duction, it is not without its critics. One criticism often levelled at this approach is that it
leaves some questions unanswered, e.g. the criteria for the selection and sequencing of func-
tions in teaching materials (Flowerdew 2016).
Genre analysis and discourse community

Genres are situated within specific discourse communities who share certain language con-
ventions, e.g. a university department of economics. Each community has distinct disci-
plinary practices and communicative conventions. The notion of an academic discourse
community, articulated notably by Swales (1990), and genre as the product of that com-
munity has had a great influence on EAP materials, particularly since the early 1990s, as
Hyland and Hamp-Lyons (2002:6) suggest:
It is difficult to imagine EAP without some notion of community. It is central to our

understanding of the ways individuals acquire and deploy the specialized discourse
competencies that allow them to legitimate their professional identities and to effec-
tively participate as group members.
The notion of discourse community has played an important role within EAP research,
enabling scholars to study the genres and communicative conventions of different academic
disciplines, both linguistically and pedagogically, and develop an understanding of their
methodology and culture, which is essential for the development of discipline-specific EAP
materials (Hyland 2004).
One way in which the linguistic features of genres can be identified is through establish-
ing a corpus of texts. Technological advances have enabled researchers to compile corpora,
collections of written or spoken texts, which provide a valuable source of information for
the empirical study of language use (Conrad 2000). Corpus analysis of academic texts has
the potential to inform ESAP materials creation and pedagogy. Corpora have been utilised
to create academic word lists, representing a particular genre or a range of genres. Coxhead
(2000) created a word list based on a corpus of 3.5 million words to be used in course
design, and for direct use by learners. Cortes (2006) compiled a corpus to identify lexical
bundles to teach in an ESAP history writing class. Kırkgöz (2006) compiled a discipline-
specific corpus to inform the lexical syllabus of a university foundation programme for
students of business and economics.
In this section, I have reviewed three linguistic approaches which have had an impact
upon EAP materials design. The next section discusses EAP in global and local contexts.
EAP in global and local contexts

An awareness of what EAP means in different educational cultures and contexts enables
teachers to make informed choices regarding commercially available materials and when
designing their own materials. To better meet the needs of EAP students in unique teaching
323
Yasemin Kırkgöz
and learning environments within higher education around the world, distinctions can be
made between ‘classic EAP and domestic EAP’ (Goh 1998:2).
Classic EAP is typically where students from non-Anglophone countries, such as Turkey,
go to Anglophone countries (Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) to
attend pre-sessional or in-sessional EAP courses. An example is the EAP skills support
programme at the University of Southampton in the UK, which offers academic language
support to international students who need to develop their English language and academic
literacy skills, including academic writing, critical thinking, presentation, and seminar skills.
Domestic EAP is where students in non-Anglophone countries attend EAP courses at
a tertiary institution in their own countries. Three learning contexts can be further distin-
guished in domestic EAP: the first is where English is used as a medium of instruction for
all or for some subjects in universities as a second or a foreign language (ESL/EFL), with
subject lecturers being mainly L2 speakers of English. The second one emerges when stu-
dents receiving tertiary education in their national language (L1) are required to understand
written and spoken materials produced in English as a means of acquiring information and
knowledge. In both cases, EAP is offered concurrently as students are learning their dis-
ciplinary subject in L1 or L2. A third distinction in domestic EAP are courses offered in
language centres (generally one-year) to prepare students who are prospective members of
a particular English-medium academic discourse community.
Building on this account of two major EAP classifications, the type of EAP courses
that are delivered in a British university may differ considerably compared to the type of
EAP courses delivered in a Turkish university context for several reasons. Firstly, EAP
courses in the UK may aim to prepare students for study on undergraduate or postgraduate
courses in English. In Turkey, some undergraduate courses may be delivered in Turkish
(e.g. Agricultural Economics as I will illustrate below); whilst others might aim to prepare
students to participate in disciplinary courses offered in the medium of English.
In addition, most EAP programmes are designed to develop students’ generic study skills,
although generic published materials, aimed at the global market, often fail to meet the local
needs of individual institutions. This may result in EAP practitioners having to write and/
or supplement commercial EAP materials themselves. Writing EAP materials may pose
particular challenges for an EAP practitioner who must act as a needs assessor, specialised
syllabus designer, materials developer, and content specialist (Belcher 2006).
Commercial EAP materials can offer several practical benefits to EAP teachers: they are
of a high quality, are produced and field-tested by professionals, are visually appealing to
students, and save time and energy. Despite these benefits, however, questions arise as to
the usefulness of EAP materials produced predominantly for western contexts for learners
in non-western contexts such as Turkey and China. Firstly, as noted by Goh (1998), is the
sociocultural bias present in EAP coursebooks. Most, if not all, published EAP materials
available are generic and produced for students in classic EAP learning environments. They
do not consider the cultural background and specific academic literacy needs of domestic
EAP students. For example, EAP materials which focus on the British education system
would be less relevant to domestic EAP students.
Current trends in the development of EAP materials clearly indicate that materials which
help learners develop skills which they can use in their own disciplines, assist them in devel-
oping critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and encourage them to become mem-
bers of a specific discourse community are required. Also, foundation programmes in many
countries, including UK universities, are possibly becoming more specialised and tailored,
and thus may need to develop more discipline-specific materials. Kırkgöz (2006) found
324
that an EAP course in the foundation programme of a state university in Turkey, which
developed students’ generic academic skills, did not support the teaching/learning needs of
students in an English-medium higher education context. Similarly, in relation to the use of
corpora in EAP materials, Tribble (2009) notes that as teachers come to a fuller understand-
ing of the specificity of their students’ needs, they often become less satisfied with published
coursebooks and gain confidence in their own ability to develop relevant materials. This
suggests that EAP teachers simultaneously take on the roles of ‘text analysts, ethnomethod-
ologists, psycholinguists, and pedagogic innovators in their efforts to help learners face up
to the literacy demands of different disciplinary settings’ (Hyland 2006:1).

Framework for EAP materials development
To develop the most appropriate needs-driven EAP materials, the following stages are rec-
ommended: needs analysis, specifying learning objectives, writing theory-informed materi-
als, and developing tasks and activities (Hutchinson and Waters 1987).
The first stage in EAP materials development involves identifying EAP learners’ needs.
As noted by Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998), EAP materials writing should start with
a data-gathering stage of identifying students’ needs, the specific sets of skills, linguistic
items, text-types, and communicative practices that a particular group of learners must
acquire. EAP materials writers can then draw upon this description of what learners need
to know to participate in specific target discourse community practices and analyse the lan-
guage features of these specific genres to inform effective materials development.
The next stage for EAP practitioners is the need to understand the major theoretical influ-
ences in the field which were introduced earlier. With regard to register analysis, EAP materi-
als writers need to consider which grammatical and lexical items are appropriate to include
in materials. Regarding genre analysis, the question involves which genres (reports, essays)
students need to study and should be prioritised. In addition, consideration should be given to
the aspects of ELT methodology that can be used in the EAP context (Hamp-Lyons 2011b).
Materials development can involve the use of four different text types: authentic, adapted,
synthesised, and created materials (Trimble 1985). I illustrate how I utilise Trimble’s cat-
egorisation of text types in the three case studies, which are presented below.

In this section, I draw upon my own experience of applying different approaches to EAP
materials writing.
Case studies from Turkey
Case study 1: a discourse/rhetorical informed EAP course
The first example focusses on my experience of producing EAP materials for students of Agricultural
Economics, studying their disciplinary courses in their L1, Turkish. The students, all Turkish native
speakers, were third-year undergraduates of the university, at B1 English proficiency level, taking
325
Yasemin Kırkgöz
a credit-bearing, compulsory, two-semester EAP course. As students, they were expected to use
English to read academic literature in their current and future professional lives; the major goal of
this EAP course was to develop students’ academic reading abilities in English. To make sure course
materials were tailor-made to students’ present and future needs, I conducted a needs analysis
with the subject lecturers and the students and identified relevant topics which included an intro-
duction to agricultural economics, production, foreign trade, and agricultural cooperatives.
Following Trimble’s (1985) classification of four written text types (i.e. authentic, adapted,
synthesised, and created materials), I used each text type as relevant to students’ needs in devel-
oping EAP materials. Authentic texts were taken from the original sources, textbooks, and articles
provided by the faculty. As a materials writer, I made some adaptations to these authentic texts
to make the materials linguistically and cognitively appropriate for the students. Some examples
of adaptation included shortening the text, simplifying grammar and lexis, providing a gloss, and
writing pre-reading questions. The synthesising technique involved compiling texts from more
than one source and making the necessary adaptations, such as those mentioned above. Created
materials involved producing new material. For example, I obtained some statistical data from the
Turkish Institute of Statistics on export figures of agricultural products, used it to draw a graph,
and produced material explaining the graph (see Kırkgöz 1990a).
The EAP materials were informed by rhetorical and discourse analysis, described earlier in
this chapter. The design of each content-specific unit (e.g. Introduction to Agricultural Economics,
Production, Foreign Trade, Agricultural Cooperatives, Agriculture towards the Future) followed the
same pattern. Pre-reading questions were intended to give students a purpose for reading.
Following each reading text was a variety of activities to practice reading and writing skills: word
study, comprehension checks, functional (communicative) use of written scientific discourse, and
appropriate problem-solving tasks. The main purpose of including these tasks was to improve
students’ language and content knowledge, and provide them with practice by asking them
to complete similar tasks to those they may encounter on their degree programmes. On their
degree courses students were required to read introductory university textbooks on Agricultural
Economics which contained dense, lengthy, and challenging English academic texts for various
course assignments. The tasks, therefore, prepared students for independent use of academic
language.
The decision regarding which rhetorical function to focus on in each unit was made according
to the theme of the unit. The unit ‘Introduction to Economics’ was ideal for defining key terms,
such as economics and agriculture; the unit ‘Marketing Agricultural Products’ was ideal for teach-
ing process description; the unit ‘The Future of Agriculture’ lent itself well to making predictions,
whilst price changes could be related to cause and effect. In the sequencing of the rhetorical fea-
tures, description was followed by generalisation, prediction, cause and effect, exemplification,
classification, comparison, and process description. This sequence was considered to be both
cognitively and linguistically appropriate following piloting of the materials. In addition, each
text was accompanied with non-verbal information, e.g. graphs, tables, diagrams, and informa-
tion transfer activities. These activities were mostly added after the pilot, in response to student
feedback.
Students’ prior knowledge of the topic was considered when producing the texts, which
included appropriate samples of language use that the students could learn from. The third-year
students possessed sufficient subject knowledge in their L1, so they were more interested in
326
reading and understanding texts which were relevant to their discipline in English. After piloting
the EAP materials, a textbook was produced for the students studying in this specific discipline.
(See Kırkgöz 1990b for materials.)
Case study 2: a corpus-informed EAP course
My second EAP materials project was developed in two stages: conducting a needs analysis and
designing a specialised corpus (spec.corp.) of academic texts to form the lexical syllabus of a
new, one-year EAP course at Çukurova University. The course was developed as a foundation pro-
gramme for prospective students in the Department of Economics and Business Administration
(DECOBA) which offers 40% of subject courses in English.
Prior to developing the new EAP course, I conducted a needs analysis in DECOBA with the
first-year undergraduate students, using in-depth interviews to determine students’ present
problems in reading academic texts and the extent to which the EAP course prepared them
for their future academic community. The findings indicated that students who had attended
the course and started their first-year undergraduate courses expressed difficulty, particularly
in the use of specialist lexis, and they suggested that the EAP curriculum should be designed
to familiarise prospective students with this academic community of practice, including basic
disciplinary concepts (Kırkgöz 2006).
The procedures I used in creating the spec.corp. and how the corpus was exploited are
described in the following section. First, to inform the lexical component of the EAP course, I
compiled a spec.corp of economics texts containing 202,400 words from the academic genres
(e.g. textbook chapters and journal articles) that the first-year undergraduates would be required
to read in DECOBA. The lexical-frequency list for the entire data set was then produced creating
a lexical profile, and 74 statistically significant content words were selected, based on their fre-
quency. The selection included subject-specific vocabulary (monopoly, oligopoly), because these
words support students’ content learning and performance of academic tasks. Also included was
academic vocabulary which is common across academic disciplines (Coxhead 2000), such as
‘substitute,’ but which acquires a specialised meaning in this discipline.
Using a concordance programme, collocates of the 74 keywords, significantly co-occurring
with these words, were examined. For instance, a left-hand collocate of ‘cost’ was found to be
‘opportunity,’ with 30 occurrences, thus forming the concept ‘opportunity cost.’ It was therefore
decided that the words and phrases appearing with noticeable frequency needed to be brought
to the attention of the students. Following this, the lexical items were sequenced according
to perceived conceptual difficulty. To illustrate, ‘household’ and ‘scarcity’ were relatively eas-
ier concepts to learn, so they occupied the first units in the EAP course, whereas ‘opportunity
cost’ and ‘collective bargaining’ were more complex concepts; thus they were presented later in
the course. At this stage, I consulted subject lecturers as ‘informants’ and took their views into
account when sequencing the lexical items. I also checked the sequence of these items in the
students’ economics textbooks. The following section illustrates how the concordances were
exploited on this course.
327
Yasemin Kırkgöz
The course content was based on the computer printouts of concordance citations of the lexi-
cal items. The 24 learners, aged between 18 and 20 with B1 proficiency level, were given 1-page
computer printouts of concordance citations of a keyword or phrase (e.g. ‘opportunity cost’) to
expose them to multiple examples of the same keyword in context, and to promote awareness of
collocational relationships. Working in small groups, students were guided to gradually build up
their ‘content schemata,’ subject-specific knowledge, through a chain of pedagogic tasks, guided
by a series of questions to help activate their existing knowledge, related to the meaning of a spe-
cific keyword in general and its meaning in relation to economics (see Kırkgöz 2006 for details). In
this way, the corpus data was mediated for the students by the researcher and materials developer.
Students were also given an opportunity to explore recurrent patterns in the corpus data and
make their own generalisations in a self-study task. This approach was adopted for each of the
selected lexical items in the course. By the end of the 2-semester, 28-week course, the students
became familiar with the fundamental concepts of their future discipline and developed their
lexical competence.
The following year, I obtained feedback about the course from the students who were now
engaged in their degree course. They felt the corpus-based, foundation course had been very
useful, and had given them an advantage over other students who had not completed the foun-
dation programme. For example, they reported that they found it much easier to comprehend
disciplinary texts in English and follow academic lectures due to their familiarity with disciplinary
concepts. This clearly demonstrates that EAP course materials in foundation programmes should
be made relevant to students’ future academic needs and that subject-specific vocabulary is an
important focus which is often lacking in EGAP materials.
Case study 3: writing EAP materials using problem-based learning
The context for this project is an EAP course offered to first-year, undergraduate students of
Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EED), a fully English-medium department. EAP is offered
alongside students’ EMI courses. As the new EAP instructor, I conducted a needs analysis by hav-
ing in-depth interviews with the students and lecturers. I evaluated the previous EAP course and
discovered that it focused on developing generic academic skills, which did not support the teach-
ing/learning needs of students in an English-medium higher education context. Subject lecturers
stated that in their courses, they expected students to solve problems, critically evaluate informa-
tion, give oral presentations, and write reports on scientific topics in English (Kırkgöz 2017).
To address this issue, I designed a new EAP course using problem-based learning (PBL) as the
methodological framework. PBL offered a unique opportunity for preparing students for their
current and future academic needs. Since the students studied their subject courses in English in
EED, they could concurrently develop their language skills and specialist disciplinary knowledge.
The principal idea underlying PBL is that the starting point for learning is a problem or a
query that the learner wishes to solve. With the support of a facilitator/mentor, students,
working in groups, define a real-life problem that they wish to solve. Group members
328
identify learning issues, e.g. what needs to be learned to solve the problem, seek information
from multiple sources, such as articles and books, discuss their findings, and thereby arrive
at a viable solution. The group writes a report or presents their project in class.
The EAP course was a two-semester, credit-bearing programme. The first semester of the
course (3 hours a week for 14 weeks) focussed on developing students’ generic academic
and study skills through the development of critical reading, and academic writing, includ-
ing paraphrasing, summarising, and referencing. PBL was introduced during the second
semester; the first two weeks were dedicated to familiarising students with the underlying
approach of PBL. Following this, students, in groups of four to six, were assisted to identify
and write a problem/case relevant to their discipline; each group was responsible for gen-
erating different problems. To meet the criteria, the problem had to be authentic, relevant
to the discipline, and require research. To ensure that these criteria were satisfied, I col-
laborated with subject lecturers as ‘informants’ in EED to preview each problem statement.
During the following weeks, students met in groups to generate learning challenges and
devise a list of issues related to their problem that needed further exploration. Working col-
lectively, each group constructed a viable solution to a problem. At the end of the 14-week
semester, each group submitted their written project and gave an oral presentation on their
work. The EAP materials that I developed supported the students by fostering critical read-
ing, academic writing, and oral presentation skills.
The students, in their written reflections on this PBL-based EAP course, stated that they
found the course relevant to their present needs and future professional lives as they would
encounter similar problems in real-life contexts. Working on a problem, they developed
academic language skills, research skills, and became more proficient in using the language
of their discipline, as evidenced by their written projects and presentations.
In this section, I have illustrated developing EAP materials in three different contexts.
The context for the first EAP course case study was students undertaking their undergradu-
ate degree courses in their L1. The second context was related to preparing students on a
foundation course to participate in EMI classes, while the third EAP course operated along-
side students’ EMI courses.
The main limitation of the course and materials for Cases 1 and 3 could be related to the
integration of technology into developing EAP materials. Technology was less well-devel-
oped when I was engaged in Case 1. In retrospect, I would certainly incorporate different
kinds of multimedia, such as animations, videos, audios, or the combination of those media
tools, when creating future EAP materials. In addition, computerised corpora were in their
infancy when I developed my corpus-based EAP materials for Case 2. With the prolifera-
tion of corpus technology, I would use an existing EAP corpus (e.g. http://engres.ied.edu
.hk/corpusBasedLearning/ cited in Pastor and Patino-Santos 2015), or alternatively, would
construct a larger size corpus than the previous one, if I were to develop corpus-based EAP
materials in the future.
Future directions
Two main issues which need to be addressed in the future development of EAP materials
are creating theory-informed pedagogical materials, and teachers’ competence in develop-
ing EAP materials.
The theoretical perspectives discussed earlier could usefully inform the development
of EAP materials. To write theory-informed, pedagogical materials, EAP practitioners
329
Yasemin Kırkgöz
need an understanding of the major theoretical influences in the field in order to be

able to operationalise them for specific contexts (Garton and Graves 2014). Research
findings from exemplary case studies, such as corpus-informed studies, can inform this
process. In this way EAP practitioners can become more expert in producing context-
specific materials.
Another future challenge concerns teachers’ lack of expertise in producing tailor-made
materials, which are particularly crucial for ESAP. One issue is teachers’ lack of subject-
specific and pedagogic knowledge. Whilst EAP teachers cannot be expected to know all
academic subjects in great depth, with experience and continuing professional development,
they are likely to gain disciplinary knowledge which can inform their work as EAP materi-
als developers. For example, in my case, I studied economics at school, completed post-
graduate research, worked as a teacher educator on undergraduate and postgraduate courses
in ELT, and attended conferences, all of which gave me insights into the literacy demands
of different disciplines and developed my skills in text analysis and pedagogic innovation.
I also collaborated with subject specialists. For example, in the case of the PBL project, I
consulted them as ‘resources of knowledge and experience’ (de Chazal 2014:3), particularly
during the evaluation of problem statements and the assessment of students’ work. I also
consulted students with disciplinary background knowledge in the text selection process.
This would be a useful model for EAP writing teams to follow.
Teacher training, both for pre-service and in-service teachers, may also contribute sig-
nificantly to the future development of EAP materials. In many countries, EAP teachers
are almost always teachers of ‘general’ English who need training to meet the complex
demands of EAP materials writing. The competency framework for teachers of English for
academic purposes produced by BALEAP (2008), the UK-based professional association,
can be used or adapted to local needs to equip teachers with the necessary competences,
e.g. skills and professional capacities for developing EAP materials. BALEAP provides a
comprehensive description of competences in four areas: academic practice, EAP students,
curriculum development, and materials implementation. Regarding EAP materials develop-
ment, the framework requires an EAP teacher to:
·· work effectively with materials and tasks from different subject areas and engage with
the ideas they present;
·· support students in the writing and speaking practices of their disciplines;
·· apply theories of text and discourse analysis to materials selection and development;
·· select, adapt, or create materials from relevant sources and develop appropriate tasks
(BALEAP 2008).
It is useful for EAP teachers to receive continuing professional development, such as attend-
ing EAP-specific conferences, keeping up with relevant literature, and networking with
other EAP teachers and publishers. EAP materials writers/teachers need to know how to
carry out a needs analysis, and be skilful in developing interesting content and texts, with
associated tasks and activities, in accordance with the requirements of specific academic
contexts. Finally, as corpora have now become widely accessible, it would be useful to pro-
vide guidelines and ideas for their users, materials designers, and language teachers regard-
ing how corpus techniques can be exploited in the creation of corpus-based materials and
activities for classroom use.
If EAP teachers have no access to training, collaboration through EAP circles, and action
research groups which are coached and mentored by experienced EAP professionals, may
330
provide a viable alternative. EAP teachers can cascade knowledge gained from these forums
and share materials to have impact across a wide range of teaching contexts. As noted by
Hamp-Lyons (2011a), in some countries, notably Spain and Brazil, there are active com-
munities of EAP practitioners and scholars who collaborate and offer support to novice and
established EAP teachers and researchers. The growth and spread of such communities
could enhance the professional development of EAP teachers and writers in other countries.
The provision of professional education and training for EAP teachers lags behind the
vast expansion in the need for teachers of EAP (Hamp-Lyons 2011a). Teachers with train-
ing in EAP materials development in specific disciplines are rare. In addition, most EAP
teachers around the world are L2 teachers of English. Future research needs to investigate
the kind of professional support required by L1 and L2 teachers of English to ensure the
production of high-quality learning materials.
Exploring the use of specialised, academic corpora in EAP materials development is also
an area ripe for future research. Specialised academic corpora might concentrate on just one
genre, for example, academic textbooks, or aim to represent a variety of scholarly genres.
Likewise, they might focus on a single discipline, such as economics, or many. The devel-
opment of corpus-informed materials and the design of tasks for data-driven learning also
merit more extensive research (see McCarthy and McCarten this volume).
Conclusion
Writing high-quality EAP materials has never been more important than it is now, given
the globalisation and internationalisation of higher education. The specific needs of
EAP students make it increasingly necessary for teachers and writers to develop mate-
rials which address these. Related to this, the continuing professional development of
EAP teachers plays a critical role to ensure these materials are exploited effectively
in the classroom. Producing discipline-specific materials ideally needs to be a joint
venture between EAP professional and disciplinary experts to enhance pedagogic prac-
tice and lead to successful learning outcomes. If the above criteria are met, then the
development of EAP materials is likely to be a more successful and highly rewarding
endeavour.
Further reading
Flowerdew, L. 2015. Corpus-based research and pedagogy in EAP: From lexis to genre. Language
Teaching, 48/1:99–116.
This article presents current corpus-based research on written academic English, illustrating the
importance of lexis in corpus research, and pedagogic applications of corpus findings for EAP.
Kuzborska, I. 2011. Teachers’ decision-making processes when designing EAP reading materials in a
Lithuanian university setting. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10/4:223–227.
This article describes Lithuanian EAP teachers’ decision-making processes during needs
analysis, the formulation of goals and objectives, the sourcing of texts, and the development of
activities.
da Silva, L.G., Vial, A.P. S. and Sarmento, S., 2017. Developing English for academic purposes (EAP)
teaching materials: A needs analysis of novice teachers. Horizontes de Linguística Aplicada,
16/1:41–83.
This article reports on a needs analysis survey conducted with novice EAP teachers in Brazil to
investigate the challenges these teachers face when developing EAP materials and to suggest training
and support to prepare them for their role in materials creation.
331
Yasemin Kırkgöz
Related topics
Writing corpus-informed materials, developing a primary coursebook series for Turkey,
approaches to materials adaptation.
References
Allen, J.P.B. and Widdowson, H.G., eds. 1977–1983. English in Focus. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
BALEAP, 2008. BALEAP Competency Framework for Teachers of English for Academic Purposes.
BALEAP. Retrieved from www.baleap.org.
Barber, C.L., 1962. Some measurable characteristics of modern scientific prose. In Barber, C.L. and
Berhre, F., eds. Contributions to English Syntax and Phonology. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.
Belcher, D., 2006. English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and imagined futures in
worlds of work, study and everyday life. TESOL Quarterly, 40/1:133-156.
Conrad, S., 2000. Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century? TESOL
Quarterly, 34/3:548–560.
Cortes, V., 2006. Teaching lexical bundles in the disciplines: An example from a writing intensive
history class. Linguistics and Education, 17/4:391–406.
de Chazal, E., 2014. English for Academic Purposes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dudley-Evans, T. and St John, M.J., 1998. Developments in English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge:
Ewer, J.R. and Latorre, G., 1969. A Course in Basic Scientific English. London: Longman.
Flowerdew, J., 2016. English for specific academic purposes (ESAP) writing: Making the case.
Writing and Pedagogy, 8/1:5–32.
International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gillett, A.J., 2004. The ABC of ELT “EAP”. IATEFL Issues, 178:11.
Goh, C.C., 1998. Emerging environments of English for academic purposes and the implications for
learning materials. RELC Journal, 29/1:20–33.
Hadley, G., 2015. English for Academic Purposes in Neoliberal Universities: A Critical Grounded
Theory. London and New York: Springer.
Hamp-Lyons, L., 2011a. English for academic purposes. In Hinkel, E., ed, Handbook of Research on
Second Language Teaching and Learning, Vol II. London: Routledge.
Hamp-Lyons, L., 2011b. English for academic purposes: 2011 and beyond. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 10/1:2–4.
Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A., 1987. English for Specific Purposes: A Learning-Centered Approach.
Hyland, K., 2004. Genre and Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Hyland, K., 2006. English for Academic Purposes: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. and Hamp-Lyons, L., 2002. EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 1/1:1–12.
Kırkgöz, Y., 1990a. A complete English-for-specific purposes syllabus for agricultural economics
texts. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Çukurova University, Turkey.
Kırkgöz, Y., 1990b. English for Economics in Agriculture. Adana: Faculty of Agriculture Press.
Kırkgöz, Y., 2006. Designing a corpus-based English reading course for academic purposes. The
Reading Matrix, 6/3:281–298.
Kırkgöz, Y., 2017. Working the problem: Finding solutions to student dissatisfaction in EAP for
engineering. In Stewart, T., ed., TESOL Voices: Higher Education. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press.
Mountford, A., 1977. English in Agriculture (English in Focus). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
332
Pastor, A.M., and Patino-Santos, A., 2015. Recent developments in corpus linguistics and corpus-
based research. Language Teaching, 48/1:156–160.
Swales, J., 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tribble, C., 1996. Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tribble, C., 2009. Writing academic English: A survey review of current published resources. ELT
Journal, 63/4:400–417.
Trimble, L., 1985. English for Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H. G., 1983. Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
333
23
Writing materials for ESOL
Naeema B. Hann
Introduction
The practice of ESOL is the teaching of English as a second or other language to adults
coming to settle in an English-speaking country. The period after the Second World War
saw a flow of people from the colonies and ex-colonies to English-speaking countries to fill
the need for workers. Access to English language classes was included in the host countries’
response to the arrival of foreign workers. There were a number of government-sponsored
initiatives to support the language needs of immigrants in the UK mostly with a focus on
making the newcomers ready for their English-speaking workplaces. Initially, materials
used were EFL materials. Some teachers wrote their own materials which were used locally
and/or exchanged through ESOL teacher networks such as the National Association for
Teachers of English and Community Languages (NATECLA). To understand current issues
and opportunities, the chapter begins with a brief history of ESOL materials, followed by
issues and opportunities in writing materials for ESOL learners. The chapter concludes with
suggestions for future directions.
ESOL materials: a historical overview

Rosenberg (2007) traces the history of ESOL from 1870 to 2006. She notes that free
English classes were organised by the Russo-Jewish committee from 1892 to cater for
the language needs of émigrés from Russia to the UK. Sometime after this, a bilingual
(Yiddish–English) self-study book was published (Blackman 1915). Belgian refugees who
arrived in the UK in 1915 were offered places at London City Council’s art and trade
schools, and the children were taught by bilingual teachers in an effort to maintain their
linguistic and religious traditions. During the Second World War, the British Council took
on the role of English language teaching for Allied services. This was followed by the UK
government asking Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI) to oversee the English language
learning needs of immigrant workers (Rosenberg 2007). This focus on the relationship
between the English language skills of workers and success in getting employment con-
tinued after the Second World War. However, apart from the bilingual approach adopted
334 DOI: 10.4324/b22783-29

in materials and choice of teachers, it seems that no attempt was made to offer materials
or examinations specific to settlers in the UK. The materials used with ESOL learners
in the UK through much of the 20th century were EFL and literacy materials until the
publication of the ESOL Skills for Life materials in 2003. EFL materials were intended
for foreign students studying at universities in the UK or people learning English in non-
English-speaking countries to progress with higher education. Literacy materials were
intended for adults in the UK with English as a first language who did not have sufficient
skills in English to participate fully in society and the workplace. As such neither set of
materials was suitable for adults who needed language skills as well as knowledge of life
in the UK.
The publication of the Moser Report (DfEE 1999) highlighted that seven million adults
in England needed to improve their literacy and numeracy skills. This led to a response from
ESOL and basic skills practitioners who maintained that this report did not recognise the
English language needs of adults in England (Rosenberg 2007). Finally, in response to the
language needs of communities new to Britain and in order to standardise and professional-
ise the provision of ESOL, the government published the Adult ESOL Core Curriculum in
2001. The Skills for Life learner materials (DfES 2003), mapped to the Adult ESOL Core
Curriculum, were published two years later.
Currently ESOL in the UK sits in the post-16, non-compulsory sector of education in
the UK (Rosenberg 2007). This is due to funding and also the evolution of the teaching and
learning of ESOL. The learners attend mostly on a part-time basis which could be anywhere
from 2 to 9 hours a week for 30 to 36 weeks a year. Some attend full-time which is a maxi-
mum of 16 hours a week for 30 to 36 weeks a year (Ofsted 2008).
This chapter uses the term materials as described by Tomlinson (2003) to include lan-
guage learning resources in different forms such as print and digital, audio, and video and
used for a range of teaching and learning purposes. This includes materials intended for lan-
guage teaching as well as language encountered in other settings by the learners. The term
materials writer includes ESOL teachers as well as those for whom ELT materials writing
forms a larger part of their working lives than teaching.
Like materials used at language schools, ESOL materials tend to be a combination of
materials published outside the teaching institutions, such as the Skills for Life learner mate-
rials, and in-house materials adapted or written by the teachers. ESOL materials are used
for a number of purposes beyond teaching. For instance, Skills for Life learner materials
included a pack designed for use as diagnostic tests. These were often used for placing stu-
dents in classes at the appropriate level. Like other language learning materials, ESOL mate-
rials are used at all stages of learning such as input of new language, language processing
and hypothesising by learners, experimentation with new language, and for consolidation
and also automatisation of language use. Finally, with its focus on measuring language pro-
ficiency to justify public funding, ESOL-specific materials to test learning are also in use.
ESOL materials are generally from three sources:
·· produced by a government institution such as the Skills for Life learner materials pub-
lished by the then Department for Education and Skills (DfES) or a non-profit charity
such as the ESOL Nexus website set up by the British Council;
·· local, teacher-generated materials based on authentic texts such as letters from school,
council forms and notices, newspaper articles;
·· learner-generated materials, for instance, learners at a higher level of proficiency write
texts and design language learning activities for the texts.
335
Naeema B. Hann
Websites such as ESOL Nexus and English My Way cater for learners who may not be liter-
ate in their first language and also teachers who are new to ESOL. English My Way (https://
www.englishmyway.co.uk/) is structured around 10 topics and offers a 24-week syllabus
with learner materials and notes for teachers. These materials are intended for use in classes
taught by trained ESOL teachers alongside one-to-one learning sessions with volunteers.
The aim of this set of materials is to create learning communities where teachers’, volunteer
tutors’, and learners’ experiences are considered equally important.
ESOL Nexus, https://esol.britishcouncil.org/, on the other hand, is intended for use by
learners as self-study materials and organised around five areas – the four skills, UK Life,
Grammar and Vocabulary, English for Work, and Your Turn. The Your Turn pages host
accounts of those new to the UK; these texts are accompanied by language learning activi-
ties, such as pronunciation quizzes. The materials are mapped to five language levels in the
Adult ESOL Core Curriculum which can be found at: https://www.excellencegateway.org
.uk/content/etf1194 (see also Appendix 1). Government funding for ESOL also came with
a regime of Ofsted inspections and expectations of learner achievement evidenced through
language qualifications.
The next sections in this chapter will discuss core issues in developing materials for
ESOL learners to include learner and teacher needs and wants, taking into account the reali-
ties of ESOL learners’ lives.

The following three areas need to be taken into account when writing ESOL, or indeed any
language learning, materials:
·· how adults learn languages

·· contexts of language use and learning – to inform key topics and language content
·· approaches to teaching language in an ESOL classroom
How adults learn languages

The importance of cognitive and social factors is recognised in second language acquisition
(SLA) research. There are a variety of viewpoints regarding the role of socialisation, accul-
turation, and identity in second language acquisition. For example, the Douglas Fir Group
proposes that factors beyond cognitive ones inform SLA and presents a transdisciplinary
framework which takes in macro-ideological structures. These consist of value systems,
sociocultural institutions, and communities at meso level and activities of individuals at
micro levels (Douglas Fir Group 2016). Han and Nassaji (2018) suggest that teachers can
gain useful insights from experimental studies in instructed second language acquisition.
This helps with the how of language teaching and learning. Hann (2012) found the follow-
ing areas relevant to second language acquisition and ESOL learners:
·· exposure and input

·· practice through interaction
·· motivation resulting from successful interaction
One issue for teachers and also material writers, however, involves their inadequate levels
of access to SLA research (Marsden and Kasprowicz 2017) and, as a result, materials choice
and use are likely to be informed by teacher beliefs rather than theoretical perspectives.
336
Potentially there are opportunities for exposure to English outside the classroom as
ESOL learners are in an English-speaking environment (ESE) (see Pinard this volume).
However, exposure and input do not always provide opportunities for the necessary prac-
tice and interaction that learners need due to power differentials between the new and
expert users of a language (Bourdieu 1977). Another factor to consider alongside access
to input and opportunities for interaction is motivation. From Gardner and Lambert (1959)
to Dörnyei (2013), applied linguists have suggested motivation is one of the key factors
in gaining exposure and engaging in interaction. Successful interactions in the target lan-
guage have been shown to lead to further motivation, also known as resultative motivation
(Hermann 1980). It can, therefore, be suggested that effective materials for ESOL should
provide exposure and input, opportunities for practice, and successful encounters in the tar-
get language. It is important to remember that not all three may happen with equal degrees
of success in the same lesson.
At this point it would be useful to note that ESOL learner groups are superdiverse
(Vertoveç 2006) in their composition. At any given venue for ESOL classes, learners have
different:
·· first languages: learners come from different countries and already speak one or more
languages (Dalziel and Sofres 2005; NIACE 2006; Rosenberg 2007);
·· educational backgrounds: within the same teaching group, there could be learners with
no formal education to learners with professional qualifications from their own country
(Schellekens 2007);
·· previous learning experiences: this impacts on if, and how much, responsibility for
their learning they can take (Roberts et al. 2004). Previous learning experiences also
have implications for learner strategies;
·· length of stay in Britain: a study of 200 adult ESOL learners, in classes at 13 ESOL
centres across Britain, showed a negative correlation between how long people have
been in Britain and their proficiency in English (Khanna et al. 1998). This lower level
of proficiency in English for immigrants who have been longer in the UK than those
who have been in the UK for a shorter time may have more to do with age at migra-
tion (Chiswick et al. 2005) and quality and quantity of exposure to the target language
(Chiswick et al. 2005; DeKeyser 2007) than how long they have been in the UK;
·· exposure to English outside class: learners who have and make use of opportunities to
use English outside the classroom are more successful at progressing in their L2 skills
(Naiman 1978; Norton and Toohey 2001; Pitt 2005);
·· gender: historically, studies have shown greater participation in ESOL classes by
women and unemployed men (Khanna et al. 1998; Schellekens 2001). An ESOL path-
finder report found that females were more likely to participate in ESOL classes than
males (Dalziel and Sofres 2005). However, in prisons, the number of male ESOL learn-
ers is greater than women, reflecting the general trend in prison populations (ibid);
·· age: figures in the public domain show that around 45% of ESOL learners are aged
under 30 years, with relatively few learners aged 50 years or more (Dalziel and Sofres
2005). Younger age at migration is related to a higher proficiency in target language
(Chiswick et al. 2005; Khanna et al. 1998). This is probably related to better access to
educational provision in countries like the UK due to compulsory attendance at school
and a focus on preparing young people for employment;
·· family context: ESOL learners may be living alone, with one other family member,
or within an extended family. They may have lost one or more family members or
337
Naeema B. Hann
be separated from family members due to war and strife in their country (Dalziel and
Sofres 2005; Roberts et al. 2004; Rosenberg 2007).
Another key factor to consider when writing materials is previous experience of learning
and literacy in students’ first language/s. Low/non-literate learners, also referred to as learn-
ers with low alphabetic literacy, need support to develop skills to approach learning situa-
tions and texts (Condelli et al. 2008; Cooke and Simpson 2008; Schellekens 2007). Learners
with low alphabetic literacy may not have much experience of formal learning situations
such as learning in a classroom. Similarly, they may not have the skills to use texts with
words such as shop signs or identity documents. Life in today’s textualised societies car-
ries an expectation of being able to read and use texts with words as does learning a second
language. Having a low level of skills in decoding and reading texts in one’s first language
means second language learners may not have skills and knowledge relating to alphabetic
texts which they can transfer to the new language they are learning. This area of ESOL mer-
its a more detailed treatment which is beyond the scope of this chapter.
Contexts of language use and learning in ESOL

An effective set of materials will be informed by the contexts in which ESOL learners
encounter English. These contexts inform topics and texts, in other words, what is useful
for learners. The what (to teach) can also be informed by corpus research (Timmis 2015).
Corpora are collections of authentic language, a valuable source to prepare ESOL learners
for language use in real life. Research on language variety helps materials writers choose
language features used by speech communities ESOL learners could encounter (Wolfram
2014).
ESOL learners may be at different stages of settlement, which has implications for their
access to instructed English language learning. For instance, refugees are moved around
different parts of the UK depending on where accommodation and other resources are avail-
able, making continuity in language learning impossible. Migrant workers tend to move
location according to the nature of the industry they are working in. Agricultural workers
may be located in remote areas with little or no access to face-to-face language instruction.
Semi-skilled and skilled migrants may be more stable when it comes to location, but their
working hours may make access to English classes difficult (Hann 2018). This is a potential
barrier to their career progression. Some ESOL learners may not be able to attend English
classes due to family commitments and may not have access to expert speakers outside the
classroom (Hann 2017a). Factors such as these may lead ESOL teachers to prioritise learn-
ers’ immediate language needs and adopt a situational approach to course planning.
The situations for which ESOL learners need English range from domestic ones such as
communicating with family members to finding employment and dealing with neighbours.
The last two in particular have cultural underpinnings which may not be visible to the learn-
ers unless their awareness is raised. The Skills for Life materials (DfES 2003), for example,
aim to prepare learners for life in the UK. They focus on the individual in society (personal
information, health, and leisure), and other roles, such as consumer (shopping, transport),
worker (paid work and volunteering), parent (interacting with schools, cultural aspects of
young children’s lives), and learner (lifelong learning). Language around these topics is
developed over five levels, which are Entry 1, 2, and 3, and Levels 1 and 2, ranging from
beginner to advanced levels in EFL terms. The materials are supported by an extensive set
338
of teacher’s notes, all available online. These government-sponsored materials are supple-
mented with a set of materials around citizenship (Dfes 2006, 2010). Used mostly by FE
colleges and council schemes, both sets of materials are accepted as useful resources and
have also been instrumental in acculturating teachers new to ESOL to the needs of their
learners.
The more recently developed ESOL Nexus website, mentioned above, includes more tra-
ditional EFL content, focussing on grammar and skills along with situations similar to those
in the Skills for Life materials with the added layer of digital skills. Recent research shows
us that new users of English are more likely to use English with family members or friends
from the same speech community who may not be expert users of English (Hann 2017a).
Currently ESOL materials have not addressed this sufficiently. Another gap in ESOL mate-
rials is around meeting the needs of learners with special needs such as dyslexia. A not-
for-profit social enterprise, Learning Unlimited, was one of the first, and remains one of
the few, materials developers to address this gap through their packs (Krupska and Klein
1995, Sunderland et al. 1998) which help teachers to identify and support ESOL learners
with special needs. Another area of need is materials for learners in contexts where access
to classes and materials is restricted. For instance, ESOL learners in prisons are restricted
in terms of access to tutors and materials, including resources such as paper and pens, and
have no access to the internet.
The language learning of migrants is increasingly framed within demands for integra-
tion (Beacco et al. 2017). At the same time, a distinct description of an integrated second
language user is difficult to find in the literature and policy debates. One way to approach
this is through the concept of possible selves, first presented by Markus and Nurius (1986)
as individuals’ visualisation of their future selves. The multilingual, multicultural identi-
ties available to ESOL learners through Skills for Life and other resources such as those
available through ESOL Nexus and LLU+ go some way towards suggesting possible selves
(Dörnyei 2009, Hann 2012) integrated linguistically and otherwise into the society they are
living in. Linguistic integration demands a knowledge of sociocultural context and prag-
matics. For example, to change an appointment at the doctor’s, new users of English do not
only need vocabulary and grammar, they must also be aware of the cultural norms around
appointment booking. ESOL materials also have to deal with topics usually considered
taboo in global coursebooks, such as religious practices around food and drink. Similarly,
ESOL learners need to be aware of values, as well as laws, in their host countries which
are related to diversity. This is important in classrooms with learners from different parts
of the world and forms part of the cultural awareness which underpins ESOL learning. To
sum up, in an ESOL classroom, there is a need to balance generic language needs – a core
of lexical, grammatical, and syntactic knowledge which learners can operationalise – with
the immediate language needs of the learners. These could range from complex conversa-
tions about immigration (Simpson 2019) to everyday encounters between family members
or neighbours (Cooke and Simpson 2008).
Approaches to teaching language in an ESOL classroom

The only study in the UK which has investigated ESOL classrooms in depth (Baynham et al.
2007:6) set out ‘to investigate teaching and learning practices in all … subject areas and set-
tings in Skills for Life to report on the most promising and effective practices.’ The authors
used the term teaching strategies to allow comparison with a large study carried out in the
339
Naeema B. Hann
US in 2003 to investigate literacy and English language teaching. Baynham et al. (2007:9)
described this set of strategies as ‘core strategies because they balance fluency and accuracy
with a variety of activities and materials that keep learners engaged’ and resulted in slightly
improved test scores.
ESOL materials tend to employ a broadly communicative approach (Hann 2017b). For
low-literate, complete beginners, a language experience approach is appropriate where the
learner and tutor work together to draw on the learners’ L1 resources to develop L2 language
(Speigel and Sunderland 2010). For beginners with some literacy, Schellekens (2007:20)
suggests a similar approach and recommends that teachers pay attention to learner language
and develop learners’ ability to notice their own language use. For ESOL learners who
are post-beginners, a task-based approach lends itself to the social-situational syllabuses
adapted by most ESOL courses. Learners from post-beginner upwards have sufficient sec-
ond language resources to complete a task contextualised to their needs in an ESE. Bygate et
al. (2001) suggest that a pedagogic task is an activity which is meaning-focused, where lan-
guage is learned through use and the task has a communicative aim. In the context of ESOL
classrooms, unfocused tasks (Ellis 2003), where language learners can draw upon a range
of linguistic resources to complete the task, are likely to be more suitable for post-beginner
learners and allow learners to interact meaningfully and be motivated as the task progresses.
Focused tasks (Ellis 2003), by contrast, provide opportunities for exposure and input; they
may include a language focus, such as using prepositions, and are likely to be more useful
at beginner levels, where learners may not have much language to draw on.

As the discussion above highlights, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to work when
writing materials for ESOL learners. Since these learners are in an English-speaking coun-
try, their language needs are immediate, varied, and unpredictable, which suggests the mate-
rials writing process should begin with a situation or context analysis. A useful context
analysis will provide information which can be grouped into five areas:
·· their language and literacy profiles (in their first languages and their previous learning
experiences). Acknowledging what they know adds a positive dimension rather than a
deficit view in terms of needs only;
·· their immediate and long-term language needs. For example, an immediate need could
be to make appointments; a medium-term need could be to pass an exam to gain citi-
zenship; a long-term need could be to get a job in line with their previous qualifications
and experience;
·· their availability and ability to attend English class. For instance, do they have carer
responsibilities; can they afford travel expenses?;
·· resources at the teaching premises (e.g. IT facilities, board, flip chart, and room
availability);
·· use of the materials by teachers. For example, will all teachers have the necessary level
of language proficiency and training to teach the materials?
Once learners’ needs have been summarised or collated into a table or a document, the next
stage is to produce a course outline which identifies topics, situations, language, and appro-
priate sources for language input. As discussed on the ESOL Research List, a JISC mail
340
discussion forum, everyday texts, for instance letters from school or information distributed
by the council about hate crime, can be used as materials. Once texts have been selected
or created, tasks must be developed to exploit them. Personal communication with expe-
rienced materials developers (see ‘Acknowledgements’ section) has led to the following
recommendations for developing ESOL materials; some of these may vary depending on
whether the materials are being written for publication or local use:
1. identify situations and interactions where ESOL learners need to use English, for exam-
ple, callers at the door. Language used for these situations in real life may be rich and
complex. Consider simplifying the language without dumbing down the content. Write
a design brief for the page setters;
2. unpack these situations to outline the language and grammar needed. Draft the course
materials and send them off for feedback. Scripts for audio and video texts tend to be
written before learning activities;
3. send the course materials to ESOL teachers, and learners if possible, for feedback and
comments;
4. refine the materials in response to comments and pilot them;
5. further refine the materials based upon the piloting;
6. consider page design: ensure font size, the amount of text on the page, and page layout
aid learning, particularly when writing for low-level ESOL learners. The size, position,
and level of detail in images are equally important;
7. the materials are published.
Writing materials for ESOL is not without its challenges, such as mixed-level groups. Due
to constraints on resources, ESOL classes, especially those in community settings, tend to
be mixed-level. Even where there is some attempt at placing learners in groups according
to language levels, learners could have spiky profiles: for example, they may be beginners
in reading and writing but lower intermediate in listening and speaking. Training for ESOL
teachers is also crucial. A number of awarding bodies offer pre- and in-service qualifica-
tions which address knowledge and understanding of language systems, teaching skills, and
course planning. As in EFL teacher training, principled materials development and adapta-
tion is an area which needs greater attention on training programmes (Woulds and Simpson
2010).

Writing materials for ESOL learners can be a rich, rewarding yet demanding task, given the
situations and needs of the various learners. In summary, as the discussions above suggest,
effective ESOL materials should:
1. be accessible. This relates to physical access as well as access for learning. Materials
need to be available in downloadable format, as well as on digital platforms and in
hard copy. Low-level learners need to be able to access and use materials outside their
classrooms too;
2. be authentic. The materials should prepare the learners for the typical situations they
will encounter outside the classroom. When writing for lower levels, it may be more
realistic to aim for task authenticity rather than representing authentic language;
341
Naeema B. Hann
3. use learners as a resource. Materials need to provide opportunities to build on the

English learners bring to class and for peer learning;
4. extend language learning outside the classroom. Materials need to make the most of the
English-speaking environment learners are in;
5. be flexible. Teachers should be able to add/replace pictures and text to make the materi-
als locally relevant;
6. be informed by situation analysis, whilst also taking into account assessment aims and
resources available at teaching venues;
7. provide opportunities for success. This maintains motivation and builds confidence.
Most current ESOL materials are aimed at learners already in an English-speaking country,
but there is also a need for a range of pre-departure materials, such as those produced by
Learning Unlimited (LLU+ n.d.) for those planning to emigrate. Although many ESOL
learners come to join family, finding employment is often crucial. The Skills for Life
embedded materials (DfES 2005) have been designed for 12 vocational areas, from clean-
ing to construction. These materials embed language and literacy learning within learning
materials for a vocational area such as plumbing. Initially intended as basic literacy materi-
als for those who use English as a first language, the materials are now used with ESOL
learners as well.
Future directions
In the 21st century, English has become a truly global language and access to English has
increased exponentially through traditional and digital media, as well as global travel.
Future research needs to exploit the affordances available to learners and teachers within
the changing contexts of English use. The affordances are social as well as digital, though
the distinction between social and digital platforms is becoming increasingly blurred.
ESOL learners’ interlocutors are not just monolingual, expert users of English but also
include colleagues, family, and friends who may be competent users of English and can
draw on a range of languages to express themselves (Hann 2012). The English they encoun-
ter outside the classroom may well be part of a multilingual conversation in a social group
where the common language is English. This opens up opportunities for peer learning, and
materials writers need to consider how to make use of these learning experiences which take
place outside the classroom.
Digital media provides further affordances to learners. In the case of pre-departure or
vocational English, lessons could be available online or on mobile phones; for instance
English lessons have been available on mobile phones in Bangladesh since 2007 as part
of the Janala project (Tyers and Lightfoot 2018). The project prepared women to work as
domestic helps in the Middle East, where English would be the common language used by
workers and employers as part of an adult education programme. There is no ESOL app
currently available, but if one were developed, it could be a primary source for language
learning for those who are unable to attend classes due to work or caring commitments, or
indeed, could be used to extend classroom learning.
Opportunities for teachers to network, share, and learn have increased in the digital age
(Krutka et al. 2016). Teachers can share materials and self-publish. Getting feedback from
other teachers and learners is easier and faster through email and digital platforms. Just like
the 1970s slogan of ‘Every teacher a language teacher,’ we are in the age of ‘every teacher a
342
materials developer’; Tomlinson suggested this role for teachers in 2003. Social media, such
as Facebook and Twitter, are popular sites for English language teachers to exchange ideas.
For example, Twitter hosts #ESOLchat, moderated by members of NATECLA.
Learner-generated materials (see Choi and Nunan this volume) are another underex-
plored area, not just in ESOL but in materials development in general. The graded readers
produced by Learning Unlimited (formerly LLU+) are based on stories written by ESOL
learners. A number of video texts included in materials produced by Learning Unlimited
were also produced by learners. ESOL learners at Bradford College, West Yorkshire, pro-
duced a magazine in the 1990s with stories and language learning activities, written and
edited by the learners. There are a number of advantages to learner-generated materials in
ESOL. The topics are likely to be of interest to ESOL learners as the texts are written by
ESOL learners and based on their experiences. This means learners can focus on learning
the language and do not need to go through an extra layer of the context of the text. Learner-
generated materials can be a means of providing models of their possible and future selves
who write and speak English.
Given the debates on multilingualism (Creese 2005) and using learners’ other languages
as a resource (Liu et al. 2017), there is a need for large-scale studies to investigate the role
of first and shared languages in learning English. Finally, there is a need for more discussion
and research around how ESOL tests are developed and administered, given the need for
integration into the target community. At the same time, ESOL needs to go beyond integra-
tion into the language and culture learners arrive into, which is the language and culture of
their host country. ESOL materials could also be a space for ESOL learners to explore how
they can integrate the host culture with their first culture.
Conclusion
This chapter draws on sociocultural and second language learning theories to suggest that
materials development and use cannot be a-theoretical. ESOL materials writers may not
explicitly refer to theory, but as experienced teachers, SLA informs the materials they write.
Through observing other teachers and reflection on their own teaching, the theory may be
embedded in how writers plan, teach, and produce materials. They may consider issues
such as how their learners will interact with lesson content and materials, and how or if the
learners will use the language encountered in the lesson outside the classroom. Rather than
teachers making principled choices about materials, often it is the other way around: good
materials develop principled teachers (Mishan and Timmis 2015; Tomlinson 2003).
Further reading
Rosenberg, S.K., 2007. A Critical History of ESOL in the UK, 1870–2006. Leicester: NIACE (National
Institute of Adult and Continuing Education).
This provides a historical overview of ESOL and ESOL materials.
Baynham, M., Roberts, C., Cooke, M., Simpson, J., Ananiadou, K., Callaghan, J., McGoldrick, J. and
Wallace, C., 2007. Effective Teaching and Learning, ESOL. London: NRDC.
The effective practice reports published by the National Research and Development Centre
(NRDC) remain seminal pieces of work for those wanting to know more about basic literacy and
ESOL in the UK. Among these, Baynham et al.’s report gives an excellent insight into what happens
in ESOL classrooms.
Cooke, M. and Simpson, J., 2008. ESOL: A Critical Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
343
Naeema B. Hann
This critical guide provides a feel for the varied contexts of ESOL learners.
Aldridge-Morris, K., 2015. How to Write ESOL Materials. Available at ELT Teacher 2 Writer: www
.eltteacher2writer.co.uk.
This book is a useful practical resource which covers all aspects of writing materials for ESOL.
Speigel, M. and Sunderland, H., 2010. Teaching Basic Literacy to ESOL Learners. London: Learning
Unlimited.
This text provides useful insights into the needs of learners with low alphabetic literacy.
ESOL materials
https://www.excellencegateway.org.uk/content/etf1194
The Excellence Gateway provides ESOL materials for delivery of the Core Curriculum
in the UK.
http://www.learningunlimited.co/publications/esolreaders
This resource houses graded readers which were written by learners and volunteers.
http://www.learningunlimited.co/publications/free-resources
This resource provides materials for family learning and supporting ESOL learners in
their roles as parents.
https://offenderlearning.excellencegateway.org.uk/maths-english-and-esol and
https://esol.britishcouncil.org/content/teachers/teaching-english-for-work/offender
-learning
This resource offers specialist materials for use in prisons.
Related topics
Authenticity in language teaching materials, writing materials for an English-speaking envi-
ronment, learner contributions to materials in language teaching.
Acknowledgements
My warmest and sincerest thanks go to Karen Dudley, Judith Kirsh, Dot Powell, Phil Bird,
Emily Bryson, and Pauline Moon for sharing their experiences of writing materials so
generously.
References
Baynham, M., Roberts, C., Cooke, M., Simpson, J., Ananiadou, K., Callaghan, J., McGoldrick, J. and
Wallace, C., 2007. Effective Teaching and Learning, ESOL. London: NRDC.
Beacco, J., Krumm, H., Little, D. and Thalgott, P., eds. 2017. The Linguistic Integration of Adult
Migrants/L’intégration linguistique des migrants adultes: Some Lessons from Research/Les
enseignements de la recherche. Berlin, Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Retrieved on 6 July
2020 from: De Gruyter https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110477498.
Blackman, P., 1915. A Textbook of the English Language for Yiddish Students. London: Mazin.
Bourdieu, P., 1977. The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information,
16/6:645–668.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M., eds. 2001. Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language
Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Longman.
Chamot, A., 2004. Issues n language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of
Foreign Language Teaching, 1/1:14–26.
Chiswick, B., Lee, Y.L. and Miller, P.W., 2005. Parents and children talk: English language proficiency
within immigrant families. Review of Economics of the Household, 3/3:243–268.
344
Condelli, L., Wrigley, H.S. and Yoon, K.S., 2008. 'What works' for adult literacy students of English as
a second language. In Reder, S. and Bynner, J., eds. Tracking Adult Literacy and Numeracy Skills:
Findings from Longitudinal Research. Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.
Cooke, M. and Simpson, J., 2008. ESOL: A Critical Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Creese, A. 2005. Teacher Collaboration and Talk in Multilingual Classrooms. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Dalziel, D. and Sofres, T., 2005. ESOL Pathfinder Learners' Survey and Prisons Report. Nottingham:
Department for Education and Skills.
DeKeyser, R., 2007. Study abroad as foreign language practice. In DeKeyser, R., ed. Practice in a
Second Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DfES, 2003. Skills For Life Learner Materials ESOL. London: DfES Publications.
DfES, 2005. Skills For Life Embedded Materials. London, DfES Publications.
DfES, 2006, 2010. Citizenship Materials for ESOL Learners. Leicester: NIACE.
Douglas Fir Group, 2016. A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern
Language Journal, 100:19–47.
Dörnyei, Z., 2009. The L2 motivational self system. In Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E., eds. Motivation,
Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., 2013. Motivation in second language learning. In Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M.
and Snow, M.A., eds. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. 4th ed. Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning.
Ellis, R., 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Gardner, R. and Lambert, W., 1959. Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian
Journal of Psychology, 13:266–272.
Han, Z. and Nassaji, H., 2018. Introduction: A snapshot of thirty-five years of instructed second
language acquisition. Language Teaching Research. 23/4:393–402.
Hann, N.B., 2012. Factors Supporting Progress of ESOL Learners in Speaking Skills. Unpublished
PhD thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University.
Hann, N.B., 2017a. Beyond pastoral: The role of family in second language learning experiences of
adults. English Scholarship Beyond Borders, 3/1:29–49.
Hann, N.B., 2017b. ESOL pedagogy: Voices from the classroom. In Masuhara, H. and Mishan, F.,
eds. Practice and Theory in Materials Development in Language Learning. London: Bloomsbury.
Hann, N.B., 2018. Progress and Success in ESOL for Work Courses. In Braddell, A. and Grunhage-
Monetti, M., eds. Language for Work: Experiences across Europe. Graz: European Centre for
Modern Languages (ECML).
Hermann, G., 1980. Attitudes and success in children's learning of English as a second language: the
motivational vs the resultative hypothesis. English Language Teaching Journal, 34/4:247–254.
Khanna, A.L., Verma, M.K., Agnihotri, R.K. and Sinha, S.K., 1998. Adult ESOL Learners in Britain:
A Cross-Cultural Study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Krupska, M. and Klein, C., 1995. Demystifying Dyslexia. London: Learning Unlimited.
Krutka, D.G., Carpenter, J.P. and Trust, T., 2016. Elements of engagement: A model of teacher interactions
via professional learning networks. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32/4:150–158.
Liu, Y., Fisher, L., Forbes, K. and Evans, M., 2017. The knowledge base of teaching in linguistically
diverse contexts: 10 grounded principles of multilingual classroom pedagogy for EAL. Language
and Intercultural Communication, 17/4:378–395.
LLU+, n.d. Preparing for life in the UK. Retrieved on 2 January 2018 from: http://www
.learningunlimited.co/files/Preparing_for_life_in_the_UK_Toolkit.pdf.
Markus, H. and Nurius, P., 1986. Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41/9:954–969.
Marsden E. and Kasprowicz, R., 2017. Foreign language educators’ exposure to research: Reported
experiences, exposure via citations, and a proposal for action. Modern Language Journal,
101/4:613–642.
Press.
345
Naeema B. Hann
Naiman, N., 1978. The Good Language Learner. Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
NIACE, 2006. ‘More Than a Language…’ NIACE Executive Summary. Leicester: NIACE (National
Norton, B. and Toohey, K., 2001. Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly,
35/2:307–322.
Ofsted, 2008. ESOL in the Post-compulsory Learning and Skills Sector: An Evaluation. London: Ofsted.
Pitt, K., 2005. Debates in ESOL Teaching and Learning. Oxon: Routledge.
Roberts, C., Baynham, M., Shrubshall, P., Barton, D., Chopra,P., Cooke, M., Hodge, R., Pitt, K.,
Schellekens, P., Wallace, C. and Whitfield, S., 2004. English For Speakers of Other Languages
(ESOL): Case Studies of Provision, Learners' Needs and Resources. London: NRDC.
Rosenberg, S.K., 2007. A Critical History of ESOL in the UK, 1870–2006. Leicester: NIACE (National
Schellekens, P., 2001. English as a Barrier to Employment, Education and Training. London: DfES.
Schellekens, P., 2007. The Oxford ESOL Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Simpson, J., 2019. Navigating immigration law in a “Hostile Environment”: Implications for adult
migrant language education. TESOL Quarterly, 54/2:488–511.
Speigel, M. and Sunderland, H., 2010. Teaching Basic Literacy to ESOL Learners. London: Learning
Unlimited.
Sunderland, M., Klein, C., Savinson, R. and Partridge, T., 1998. Dyslexia and the Bilingual Learner.
London: Learning Unlimited.
Timmis, I., 2015. Corpus Linguistics for ELT: Research and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Tomlinson, B., ed. 2003. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Bloomsbury.
Tyers, A. and Lightfoot, A., 2018. Using mobile to create low-cost, high-quality language learning.
In Kucha, K. and Shamim, F., eds. International Perspectives on Teaching English in Difficult
Circumstances: Contexts, Challenges and Possibilities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Vertoveç, S., 2006. The emergence of superdiversity in Britain. Retrieved on 6 July 2020 from: https://
www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2006/wp-2006-025-vertovec_super-diversity_britain/.
Wolfram, W., 2014. Integrating language variation into TESOL: Challenges from English globalization.
In Mahboob, A. and Barrat, L., eds. English in Multilingual Contexts: Language Variation in
Education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Woulds, S. and Simpson J., 2010. Dead on the page no more! The case for authentic, locally appropriate
ESOL materials. Language Issues, 21/1:4–20.
Appendix 1
Table 23.1 ESOL level descriptors
CEFR ESOL Skills for Life (and national literacy standards in England,
Wales, and Northern Ireland)
Beginner A1 Entry 1
Elementary A2 Entry 2
Pre-intermediate B1 Entry 3
Intermediate B2 Level 1
Upper intermediate C1 Level 2
Advanced C2 ESOL learners expected to join mainstream courses
From British Council. n.d. Teaching Beginners CPD Module – Level descriptors for ESOL. Available <https://esol.brit-
ishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/attachments/informational-page/ESOL%20level%20descriptors.pdf> [Accessed 20
March 2020].
346
24
Materials for English-medium
education
Introduction
This chapter discusses materials which have been developed for teaching curricular subjects
in different contexts in which English is the medium of instruction (MoI) in primary and sec-
ondary schools. Such contexts differ radically throughout the world. We discuss materials
from three contexts: Spain, the UK, and Rwanda. The chapter first defines English-medium
education (EME) and explores features of the main types of EME according to context. It
describes the pedagogy which is considered good practice in EME and exemplifies this as
it appears in materials in the three EME contexts. It also discusses the degree to which this
pedagogy is contested, in particular with relation to translanguaging (the judicious use of
two or more languages as MoI in the classroom). The chapter identifies the scarcity of mate-
rials and lack of publishing expertise as the main problems which materials development
in EME faces and makes recommendations as to how these problems might be alleviated.
Definition of English-medium education

English-medium education – or English-medium instruction (EMI) – is an umbrella term
used to refer to the teaching of subjects through the medium of English where the language
is a second/additional language (L2) to learners. It includes, for example, content and lan-
guage integrated learning (CLIL) and English as an additional language (EAL). The term
normally refers to any situation in which the learners learn subjects in L2 but do not yet have
fluency in it. Their language ability may be high, intermediate, or low. High ability in the
L2 does not normally function as a barrier to learning, but intermediate and low ability can
make learning slow and ineffective because learning both new concepts and new language
at the same time presents a higher cognitive load. For this reason, learners with insufficient
or developing ability in the L2 require a specialist pedagogy which increases accessibility to
the curriculum and compensates for potential issues with learning. This pedagogy is some-
times known as ‘language-supportive’ (Clegg and Simpson 2016) and is outlined below.
EME occurs in widely differing socio-economic contexts in primary, secondary, and tertiary
education. In this chapter, we will refer to the primary and secondary phases.
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-30 347

Types of English-medium education

Education takes place in learners’ L2 all over the world in very different contexts. One key
distinguishing factor is whether an L2-medium programme is selective, involving a limited
number of schools and learners, or whether it is system-wide, involving all schools and
either all learners or specific categories of learners.
Selective programmes
Selective programmes include:
·· immersion education: for example in Canada where the medium of instruction (MoI) is
often French, and the USA. Learners learn most of the curriculum in L2, at either early,
middle, or late stages in their schooling;
·· bilingual education: this is found in North America, Europe, and elsewhere. Learners
learn most of the curriculum in two languages. In the USA, two versions predomi-
nate: heritage language bilingual education, in which language minority children learn
through their L1; and dual-language bilingual education which mixes speakers of two
languages in the same classroom;
·· CLIL: this is found mainly in Europe. Schools (mainly secondary) opt to offer one or
two subjects in a second language (mainly English) for a period of years.
Of these selective programmes, this chapter will focus on CLIL.
System-wide programmes
Programmes which fall into the system-wide category include:
·· minority education, as it is found in, for example, the USA, UK, or continental Europe;
language minorities form part of the school population in many countries. Some coun-
tries, e.g. the UK, have policy and practice which support these learners as they learn
all subjects through L2 in mainstream classrooms. In the USA minority language users
are sometimes in forms of bilingual education which can be successful in developing
both their subject knowledge and their English ability;
·· education in many developing countries, for example sub-Saharan Africa. Learners in
sub-Saharan Africa learn almost the whole curriculum through English or another for-
mer colonial language, normally from grade 4 onwards;
·· English-medium science and maths, as it has been experimented with, for example, in the
Gulf and South-East Asia. These are recent experiments in which all learners of all ages
in all schools learned maths and science in English. In Malaysia and Qatar, the two best-
known cases, the programmes have been discontinued as system-wide undertakings.
Of these system-wide programmes, this chapter will focus on minority education in the UK
– English as an additional language (EAL) - and EME in sub-Saharan Africa.

The main feature which characterises EME is how successful it is: this varies considerably.
EME works well in some contexts, less well in others, and fails spectacularly in yet others.
348
Materials for English-medium education
By and large, limited, selective programmes often work well in that learners and institu-
tions self-select to study subjects in L2 and thus often have the necessary competences and
resources to do so. They can acquire levels of subject knowledge through the L2 which are
as good as, or even better than those which they could have acquired in their L1, as well as
developing their L2 ability (Baker and Wright 2017; Thomas and Collier 2002). System-
wide programmes tend to have mixed results because all institutions and learners participate
regardless of competence, readiness, and resourcing. Mixed results can be seen in minority
education for example in the USA or UK; poor results are evident in English-medium sci-
ence and maths, and especially in EME in sub-Saharan Africa where learners often attempt
to learn almost the whole curriculum through L2 without anything like the language ability
which they would require to do that, and EME is a major cause of school under-achievement
(Alidou et al. 2006).
Factors which affect the success of EME include learner levels of L2, teacher levels of
L2, whether learners learn through a majority or minority L1, whether they have adequate
cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in their L1 and L2, whether they come
from a family background with high or low socio-economic status (SES), whether subject
teachers can use a language-supportive pedagogy, whether the education authority supports
EME, and finally whether language-supportive subject materials exist (Ball et al. 2015;
Clegg and Simpson 2016; Gibbons 2006).
Features of language-supportive materials

The success or failure of EME often depends on the degree to which a programme employs
language-supportive pedagogy and materials which embody it. Language-supportive peda-
gogy displays several key features which distinguish it from pedagogy designed for learn-
ers fluent in the MoI (Ball et al. 2015). Teacher talk is more accessible: teachers repeat,
paraphrase, and exemplify new concepts. They use more easily answerable question forms
– e.g. short-answer or yes/no questions. They prompt and expand on learner responses.
They signal the structure of their talk and of the lesson. They illustrate concepts with visu-
als. They use a range of support tasks to support learner talk in pairs and groups, learner
writing, reading, and listening. They draw learners’ attention to vocabulary and help them
understand and acquire it. They encourage facilitative forms of translanguaging in acquiring
subject knowledge and developing L2 ability (Garcia and Wei 2014) (see below).
English-medium (EM) materials which embody this pedagogy support reading by includ-
ing accessibly designed reading passages along with reading support tasks. Similarly they
support speech and writing by using language-supportive speech and writing tasks. They
help learners to understand and acquire new vocabulary by using visuals, glossaries, and
vocabulary support tasks; and they encourage translanguaging.
Reading passages in EM subject textbooks are designed for accessibility by displaying,
among others, the following characteristics (University of Bristol 2017):
·· the text is fairly short;

·· the sentences are fairly short;
·· the sentences are not grammatically over-complex and tend to reduce the occurrence of
subordination and passives;
·· general academic vocabulary (used in academic contexts but not subject-specific) is
limited;
·· some subject-specific terms are either explained in the text, or visualised;
349
·· visuals are used to illustrate key terms;

·· cohesive devices are supplied: headings and subheadings, bold, italics, numbering,
paragraphs, bullet points;
·· key items may be repeated.
These characteristics are illustrated in examples 1–3 below.
The function of language-supportive materials

In EME, we are of course talking about subject teaching materials, not language teaching
materials. These materials differ from conventional subject materials designed for native-
speaker (NS) or MoI-fluent learners in that they are designed to be especially accessible for
learners working in L2 and thus embody language-supportive pedagogy.
Learners with high levels of L2 ability may not need language-supportive materials:
they may well be able to read and use subject materials designed for NS speakers or learn-
ers fluent in English. This may occur, for example, in contexts in which ambient, soci-
etal levels of L2 ability are high, for example in CLIL programmes in Scandinavia or the
Netherlands. However, where the language demands of the curriculum are higher than the
language ability of learners, they may interfere with subject learning, tending to make it
slow and ineffective. This critical learner L2 level is often the major factor in causing
L2-medium education to fail. In these contexts, language-supportive materials are neces-
sary. Their function is to support the L2 skills of learners who are still developing those
skills. This takes the pressure off the need for learners to attend to new L2 items and ena-
bles them to focus on new subject concepts and the cognitive demands which they make.
Language-supportive materials thus have a compensatory value: they compensate learners
for insufficient L2 ability and for the potential loss of access to the curriculum which this
can cause.
There follow three examples of EM materials from CLIL in Spain, EAL in the UK, and
EM science in Rwanda.
EXAMPLE 1: CLIL MATERIALS IN SPAIN

Figure 24.1 shows primary science for learners working in English L2 in Spain (Zarzuelo et al.
2006). The learners will have CEFR A1–B1 levels of English. A school using these materials
will have opted for (some of) its learners to study science in English. It is a good example of a
text which is readable by L2 users.
The text is short, containing about 190 words, and the average sentence length is 7 words.
Grammatically the text is not demanding (zero passives, three subordinate clauses). There
are not too many unfamiliar words: academic words (not subject-specific) account for 1%
of vocabulary; subject-specific words account for 2.6%. Visuals are widely used to illustrate
terms. Headings, bullets, and bold type provide structure. Key lexical items (e.g. light, eye)
are repeated. The guided task at the bottom of the page supports the production of written
sentences.
EXAMPLE 2: MATERIALS FOR PRIMARY EAL SCIENCE IN THE UK

Figures 24.2 and 24.3 show examples of materials designed for EAL learners learning science
in minority education in the UK.
350
Figure 24.1 CLIL primary science in Spain.
They were designed experimentally by Afitska for primary schools in Sheffield, South
Yorkshire, in a research project conducted collaboratively by the University of Sheffield and
Sheffield City Council (Afitska 2015a). The learners are members of language minorities, many
with under-developed English, working alongside L1 and English-fluent learners in mainstream
classrooms in years 3–6 (8–11 years old) learning science. The materials illustrate support for
language and subject knowledge development.
351
Figure 24.2 Science for primary years 3–6 in the UK.
Figure 24.3 Science for primary years 3–6 in the UK.
352
The materials provide support for vocabulary through the use of glossaries of key terms.
Core terms are highlighted in blue. The glossaries are monolingual but use simple language.
Support for comprehension of subject-specific content is given via short, simple sentences and
diagrams and by inviting learners to represent their own understanding of the subject matter in
visual terms. Correct answers to the questions are accessible, though initially folded behind the
page. Even those who copy answers from the answer sheet can gain through linking terms and
concepts both in their L1 and L2, as well as by practising spelling.
Learners’ writing is supported by the use of writing support tasks, in particular gap-filling.
Learners are also invited to write open responses without support. This can be attempted by
more English-proficient learners. However, those learners who are unable to write in this way
without support can respond using their L1 in the orange boxes. Many will have the required
degree of understanding of the key concepts but be unable to express it in English. They will be
able to do so in their L1 if they have, as many do, sufficient L1 literacy skills. Where they do not
have the L1 literacy skills to generate complete sentences, they are able to draw or sketch, and
possibly label, their ideas in the green boxes in their booklets. The learners were also allowed to
mix English and their L1 in order to record their understanding. Thus translanguaging supports
not only writing but also subject-matter knowledge development.
EXAMPLE 3: MATERIALS FOR GRADE 4 ENGLISH-

MEDIUM SCIENCE IN RWANDA
Figures 24.4 and 24.5 show a reading passage from language-supportive materials designed
experimentally for EME in primary grade 4 in Rwanda by the University of Bristol and the
Figure 24.4 Science text for grade 4 learners of science in English in Rwanda.

353
Figure 24.5 Science text for grade 4 learners of science in English in Rwanda.
354
British Council. The materials were produced as part of a research project funded by the UK
Department for International Development (Muheirwe et al. 2014). Learners in Rwanda start
learning subjects in English in grade 4, with very low English language ability. The text (30
words) and sentences (on average 7.5 words) are short, the sentences are grammatically sim-
ple, and academic vocabulary is limited to type. Subject-specific words are soil, loam, sand,
clay, grow, crop, build, pot – quite a lot of words for the length of text, and pot, build, crop are
illustrated visually. The text uses bullet points for listing. It repeats the vocabulary soil, clay,
loam, and sand, and the sentence stem, ‘We use __ soil for -ing.’ All these features make it
more readable.
EM materials should also support reading, writing, and speaking. In Figure 24.4, the text is
accompanied by a reading support task – matching pictures and soil types. Although the text
may seem simple, it is still difficult for learners with the low levels of English which Rwandan
learners have on starting the English-medium curriculum at grade 4; this reading support task
is necessary. Secondly, the learners are asked, before they read, to look at the pictures and talk
about them in their L1, Kinyarwanda (Figure 24.5). This translanguaging task enables them
to bring to mind in L1 what they know or can guess about soils and their uses and makes the
reading in English easier.
Thirdly, the learners use a bilingual glossary (Figure 24.5) which accompanies the text and
will provide support for vocabulary and reading. Fourthly, learners are supported in talking
and writing by tasks which learners do after reading (Activity 28). Again, learners in grade 4
in Rwanda will not be able to talk or write at all easily in English about the key concepts of the
lesson, unless they have this support.
English-medium pedagogy
EM education occurs, as the examples show, in varying contexts across the world. However,
it is not marked by widespread acceptance of a well-defined pedagogy. There is agree-
ment amongst some academics and practitioners on the basic features of this pedagogy, as
they are briefly outlined above. But many stakeholders, such as education authorities and
publishers, are often unaware of them (see below). This situation differs from English lan-
guage teaching, where textbook authors, editors, and authorities tend to agree broadly on the
characteristics of good practice in materials design. This degree of unfamiliarity amongst
stakeholders stems partly from the fact that EME and EM publishing has not undergone a
lengthy enough period of development and has not been subjected to the kind of academic
and practical scrutiny which, over the last half century, has been directed at English lan-
guage teaching.
Teacher education in the various contexts listed above has accommodated L2-medium
education in varying degrees. In sub-Saharan Africa, while some in-service teacher educa-
tion practices are successful, it is rare for initial teacher education to teach trainees how
to teach subjects to learners in L2 (Alidou 2009; Clegg 2017; Probyn 2006). Most subject
teachers are unaware how to do it. In the UK, initial teacher education sometimes includes
some experience of EAL practice, but few institutions make it a core component of their
programme. Subject teachers are normally not experienced in how to teach subjects to lin-
guistically diverse classrooms, and EAL specialists are largely not trained though initial
teacher education, though some in-service teacher education is available. In CLIL pro-
grammes, there are some university centres in Europe which have developed a strength in
CLIL and some CLIL in-service teacher education can be found, to varying extents from
country to country. Most CLIL subject teachers, however, are not trained during their initial
teacher education programme.
355
In addition, some aspects of EM pedagogy are contested; this applies in particular to

translanguaging. Translanguaging is currently attracting a good deal of academic and edu-
cational attention. Two benefits are claimed for it in EME (Garcia and Wei 2014): firstly that
it can increase learners’ subject knowledge and secondly that it can improve their L2 abil-
ity. The use of L1 in the L2 classroom and L2-medium classroom, however, has long been
debated, and in some circles the view has developed (Baker and Wright 2017) that it is not
useful. This view has been accepted, for example, by education authorities in sub-Saharan
Africa, where Ministries often ban the use of L1 in EME and exclude it from classrooms,
instructing inspectors to enforce this and preventing its use in textbooks. It is extremely
rare to find EM subject textbooks in sub-Saharan Africa which permit any use of L1. The
translanguaging in the Rwandan materials exemplified in Figure 24.3 occurs in experimen-
tal materials; it would not currently be permitted by the Ministry of Education in Rwanda.
Teachers in sub-Saharan Africa, when observed, are reluctant to use translanguaging for
fear of censure. This is in spite of the fact that most EM subject teachers in sub-Saharan
Africa use code-switching unofficially and very regularly in their teaching, as both practical
experience and academic research (Clegg and Afitska 2011) show. The use of the L1 by both
teachers and learners is accepted in language-in-education research in sub-Saharan Africa
as occurring in many forms (e.g. teacher code-switching into L1 to translate terms, teacher
repetition in L1 of sections of L2-medium teacher-talk; teacher use of L1 for large sections
of what is officially an L2-medium lesson; learner use of L1 in whole-class responses to
teachers and especially in pair and group work (Clegg and Afitska 2011)). Both researchers
and teachers often give the impression that little learning would occur without it.
In bilingual nurseries in the UK, translanguaging has long been accepted practice and
is likely to become more so in primary and secondary classrooms as authorities and teach-
ers become more informed about its usefulness (Conteh 2012; Datta 2000; Kenner 2004).
However, in primary and secondary schools, this development is slow. While teachers are
gradually accepting that L1 use in their L2-medium classrooms can be useful, there is prob-
ably not much recognised practice; teachers and authorities may still be wary of it, and
some academic voices doubt its value (Chalmers 2016). This contrasts strongly with minor-
ity education in the USA where some authorities, after decades of debate, now recognise
the value of L1 in L2-medium education and encourage bilingual schooling for minority
language users. The examples of translanguaging in UK EAL shown in Figures 24.2 and
24.3 are generally welcomed by UK practitioners, but may be the first ones to embody this
practice in publicly available materials.
In CLIL contexts, translanguaging is not a common subject for either practical or aca-
demic discussion. L1 use hardly appears in published CLIL materials. However, in some
forms of L2-medium education, such as bilingual education, it is a key principle of success-
ful educational practice.
The intellectual and practical appeal of translanguaging in EM education is not in doubt,
but it does need further research. The academic literature about it makes sense to many, as
do practical examples in both teaching and assessment, which are becoming established
in minority education in the USA (Celic and Seltzer 2011). In sub-Saharan Africa, where
learners are asked to learn subjects in English L2 without anything approaching the requi-
site levels of English language ability, little learning would take place if both teachers and
learners did not regularly code-switch. In most English-medium classrooms in sub-Saharan
Africa, for example, no unsupported pair and group talk can take place without L1 use, even
after many years of EM education, and most teachers cannot present new subject concepts
to the whole class without having recourse to L1.
356

EME is beset, in most of the contexts in which it is used, by lack of materials. In this sec-
tion we will discuss the parameters of the unavailability of materials, relating it partly to the
absence of publishing expertise, and touching on what EM teachers tend to do without them.
Scarcity
The key problem relating to the provision of learning materials in EME is that they are
scarce. There are a number of reasons for this. One is to do with the market: potential read-
erships in limited programmes such as European CLIL or UK minority education are small.
Other reasons have to do with publishing expertise. It is likely that few publishers have the
pedagogical know-how to design materials for EME. In addition, and this applies especially
to education in developing countries, such as sub-Saharan Africa, they may simply be una-
ware of the language needs of learners.
In European CLIL contexts, there are few materials for pupils learning subjects in primary
or secondary school in L2. Spain offers published materials for primary learners learning
science in English, and some European countries, such as Germany, offer limited materials
for secondary learners learning subjects in English. Because the market for specialist CLIL
materials is small, publishers probably feel that it is not profitable to cater for it. In addition,
materials cannot easily be produced for use across national boundaries because all national
subject curricula are different. By and large, learners do without specialist L2-medium mate-
rials; teachers may use materials designed for NSs, despite their high language demands, or
they may get materials from local centres supporting CLIL programmes (as for example in
the Basque Country in Spain). They may also prepare their own (see below).
In minority education, for example, in the UK, it is also very rare to find materials to sup-
port learners learning through English L2. These learners normally speak another language
at home and have anything from zero to socially fluent English language ability. They spend
most of their time learning alongside English-fluent learners in mainstream subject class-
rooms. Despite the fact that an EAL or bilingual support teacher may be present in class
for some of the time, they learn largely without support, and many struggle. Mainstream
subject teachers are not trained to design language-supportive subject materials, and neither
are many language support staff. Whatever support is given is often unplanned and oral.
Publishers rarely publish for this market, presumably because it is small, but in addition
perhaps, because it does not have a high profile.
In sub-Saharan Africa, there are very few subject materials which learners with low
English language ability can use. At grade 4, which is when learners in most countries
start to learn in English, learners normally have far less English language ability than is
required to learn school subjects (Clegg 2015; Glewwe et al. 2009; Uwezo 2013). Here, the
availability of textbooks is not an issue: assuming books can be supplied to schools, they
are plentiful. The problem is that many subject textbooks are written for an English-fluent
readership and therefore few African learners can read them. Some materials are partly
written with L2-medium learners in mind: this means that they may have accessible read-
ing passages (see Figures 24.4 and 24.5), but no support for talking and writing. Learners
may thus be able to read about subject concepts but not to talk or write about them (Clegg
2017). However, textbooks are often unused in the classroom (Fleisch 2008; Probyn 2006;
Taylor and Vinjevold 1999). One cause of this must be that learners cannot read them. Lack
of access to textbooks is also likely to damage both learners’ subject achievement and their
academic language development in English.
357
Publishing expertise
The possibility that publishers do not have the pedagogical expertise to produce L2-medium
materials arises when one looks at CLIL materials in Europe and EM materials, for exam-
ple, in South Africa. It is common to find CLIL science materials in Spain, or EM social sci-
ence materials in South Africa which contain accessible reading texts but may not support
speech or writing. As mentioned above, this means that learners may understand a text but
not easily be able to talk or write about it. This indicates that authors and editors have only
a partial understanding of what EM learners need.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the expertise problem is stark: for example, publishers may not
even know that learners have low English language ability. It is common in sub-Saharan
Africa for publishers to provide textbooks designed for NS learners, for use with low-English
ability learners. They are often harder to read than those which are available in the UK for
English-fluent learners (see Table 24.1). No attempt has been made to make them accessible
to their readership, and indeed these books will be unreadable for the majority of learners.
Reading ability amongst learners working in L2 in sub-Saharan Africa can be extremely
low. For example, studies of learner reading ability in East Africa (Uwezo 2013) show that
50% of learners in Tanzania in year 7 (end of primary school, approaching English-medium
schooling at the beginning of secondary school) cannot read a year 2 English text. Uwezo
found similar results for Kenya and Uganda. Research into the reading ability of Rwandan
learners in year 6 (Williams 2011) found that 62% scored zero on a year 4 English reading
passage. In a ground-breaking study in the early 1990s, Macdonald (1990) found that in
South Africa, learners finished year 3 with a vocabulary of 500 English words, but that the
English-medium curriculum at the start of grade 4 required 6,000 words. These vocabulary
levels are wholly inadequate for learners attempting to learn subjects in L2 and constitute a
gross barrier to education.
Despite this, textbooks published for schools in sub-Saharan Africa make few conces-
sions for learner L2 ability. Readability measures confirm this. When assessed using these
measures, they emerge as being harder to read than textbooks for similar grades in a country
where most learners are assumed to be English-fluent, such as the USA. Table 24.1 shows
how two subject textbooks, for Rwanda grade 4 and Tanzania grade 8 (both years in which
EM education starts), have higher readability scores than the equivalent grade for English-
fluent or native-speaker (NS) learners.
It is important to interpret these figures correctly. The table shows that a text for non-
native-speaker (NNS) learners in Rwanda year 4 is not readable by NS learners in the US
until late grade 7; and that a text for NNS learners in Tanzania year 8 is not readable by NS
learners until late grade 8. However, the degree of unreadability of the two texts for learners
in Rwanda and Tanzania respectively is much greater than indicated by these figures. The
crucial difference is that a year 4 learner in Rwanda and a year 8 learner in Tanzania are
Table 24.1 Readability in textbooks for Rwanda and Tanzania
Text Intended grade in Rwanda Average readability score Estimated readability score
and Tanzania (NS grade) appropriate to this grade
Rwanda 4 7.7 2–3

Tanzania 8 8.7 2–3
358
non-native speakers, the majority of whom can read very little in English; whereas read-
ability scores are measures appropriate to fluent English readers. The reading ability gap
is thus far greater than grade differences between 4 and 7.7 and 8 and 8.7 might indicate.
It is difficult to suggest a NS readability score which might reflect what a NNS learner in
sub-Saharan Africa in these grades can read, but one might speculate that the ability of both
these Rwandan and Tanzanian NNS learner groups to read an L2-medium school text might
be around the equivalent of NS grade 2–3. In comparison, scores of NS grades 7.7 and 8.7
are thus far too high for the intended learners.
One can only conclude that the publishers in question not only lack the appropriate peda-
gogical knowledge but are also unaware of the language levels of learners. However unlikely
this may seem, lack of awareness of the language needs of learners is a phenomenon which
is shared by several stakeholder groups in sub-Saharan Africa, including Ministries and aid
agencies (Dutcher 2004).
Teacher solutions to the absence of materials

Where an English-medium subject teacher has no access to specially made materials, they can
either use materials designed for NS learners, or make their own, or use no materials at all.
Materials made for English-fluent learners may be usable to a degree with L2-medium
learners whose command of the MoI is good. Learners whose English ability is low to inter-
mediate, however, will struggle to use these books. They can make good use of visuals, but
they may find reading passages hard to read, vocabulary levels high, and subject concepts
difficult to talk and write about. Teachers may feel they can reduce the language demands
of the textbook by acquiring books for English-fluent learners at a lower age and level of
subject difficulty, but these normally reduce the cognitive demands of the subject too far.
If they have the time and the expertise, subject teachers may make their own materials. They
may rewrite reading passages to make them easier to understand. They may provide visuals
and glossaries. If they have the expertise, which most do not, they may provide tasks to support
speech and writing. However, all this takes time. CLIL teachers often seem ready to put in the
time, but it is a distinguishing feature of CLIL in Europe that it demands a lot of extra work from
subject teachers which they would not have to give if they were working in L1.
Teachers in sub-Saharan Africa have neither the time nor the expertise; they rarely pro-
vide extra materials. They deal with incomprehension mainly through code-switching, mov-
ing back and forth between languages (Clegg and Afitska 2011), and often make minimal
or no use of textbooks (Moulton 1994; Taylor and Vinjevold 1999). Subject teachers in UK
EAL contexts also rarely make special materials, though language support staff in the same
classroom may sometimes do so if planning allows. Mainstream subject and class teachers
rely on an ad hoc mixture of drawing attention to those parts of a textbooks which are com-
prehensible, talking to a learner individually, getting help from a more English-fluent bilin-
gual peer, using visuals, encouraging learners to use a bilingual dictionary, and occasionally
recruiting the assistance of parents (Gravelle 2000; Smidt 2008).
Consequences of a lack of materials

The consequences of using few or no dedicated materials with L2-medium learners vary. It
is uncommon to hear that in CLIL programmes a lack of specialist materials is a cause of
low achievement. Some CLIL teachers may have dedicated materials. Others often make
their own, and these can prove sufficient. They can also use at least parts of textbooks
359
designed for NS learners. In addition, in most classrooms the teacher is a major source of
subject-related input, and a fluent enough CLIL teacher can turn this to their advantage.
This is not the case in sub-Saharan Africa. Teachers are often unconfident in their own
grasp of English. It may be hard for them to develop subject concepts clearly if they have to
rely mainly on their own talk. In addition, textbooks are unlikely to be used if learners can-
not read them. The teacher relies therefore on teacher-talk, in which the teacher may herself
feel unconfident (Chick 1996), and on code-switching. Because these are often inadequate
teaching tools, the textbook is more necessary to the learner in sub-Saharan Africa: it can
supply high-quality subject content, and also good models of academic English, which the
teacher may not be able to offer. If it is not available, the loss to the learner is considerable,
reducing access both to the curriculum and to academic English.
There is also a major loss to the teacher. Because some teachers are not trained in general
and most teachers are not trained to teach their subject to learners with low ability in the MoI,
a good EM textbook can act as a trainer in the classroom and provide teachers with a fruitful
and supportive route through a L2-medium lesson, which they would not have been able to
construct on their own. Without such a textbook, their EM practice is often, through no fault
of their own, of poor quality. One should also mention that because textbooks are often availa-
ble, if unused, a good deal of money is spent on them and much must be deemed to be wasted.
It is hard to comment on the effect of a lack of access to textbooks on minority learners in
the UK. Neither the academic literature nor professional discourse addresses the subject in
any detail. Both teachers and learners have a way of getting by. Learners become skilled at
making meaning from textbooks for L1 learners even if they cannot read reading passages
easily. When they still have difficulty understanding concepts, teachers have recourse to
the clutch of useful measures mentioned above. Nevertheless, teachers welcome materials,
such as those illustrated in Example 2 above, when they can get them, and so do learners:
‘[Having materials developed for us] would really help because it just makes our job a lit-
tle bit easier – having something, you know, sort of prepared for you’ (Afitska and Clegg
2016:104).

In CLIL programmes, more materials would be useful, but it is hard to persuade publishers to
publish if the market is small. However, some publishers do produce materials (e.g. Richmond/
Santillana and Oxford University Press in Spain). Their expertise is often partial: for example,
support normally focuses on reading and insufficiently on speech and writing; translanguaging
is rarely included. Appropriate expertise is available (see Example 1 above), and it is possible
that publishers in other European countries might be persuaded to venture into CLIL publish-
ing if they too were able to train their personnel in effective materials development for CLIL
materials. Academic centres of CLIL expertise exist, such as the European Centre for Modern
Languages (ECML) in Graz, Austria, which inform European Union CLIL policy. They do
not, as a rule, advise publishers, but relevant commercial consultancy could make a difference.
In sub-Saharan Africa, change in the practices of both publishers and Ministries is sorely
needed if learners are to read textbooks in any numbers. Here, the market is not a barrier:
books are plentiful. They are, however, often unusable. Hardly any effort is made to provide
books which L2-medium learners can read. The barriers appear to consist of a lack of exper-
tise and political will. It would not be difficult to provide relevant training for publishers
and editors throughout sub-Saharan Africa, if Ministries and aid agencies were to require it:
360
the British Council and the UK Department for International Development already provide
such expertise, for example, in Rwanda. Indeed training of this kind was provided to East
African publishers by Bristol University and the British Council in Rwanda in the course of
the project which generated the materials shown in Figure 24.3. Some international publish-
ers contain this expertise within their own organisation, applying it in one context but not in
another. Oxford University Press, for example, applies it in Spain (Blair et al. 2014), but not
in Rwanda. They could easily redistribute this competence within the company. Publishers,
however, respond to their paymasters: if Ministries are themselves unaware of the need for
specialist textbooks, they will not require them of publishers. Thus in governments across
sub-Saharan Africa also, there is a need for a new understanding that learners with low
ability in the MoI cannot read books intended for fluent language users; they need books
designed especially for them.
In the practice of EAL in the UK, materials would also be useful, though again it is
unlikely that publishers can be persuaded to provide materials for a small market. In primary
schools, there is also the consideration that teachers in general often work without published
materials and can have an understandably idiosyncratic approach to their own subject and
learners, which might work against the production of EAL materials for use across the coun-
try. In the past, local language support services provided some L2-medium subject materials
and some still do; similarly government-supported agencies and organisations such as the
British Council and the Bell Foundation have also published limited but very useful materi-
als. It would be desirable for such services and for other local centres of expertise, such as
the University of Sheffield which produced the materials cited above, to be supported in pro-
viding more such materials and in making them available to schools. It is also possible that
publishers of subject textbooks could include in accompanying materials packs, language-
supportive versions of key subject contents. The fact that this is rare is probably partly due,
as already discussed, to a lack of author and editor expertise in publishing houses, but also
to the fact that EAL has a low profile and has not in the past made it part of its culture to
demand commercial EAL publications.
Future directions
What is needed in most EM contexts is EM materials. The need is greatest where EME
makes the heaviest demands on learners and teachers, such as in sub-Saharan Africa and
other parts of the developing world where EM education is used. Interestingly, it is here
that new and better EM materials could be produced. There is, after all, a large market,
and Ministries and donors spend a great deal on textbooks (Read 2015). What is required
for effective EM materials to be produced is firstly for these commissioning stakeholders
to understand the nature and importance of EM materials and secondly for them to require
publishers to produce them. Publishers in turn should then establish the relevant textbook
design expertise within their organisations; consultants are available to help them with this.
Unfortunately, at present neither stakeholders nor academics with an interest in sub-Saharan
Africa are talking much about textbooks. The topic does not arise much in development
education discourse. Ministries and aid agencies tend not to be informed about it. Until a
change in political awareness comes about, it is likely that learners in EME in sub-Saharan
Africa will continue to have inaccessible subject textbooks. International, non-govern-
mental organisations (NGOs) can, however, have an influence on education in ways which
change the practices of governments and aid agencies in relation to MoI. One can see this,
361
for example, in the work of UNESCO, Save the Children, and NGOs such as the Summer
Institute of Linguistics. These and similar agencies need urgently to take up the question of
L2-medium materials for schools in developing countries.
In CLIL programmes, materials of some quality will continue to be used in limited con-
texts. Here, the market is important and publishers are unlikely to offer EM materials until it
is bigger. This could happen: CLIL in Europe is often a successful enterprise, supported by
governments and popular with influential parents. The numbers of learners in European CLIL
programmes could increase, and with this, the marketability of EM materials. In EAL in the
UK, the market may continue to be unattractive to publishers, although the numbers of EAL
learners are on the increase. What could encourage the availability of materials is greater
coordination amongst local and national government, as well as non-governmental providers,
including the active EAL teachers’ associations, and a modicum of government financing.
It would also be useful for EM pedagogical expertise to become more widely known and
agreed upon, especially amongst those stakeholders who are influential in the production
of textbooks. Governments are often not informed about EM pedagogy and EM materi-
als design. This is most striking, as mentioned above, in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition,
publishers in CLIL, EAL, and EME in sub-Saharan Africa do not often possess the relevant
expertise. This is, again, most obvious in sub-Saharan Africa. Similarly, EM pedagogy is not
strongly represented in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) institutions in sub-Saharan Africa or
in UK EAL. Government can take a lead here in supporting the development of materials
design expertise in academic institutions, ITE institutions, and teachers’ associations. One
can see how relevant pedagogical expertise can develop in this way in such CLIL centres as
the ECML in Austria and how the EU has given its backing to CLIL. In UK EAL, non-gov-
ernmental bodies, such as the Bell Foundation in the UK, have developed EAL pedagogy.
Centres of EME expertise are also influential in Africa, such as PRAESA at the University
of Cape Town. Such bodies as these in all three domains of L2-medium education need to
take up the issue of L2-medium pedagogy and in particular how it is embodied in textbooks.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have offered a brief outline and some examples of EM pedagogy.
Unfortunately, not many teacher education programmes include a focus on this, and many
teachers in the three contexts illustrated in this chapter struggle to teach subjects in L2 as a
result. We have presented a number of principles relevant to EM materials design, but few
examples of such materials exist. Some education authorities understand EM education and
the requirements of EM textbooks, but most do not. These deficiencies are most apparent
where EM textbooks are most needed in developing countries. The political will to develop
EM materials is more readily available in high-resource countries and should result in the
near future in more and better EM textbooks. We can only hope that with time and advocacy
the same becomes true in the global south.
Further reading
Alidou, H., Boly, A., Brock-Utne, B., Diallo, Y.S., Heugh, K. and Wolff, H.E., 2006. Optimizing
Learning and Education in Africa: The Language Factor: A Stock-taking Research on Mother
Tongue and Bilingual Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Paris: ADEA.
362
This is a collection of essays by some of the most influential and experienced figures in the field
of language in education in sub-Saharan Africa. In particular, it highlights the failure of EME and
education through other colonial languages in sub-Saharan Africa. It advocates a much more extensive
role of learners’ L1s in education.
Ball, P., Kelly, K. and Clegg, J., 2015. Putting CLIL into Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
This book describes the developing field of CLIL or education through a second language, mainly
though not exclusively in Europe. It develops a theory of language and content integration within the
learning and teaching of subjects in L2. It also provides very practical illustrations of how teachers
can support learners with developing language skills in the L2 in meeting the language demands of the
L2-medium subject classroom.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F. and Hamayan, E., 2009. Literacy Instruction for English Language Learners.
Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.
The authors of this book are experts in the field of ESL in the USA. They pull together,
for the benefit of teachers, ESL classroom practices of proven effectiveness and relate them to
established research insights. The book focuses on the development of literacy skills in L2, as
well as in L1, within the learning of mainstream subjects and alongside the strengthening of the
learner’s culture. It is a highly practical book, providing teachers with a wide range of accessible
pedagogical strategies.
Garcia, O., Johnson, S. I. and Seltzer, K., 2017. The Translanguaging Classroom: Leveraging Student
Bilingualism for Learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
This book is written by experienced theoreticians and practitioners in classroom translanguaging.
It is a practice-based account of experimental approaches to translanguaging in the New York school
system. It combines discussion of theory underlying the authors’ view of translanguaging with detail of
learners and teachers working in the classroom, together with debate over episodes of translanguaging
practice and assessment.
Gibbons, P., 2015. Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons is one of the most experienced theoreticians and practitioners in ESL/EAL, and this is
a very accessible book. Based in Australia, but drawing on practice across the world, she elucidates
practices which have proved effective in supporting ESL learners within and outside mainstream
classrooms and uses them to illustrate appropriate theory in the education of language minority
learners.
Related topics
Materials for developing reading skills, materials for developing writing skills, writing EAP
materials, writing materials for Spanish teenagers.
References
Afitska, O., 2015a. EAL Science Booklets [Online]. Retrieved on 15 February 2020 from: http://wp
.lancs.ac.uk/eal-science-project/about-booklets/.
Afitska, O., 2015b. Scaffolding learning: Developing materials to support the learning of science
and language by non-native English speaking children. Innovation in Language Learning and
Teaching, 10/2:1–15.
Afitska, O. and Clegg, J., 2016. Supporting teachers in EAL classrooms: Working towards the
centralised provision of subject-specific, EAL-tailored resources for primary classrooms. The
European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 5/1:95–108.
Alidou, H., 2009. Promoting multilingual and multicultural education in francophone Africa:
Challenges and perspectives. In Brock-Utne, B. and Skattum, I., eds. Languages and Education in
Africa: A Comparative and Transdisciplinary Analysis. Didcot: Symposium Books.
363
Alidou, H., Boly, A., Brock-Utne, B., Diallo, Y.S., Heugh, K. and Wolff, H.E., 2006. Optimizing
Learning and Education in Africa: The Language Factor: A Stock-taking Research on Mother
Tongue and Bilingual Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Paris: ADEA.
Baker, C. and Wright, W.E., 2017. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 6th ed.
Ball, P., Kelly, K. and Clegg, J., 2015. Putting CLIL into Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blair, A., Cadwllader, J. and Orge, I.C., 2014. Natural Sciences 3. Madrid: Oxford University Press.
Celic, C., and Seltzer, K., 2011. Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB Guide for Educators. The
Graduate Center, The City University of New York: CUNY-NYSIEB. Retrieved on 15 February
2020 from: http://www.nysieb.ws.gc.cuny.edu/files/2012/06/FINALTranslanguaging-Guide-With
-Cover-1.pd.
Chalmers, H., 2016. First Language-Mediated Strategies for Improving Linguistic Proficiency and
Academic Attainment for Bilingual Children Aged 4–11 in Non-Bilingual Schools: A Systematic
Review. Retrieved on 24 July 2020 from: https://campbellcollaboration.org/library/download/688
_40a6e63bc1b1edbb38add53e65ec39a0.html.
Chick, K., 1996. Safe-talk: Collusion in apartheid education. In Coleman, H., ed. Society and the
Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clegg, J., 2015. Developing readable English-medium textbooks in Rwanda. Presentation at IATEFL
2015, Manchester, UK.
Clegg, J., 2017. The English-medium curriculum in African education systems: Do learners have
enough English to cope with it? Presentation at Africa TESOL 2017, Kegali, Rwanda.
Clegg, J. and Afitska, O., 2011. Teaching and learning in two languages in African classrooms.
Comparative Education, 47/1:61–77.
Clegg, J. and Simpson, J., 2016. Improving the effectiveness of English as a medium of instruction in
sub-Saharan Africa. Comparative Education, 52/3:359–374.
Conteh, J., 2012. Teaching Bilingual and EAL Learners in Primary Schools. London: Sage.
Datta, M., ed. 2000. Bilinguality and Literacy. London: Continuum.
Dutcher, N., 2004. Expanding Educational Opportunity in Linguistically Diverse Societies.
Washington, DC: Centre for Applied Linguistics.
Fleisch, B., 2008. Primary Education in Crisis: Why South African Children Underachieve. Cape
Town: Juta.
Garcia, O. and Wei, L., 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gibbons, P., 2006. Bridging Discourses in the ESL Classroom. London: Continuum.
Glewwe, P., Kremer, M. and Moulin, S., 2009. Many children left behind? Textbooks and test scores
in Kenya. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1/1:112–35.
Gravelle, M., ed. 2000. Planning for Bilingual Children. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.
Kenner, C., 2004. Becoming Biliterate. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.
Macdonald, C., 1990. Main Report of the Threshold Project. Pretoria: The Human Sciences Research
Council.
Moulton, J., 1994. How Do Teachers Use Textbooks and Other Print Materials? A Review of the
Literature [Online]. Retrieved on 15 February 2020 from: http://www.pitt.edu/~ginie/ieq/pdf/
textbook.pdf.
Muheirwe, A., Mununura, J. and Nyampinga, C., 2014. P4 science. In Materials Produced for
Rwandan Primary Schools. LaST Project. Bristol: University of Bristol/British Council.
Probyn, M., 2006. Language and learning science in South Africa. Language and Education,
20/5:391–414.
Read, T., 2015. Where Have All the Textbooks Gone? Toward Sustainable Provision of Teaching and
Learning Materials in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Smidt, S., 2008. Supporting Multilingual Learners in the Early Years. Abingdon: Routledge.
Taylor, N., and Vinjevold, P., 1999. Getting Learning Right. Cape Town: Pearson Education.
364
Thomas, W. and Collier, V., 2002. A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority
Students’ Long-term Academic Achievement. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for
Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
University of Bristol, 2017. Textbook designs: A roundtable discussion on the readability of English-
medium textbooks. Cape Town. Unpublished paper. Bristol: University of Bristol.
Uwezo, 2013. Are Our Children Learning? Annual Learning Assessment Report 2012. Tanzania:
Uwezo.
Williams, E., 2011. Language policy, politics and development in Africa. In Coleman, H., ed. Dreams
and Realities: Developing Countries and the English Language. London: British Council.
Zarzuelo, C., Espino, O. and Minchom, M., 2006. Essential Science 3. Madrid: Richmond Publishing.
365
25
Writing materials for Spanish
teenagers
Caroline Krantz, Julie Norton, and Heather Buchanan
Introduction
This chapter focuses on issues related to writing materials for a specific audience, namely
Spanish teenagers in upper-secondary education. The extensive experience of the first
author as a published coursebook writer for this market is drawn upon, and we critically
discuss relevant issues, such as writing for a local versus a global market, and the specific
considerations which writing for Spanish learners and teenagers entails. Examples from the
coursebook, Reach Up (Krantz and Roberts 2018a, 2018b), are included for illustration, and
recommendations for practice are explored.
At upper-secondary, or Bachillerato, students prepare for a school exit exam equivalent
to the German Abitur, the French Baccalauréat, or British A-Levels. They typically attend
this 2-year stage between the ages of 16 and 18. On successful completion of their exams,
they receive the Bachillerato certificate, which qualifies them to access higher education
studies, including university and higher vocational training. Bachillerato is non-mandatory.
However, the vast majority, approximately 86%, of 15–19-year-olds in 2012 were enrolled
in education (OECD 2014). Bachillerato students must choose two out of three possible
‘branches’: Science, Arts, or Social Science and Humanities. For all three branches, the
study of a foreign language is compulsory, and most choose English.
Spain is divided into 17 different regions, or ‘autonomous communities.’ In those regions
with particularly strong regional identities, notably, Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia,
Valencia, and the Balearics, students receive a bilingual education, with some subjects being
taught in the local language and some in Castilian Spanish. The proportion of local language
to Castilian Spanish varies widely. In Catalonia, for example, classes are taught almost
entirely in Catalan, with Castilian restricted to Spanish literature and language classes
equating to two or three hours per week. In the Basque Country, Basque is the medium of
instruction in approximately half of the schools, Castilian in a quarter of the schools, and a
mix of Castilian and Basque in the remaining quarter. In Valencia, the proportion of students
receiving their education in Valencian is 30% (Sanz 2016).
It is important for materials writers for this context to be mindful that some students
are already bilingual, and also of the fact that the mother tongue is a sensitive issue. In the
366 DOI: 10.4324/b22783-31

Writing materials for Spanish teenagers
geographical areas mentioned above, local identity is more important than national identity.
Language is deeply linked to identity, and according to the European Commission (2012),
only 82% of the population say that Spanish is their first language. Other languages men-
tioned are Catalan (8%), Galician (5%), and Basque (1%). This has implications for the use
of translation and cultural representation in the coursebooks which are discussed later in the
chapter.
In this chapter, ‘Spanish’ is used as a collective term, for the sake of simplicity, to describe
the nationality of those living in Spain and the languages used in Spain (namely Castilian;
Catalan; Euskera, the language of the Basque Country; Galician; and Valencian), although
sensitivities are acknowledged with reference to this label.
In comparison to learners from some other European countries, the Spanish have tradi-
tionally found speaking English difficult, especially pronunciation. This is borne out in the
results of the English Proficiency Index survey (Education First 2019), which ranks English
proficiency in Spain in 25th place out of 33 European countries. According to the European
Commission (2012), only 22% of Spanish people claim to speak English well enough to
have a conversation. By contrast, 86% of respondents in Denmark and Sweden, 90% in the
Netherlands, 56% in Germany, and 51% in Greece make the same claim. One factor which
may contribute to the comparatively poor level of English, as suggested by Kingsley (2011),
is that foreign films and television programmes are dubbed into Spanish or the regional
language.
The above Introduction aims to give a flavour of the linguistic landscape in Spain and an
indication of English proficiency levels which have implications for developing materials
for this context.

This section begins with an overview of the distinguishing features of local materials, before
considering the issues involved in writing for the Spanish secondary sector, including what
differentiates teenage learners, in general, from adult and younger learners, and how their
needs differ.
Distinguishing features of local materials

Coursebooks can be divided into a variety of types and the labels global and local are often
applied according to the context for which they are designed. Tomlinson (1998) defines
the global coursebook as a ‘coursebook which is not written for learners from a particular
culture or country but which is intended for use by any class of learners in the specified
level and age group anywhere in the world.’ A local coursebook is described as ‘specifically
produced for a country or region and draws on a national curriculum and on the learners’
experiences by including references to local personalities, places, etc.’ (López-Barrios et al.
2008:300). Such broad-brush definitions provide a starting point, but may erroneously sug-
gest homogeneity within these two types of coursebooks which in reality does not exist.
For example, whether a local coursebook adheres to national curriculum guidelines will
be determined by the age and aims of the learners. The Reach Up coursebook series fulfils
some of the criteria specified in the above definition of local coursebooks in the sense that
it was designed for the Spanish market to address the needs, and interests of secondary
school learners, taking into account their national curriculum, and the underlying assump-
tion that materials writing is more effective when attuned to a particular audience (Dubin
367
Krantz, Norton, and Buchanan
and Olshtain 1986; Jolly and Bolitho 2011). In the following section, we consider the affor-
dances which writing for a local market offers.
The benefits of local versus global materials have been debated extensively in the mate-
rials development literature, and it is claimed that local materials have distinctive features
which differentiate them from global ones. López-Barrios and Villanueva de Debat (2014),
for example, identify four features that distinguish local materials, namely contextualisa-
tion, linguistic contrasts, intercultural reflection, and facilitation of learning. Whilst not all
features are necessarily present or exploited to the same degree in every local coursebook
series, the framework provides a critical lens to examine the Reach Up series, and for that
reason, the features are described below.
Contextualisation
Contextualisation includes personalisation, topics, and pedagogical fit. According to López-
Barrios and Villanueva de Debat (2014), personalisation implies ensuring that the learning
materials are relevant to the learners’ everyday lives. This might entail including references
to familiar personalities and local places. Topics must be selected in line with sociocultural
norms, and the proposed methodology must adhere to local educational practices and cur-
riculum requirements. The expectation is that local materials will thus scaffold and encour-
age learners to talk and write about their own experiences, interests, and culture in the target
language.
Linguistic contrasts
Local coursebooks can highlight similarities and differences between the target language
and the learners’ L1. Whilst acknowledging that contrastive analysis has evoked controversy
in terms of how far a learner’s mother tongue influences their interlanguage (see Swan and
Smith 1987), appears to have fallen out of favour in second language acquisition research,
and is rarely operationalised in global coursebooks that adopt a communicative approach, it
could play a role in local coursebooks by raising language awareness and helping learners to
avoid potential pitfalls due to cognates and false friends. Examples of this are discussed later
in the chapter with reference to Reach Up. López-Barrios and Villanueva de Debat (2014)
note that linguistic contrasts can take different forms. For instance, learners may be asked to
notice how English phonemes differ to similar-sounding phonemes in their L1, or they may
be encouraged to compare aspects of grammar. Linguistic contrasts are highlighted in Reach
Up and will be discussed later in the chapter with reference to intonation and grammar boxes.
Intercultural reflection
Intercultural reflection involves developing the learners’ awareness of the relationship
between their own culture and the target one. López-Barrios and Villanueva de Debat
(2014) claim that coursebook tasks should require learners to engage critically in a way that
challenges stereotypes and promotes respect for diversity, rather than simply be presented
with information about the target culture. An example of this in Reach Up is the focus on
linguistic politeness in the respective cultures.
Facilitation of learning
Facilitation of learning refers to the incorporation of features that contribute to learner
autonomy (López-Barrios and Villanueva de Debat 2014). They offer the example of using
368
L1 rubrics for lower level learners in local coursebooks to foster independent study. In
Reach Up, the learner’s L1 is exploited in the linguistic explanations offered in grammar
boxes.
Developing local materials: other considerations

In addition to the four distinguishing features of local coursebooks outlined above, ‘situa-
tion analysis’ (Richards 2001:90) seems relevant to developing a local coursebook series
to allow stakeholders to identify and evaluate factors that could impact upon the project.
Richards (2001:93–105) outlines five categories, such as societal ones (e.g. the role of for-
eign languages in the community and their status in the curriculum), the project (e.g. con-
straints in terms of time and resources), institutional factors (e.g. the local and institutional
culture), the teachers (e.g. target language proficiency, experience and qualifications), the
learners (their backgrounds, expectations, and beliefs), and adoption factors (e.g. attitudes
to change in the teaching context). It seems crucial for the various stakeholders (including
representatives of the Ministry of Education, teachers, learners, materials writers, and pub-
lishers) to consider these factors in the development of a local coursebook series (see also
Nation and Macalister 2010). This will be explored further in relation to the development
of the Reach Up series.
Factors relating specifically to writing for Spanish teenagers

This section describes the factors which make writing for Spanish teenagers different from
writing for more general sectors. These factors include both challenges, for example, adher-
ing closely to the curriculum requirements, and covering the syllabus and key competences,
as well as opportunities, such as addressing homogeneous language needs.
Curriculum requirements
Authors producing materials for the Spanish upper-secondary market need to be acquainted
with the curriculum requirements for the study of a first foreign language (in this case
English) for each academic year, as well as a broader set of holistic competences (see
below) as set out in comprehensive detail by the Spanish Ministry of Education. The cur-
riculum specifies detailed aims and assessment criteria, covering the four skills, and lexical
and grammatical systems, which will inform the scope and sequence for any coursebook.
The publisher provides information on this as part of the writing brief.
Key competences
Writing learning materials for a national educational context entails far more than address-
ing just the language syllabus. In this case, authors needed to be aware of the requirements
of the Ley Organica para la Mejora de la Calidad Educativa (LOMCE, that is the ‘Organic
Law for the Improvement of Educational Quality’). This law, which came into force in
2016, placed a new emphasis on specific key competences, established by the European
Union. The following list of competences was shared by the publisher in the author briefing
process with the expectation that they would be taken into account in the writing process:
linguistic
mathematical and basic competences in science and technology
369
learning to learn
social and civic
digital
cultural awareness and expression
sense of initiative and entrepreneurship
English lends itself most obviously to the development of linguistic competence. However,
the aim when devising coursebook materials is to incorporate content and tasks which
develop other competences too. Some of these were taken into account in the development
of the Reach Up series and will be discussed later in the chapter.
Homogenous language needs

A great advantage of writing for a single market is that the students share the same L1, or the
same family of L1s, so authors are able to anticipate the language difficulties the students
are likely to have, and have the opportunity to focus on these known language issues, such
as false friends, and typical grammar and pronunciation errors caused by L1 interference.
According to Pichette and Lesniewska (2018), 42% of ESL errors can be related to L1 influ-
ence, with pronunciation being the area most prone to transfer errors (see Ellis 1994).
What makes teenage learners different from adult and young learners?
In this section, we consider how the teenage market, in general, differs from other age
groups, by identifying some core characteristics of teenagers themselves, in terms of cogni-
tive and social development, as well as looking at how their learning contexts and needs
differ from other sectors.
One of the most obvious differences between adults and teenagers is limited life experi-
ence. Teenagers are less well-placed to tackle tasks and activities which draw on real-life
situations that fall outside of their experience (e.g. work, paying bills, decorating a home).
On the other hand, there is often an expectation that materials for teenagers will teach life
skills, such as maintaining self-esteem, decision-making, time management, and active
citizenship.
Another obvious difference is class size. There are typically around 30 students in state
school classes, which clearly has implications for classroom management and the likelihood
of mixed abilities within the class, resulting in a need for differentiation in materials design.
In addition to large class size, the fact that some teenager learners take extra English classes
at private language schools (Pinter 2016) further contributes to this heterogeneity.
A further difference is motivation. Unlike adults, who have actively chosen, and in many
cases, paid, to study English as a means to enhance their career prospects, or to attain other
pragmatic goals, teenagers, especially younger teenagers, generally attend English classes
because they are obliged to. Although the need to pass exams will provide some degree
of instrumental motivation, their motivation levels are likely to be less sustained than an
adult’s, and their attention may lapse if they are not interested in what is happening in the
classroom. Recent research has also explored the connection between teenagers’ developing
identities and motivation and autonomy in language learning. For example, Taylor (2013)
interviewed Romanian teenagers about identity processes, motivation, and their views on
methodology. The teens expressed a desire to be treated as individuals, to be able to express
their own identity, and to be treated with respect in the classroom. Ensuring teenagers have
370
the freedom to ‘speak, write and act as themselves’ (Legutke 2012) is a key consideration
when writing materials for this sector.
As teenagers are preparing to take external examinations, however, materials for this
context need a strong focus on exam preparation, especially in the academic year in which
the exam will be taken. It is common practice for exam preparation to become progres-
sively more overt throughout the course, in terms of exam strategies and exam-like tasks.
Including sufficient exam preparation while also fulfilling the need for self-expression,
motivation, and creativity is one of the greatest challenges for secondary materials writers.
An additional challenge relates to student expectations. In the same way that teenag-
ers consider their teachers as authority figures rather than equals, they expect and value
a degree of seriousness from their coursebook. That said, an element of fun and light-
heartedness, perhaps in the form of games, quizzes, and innovative tasks, is welcome in
order to engage them.
The cognitive ability of teenagers must be also considered. The Swiss developmental
psychologist Jean Piaget described this as belonging to the ‘formal operation’ period (Piaget
and InInhelder 1969). In comparison to younger learners, teenagers are able to think more
logically and in more abstract terms; they can consider a problem from different viewpoints
and with greater objectivity than younger children; and they develop better strategies for
organising, storing, and retrieving information as their capacity for memorisation grows.
As Pinter (2016:369) argues, ‘[their] cognitive achievements, combined with a question-
ing attitude and a general openness to the world, make teenagers potentially very powerful
thinkers.’
Along with more advanced thinking skills, teenagers also develop communication skills
such as discourse management, questioning concepts critically, and articulating complex
ideas. Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural approach explains this development by linking
learning to talk that is scaffolded by more knowledgeable peers, adults, or experts (Pinter
2016). Furthermore, a number of studies have indicated that adolescent students can gain
a greater understanding of grammatical structures and learn new language through peer
feedback during collaborative tasks (e.g. Swain and Lapkin 2002; Tsui and Ng 2000). This
has clear implications for the inclusion of pair and group work in materials for this age
group (Pinter 2016).
Another factor that distinguishes teenagers is their sensitivities. At a time when they are
‘coming to grips with insecurity and vulnerability and at the same time finding appropriate
ways of expressing their new selves’ (Legutke 2012:112), teenagers can be self-conscious
and concerned about what others, especially their peers, think of them. This is doubtless
a result of numerous factors, but neurological studies (e.g. Somerville 2013) suggest that
it may be partly due to developmental changes which identify adolescence as a critical
period of life when ‘self-conscious emotion, physical reactivity and activity in specific brain
areas peak in response to being evaluated by others’ (Somerville, cited in the Association of
Psychological Science 2013:para. 2).

In this section we describe how the issues and considerations raised above were addressed
in the writing of Reach Up (Krantz and Roberts 2018a, 2018b), a two-level Bachillerato
course whose aim was to prepare learners for exams (university entrance and external B2
exams) and to equip them to function in the real world by providing practice in 21st century
371
and life skills. The course was also designed to meet the expectations of a market keen to
take on board recent developments in methodology, for example, flipped learning, a strong
emphasis on learner autonomy, and critical thinking.
Writing for teenagers: choice of topic

To capture the interest of teenagers, whose motivation, as mentioned above, may be patchier
than an adult’s, topics need to be highly engaging (see Clare and Wilson this volume). Broad
topics will be dictated by the syllabus, but are most likely to engage (both teens and their
teachers) if approached from a slightly unusual angle. Whilst topics need to be accessible to
teenagers, it is important to avoid patronising and stating the obvious, and be mindful of the
fact that teen students are more knowledgeable about many topics than adults (for example,
technology, recycling, contemporary TV series.) This balance is often best struck by using
source material originally aimed at adults and tailoring it to ensure it is accessible. It is
also worth bearing in mind, as Tomlinson (2011) notes, that topics which achieve impact
in one cultural setting may not do so in another. In determining what makes a topic fresh
and interesting to a Spanish teenager, the materials need to go ‘beyond the tastes of one
individual in his/her own teaching environment’ (Mares 2003:131), and ideas for content
need to be approved by a number of stakeholders. In developing content for Reach Up, the
authors were initially presented with a number of broad topics by the publisher, based on
the curriculum and consultation with the local market and local teachers. They then looked
for engaging and novel angles on the topics which were presented, via the editorial team, to
local teachers, and refined in response to their feedback.
Some key questions regarding the suitability of a topic might be: Is it relatable? Is it
relevant? Is it fresh? Is it something that can be talked about openly? The relevance of these
questions is reinforced by classroom research conducted by Mauchline (2016) amongst
Spanish 17- and 18-year-olds into which topics appeal to this target group. Results indicated
that the following topics, amongst others, were of interest:
·· YouTubers who talk about their everyday lives

·· driving (e.g. people who change when driving, bad driving, driving tests)
·· travel (to places in or near their own country)
·· history (less famous but admirable people)
·· music (girl bands, contemporary figures with a message)
·· controversial issues (e.g. homosexuality in Russia, neo-Nazism in Europe)
·· hair (styles and care, past and present, male and female)
·· fairy tales
·· simple daily routines in different countries (e.g. breakfast, or drinking tea)
·· the differences between Generations X, Y, and Z
The following topics (amongst others) were found not to be of interest:
·· YouTubers who do crazy things

·· history (e.g. Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela)
·· video games
·· travel to faraway places, exotic destinations
·· music (e.g. Madonna, ABBA)
372
·· fashion
·· food they’ll never eat (e.g. insects)
Learners felt that historical figures were boring, old, and irrelevant or had been encountered
many times before. Video games and fashion were seen as divisive. They prefer to talk about
these topics to their friends, not to all classmates. YouTubers who do crazy things and travel
to faraway places were seen as unrelatable.
Another issue to be mindful of when choosing suitable topics is the datability of mate-
rial. This may be a particular issue with teen-related topics because of the perennial nature
of youth fads and culture. It is also important to avoid topics which make students feel
exposed, for instance, embarrassing stories or references to weight or dieting, and to find
non-threatening opportunities for them to talk about themselves.
Examples of common topics approached from an unusual, teen-friendly angle as used in
Reach Up are presented below.
The senses
Here is an extract from a text about a man who can taste words:
When you talk to James Wannerton, he doesn’t only hear the words you say, he tastes
them. For him, the word ‘college’ tastes of sausage, while the word ‘most’ tastes of
cold toast. ‘Karen’ tastes of yoghurt, yet the word ‘yoghurt’ tastes, confusingly, of
hairspray.
(Krantz and Roberts 2018b:58)
Animals
Animals with superpowers
Here is a description of a vocabulary activity.
Students are asked to guess the animal from a description containing target language and
match them with their super-power: in-built sat nav, indestructibility, invisibility, speed,
secret weapon.
Writing for teenagers: authenticity

Arguably, this age group is particularly likely to be motivated by authenticity, and alien-
ated by what they perceive to be contrived (see Jolly and Bolitho 2011). Authenticity is a
complex notion and a subject of keen debate in both language teaching and materials devel-
opment (Gilmore 2007; see also Jones this volume). Tomlinson (2011:ix) defines authentic
texts as those which are ‘not written or spoken for language-teaching purposes’ and authen-
tic tasks as those which replicate language use in the ‘real world.’ Due to various constraints
noted below, however, ‘the use of authentic materials … is not always either necessary or
realistic’ (Richards 2006:12) and in practice, materials writers often have to compromise
and achieve a level of authenticity by writing their own texts, having consulted a range of
authentic sources, and basing activities on ‘real world’ tasks wherever possible. Sometimes
this also entails choosing language which has been checked against corpora, and represent-
ing opinions and experiences found in forums, blogs, user comments in articles, etc. This
373
is common practice in materials development due to constraints which are often publisher-
driven, and relate to language level, text length, and permissions: not all authentic texts are
suitable for particular contexts, and gaining permission to use them can be an issue.
Writing for teenagers: activity types

In the following section, examples of tasks and activities included in Reach Up are pre-
sented and critically discussed.
Incorporating game-like elements into an activity can be an effective way to motivate
and engage students of this age group (Nunan 1989), although, as Wingate (2018) cautions,
games must be sufficiently challenging and have a clear purpose. The quiz in Figure 25.1
appears in the starter unit for the second level of this Bachillerato course and tests vocabu-
lary taught in the previous level. It contains the typical elements of a game, namely chal-
lenge (memory/knowledge test), constraints (e.g. is the answer a b or c?), attractive visuals,
and a points system. It is light-hearted in tone.
Other simple game tasks can be used, such as setting time limits for activities, e.g. How
many X can you think of in one minute? Who in the class has the longest list? Guessing
games can also be used, such as this activity from Reach Up 1 which asks students to ‘take
turns to think of a wild animal. Without naming it, ask and answer questions … to guess the
animal’ (Krantz and Roberts 2018:81).
Other possible game-like activities include identifying false facts and incorrect language
in a fact file. Figure 25.2, for example, is an error correction exercise designed to practise
conditional sentences. Students not only focus on and learn from mistakes, but also learn
some fascinating factoids. Constructing such information-rich texts, which effectively and
naturally practises the target grammar, requires a great deal of skill on the part of the writer,
but is much more likely to engage and motivate than an endless series of activities based
on unrelated single sentences, which students may find mindless, dull, and repetitive. This
is not to suggest that there is no place for individual sentence-based activities, since these
are perceived as useful exam practice. Also, space limitations will limit the number of text-
based practice activities.
Writing for teenagers: teen language

In audio scripts featuring teen speakers, it is important to adopt a teen voice and to ensure
they sound like teens by incorporating vocabulary such as awesome, like, kinda (see
Tagliamonte 2016). It is essential for the writer to keep informed and consult expert user
teens to determine what is current. There are also opportunities to teach more colloquial
language as part of the vocabulary syllabus, as this is likely to be motivating for students.
For example:
I’m ok with … = I don’t mind …

Yep/Nope
hot = new exciting and popular
It is important to note, however, that teenage colloquialisms may date and change quickly
due to the dynamic nature of this vernacular. The authors of Reach Up decided only to
select language that had gained enough currency to stand the test of time (e.g. awesome),
374
Figure 25.1 Vocabulary quiz from Reach Up 2. (Reproduced by permission of Oxford University

Press from Reach Up 2 by Caroline Krantz and Rachael Roberts (2018b:44) © Oxford
University Press.)
375
Figure 25.2 Error correction exercise from Reach Up 1. (Reproduced by permission of Oxford

University Press from Reach Up 1 by Caroline Krantz and Rachael Roberts (2018a:85)
© Oxford University Press.)
376
that would not sound strange when spoken by a learner (e.g. sick, in the sense of ‘brilliant’),
and not to include street language that sounds too young (e.g. epic because it sounds very
primary). It is also important when selecting language for inclusion to be aware that not
all forms of teen language are valued because of their divergence from standard forms
(Thurlow 2003).
Writing for teenagers: mixed abilities

Ideas to challenge strong students and support weaker ones can be given in the accompa-
nying teacher’s book; however not all teachers will necessarily consult this. To address
this, in Reach Up mixed-ability options were provided in the coursebook itself. Including
differentiation activities on the page obviously has its limitations however. One is the lim-
ited space available; another is that whilst you can flag activities for weaker students in a
teacher’s book, you cannot do this tactfully in the student book itself. In Reach Up, optional
challenge activities were included to avoid this. Examples of these ‘challenge’ activities are
as follows:
·· close your book and try to write the story in exercise X from memory. Can you remem-
ber and use all the reporting verbs correctly?
·· write down three things people have said to you today and change them to reported
speech.
The flipped learning approach, which is adopted in Reach Up, whereby students can watch
the grammar presentations before the lesson, is another efficient way to address the problem
of mixed ability, since weaker learners have the opportunity to watch the presentations as
many times as they require prior to presentation in class.
Writing for Spanish teenagers

As outlined above, the challenges and implications of writing for a Spanish monolingual
market fall into three broad areas: specific linguistic needs, curricular requirements, and cul-
tural context. It is the publisher’s responsibility to brief authors on curricular requirements
and provide relevant cultural information. The publisher can also provide input regarding
linguistic needs, for example typical pronunciation errors and false friends. However, an
author is clearly at a distinct advantage if they are able to draw on their own linguistic exper-
tise, have lived in Spain, and have a feel for the culture. In the next section, we describe how
these three areas were addressed in Reach Up.
Targeting homogenous language needs

In Reach Up, as well as focusing on areas of intrinsic difficulty in English grammar, we
targeted those areas that are specifically problematic because of potential L1 interference.
The authors’ experience of teaching Spanish students and knowledge of the Spanish lan-
guage enabled them to identify these problem areas. An example is the frequentative verb
(soler) which describes habit, and can be used with all tenses. In the past tense, solía
translates as ‘I used to.’ Learners try to use this in the present, giving rise to sentences
such as ‘We use to eat fish on Fridays.’ This type of problem was addressed in special
377
Table 25.1 Example of ‘Watch Out’ box in Reach Up 1
Watch out!
Used to do is past habits only. For present habits, use the present simple (NOT use to do),
We (usually) have a barbecue on Sundays.
NOT We use to have a barbecue on Sundays.
Source: Krantz and Roberts 2018a:5.
sections entitled ‘Watch Out!’ which appeared alongside the grammar presentations (see
Table 25.1):
L1 language interference mistakes were also targeted through regular error correction
exercises. Although this type of exercise can be controversial among teachers who some-
times feel that focusing on errors may interfere with acquisition, it was welcomed by those
teachers involved in the market research conducted for the development of this series.
L1 was also taken into account when selecting target vocabulary sets, especially with
regard to cognates. Whilst cognates are generally unlikely to cause problems receptively,
they may be inaccurately produced due to their similarity to Spanish (for example, ‘tour-
istic’ instead of touristy, ‘estudent’ instead of student). ‘False’ cognates or ‘false friends,’
words that are similar or identical in Spanish and English but have a different meaning in
each language, can also be problematic (for example, ‘estar constipado’ means ‘to have a
cold’ in Spanish). These kinds of mistakes can persist at high levels of proficiency, but can
be anticipated and addressed in a coursebook which is specifically produced for a single
market. In Reach Up, false cognates were presented through the context of reading texts and
highlighted in a False Friends feature box.
English pronunciation is a particularly challenging area for speakers of Spanish lan-
guages, (Coe 2001), but writing for a monolingual market affords a prime opportunity to
target this. Specific phonemes which do not exist or are different in the inventory of Spanish
speakers may cause particular difficulty. For example, there are fewer vowel sounds in
Spanish and final consonants tend to be devoiced. Pronunciation problems are compounded
because of the close relationship between spelling and pronunciation in Spanish, resulting
in a tendency, especially at lower levels, for learners to pronounce English words letter by
letter. Other common pronunciation problems arise from Spanish being a syllable-timed,
rather than a stress-timed language, and the narrower pitch range in Spanish, which can
make learners sound bored.
Although phoneme-based errors persist even at higher levels, teachers may feel it is wise
to invest time in other aspects of pronunciation, such as prosodic features at Bachillerato
level. In Reach Up, therefore, the authors included features such as sounding polite and
interested.
Political and cultural sensitivities

Given the age group and the fact that Spain is a predominantly Catholic country, the authors
were required to steer clear of most of the so-called ‘PARSNIP’ topics: politics, alcohol, reli-
gion, sex, narcotics, -isms (sexism, racism, etc.), and pork (see Mishan and Timmis 2015).
Whilst some of these topics might not need to be avoided entirely, they should, of course, be
handled sensitively. For example, in a reading text in Reach Up on the topic of ‘unconscious
bias,’ that is, the tendency to feel prejudice against people we perceive as being different
from ourselves, is covered. Although this subject is usually closely associated with racism
378
and is, as such, a taboo subject, it was judged appropriate by both authors and the publisher
and the racism angle was played down.
With regard to politics, a sensitive issue is use of the students’ mother tongue due to the
strong provincial identities previously noted. This has implications for the use of transla-
tion in materials. If the courses are published in regional versions, then it is possible to
provide translations in the regional language, as was the case with Move On (Gesthuysen
and Harrop 2012; Krantz 2012), of which there was a Catalan as well as a Spanish version.
If no regional versions are available, as was the case with Reach Up, then translations are
not possible (see Buchanan and Norton, this volume). In Move On, it was possible to use
translation to focus on false cognates. In the Catalan version, for example, ‘deception’ was
explained as follows: deception = engany, decepció = disappointment; in the Spanish ver-
sion, it was explained as: deception = engaño. Decepción = disappointment. In Move On it
was also possible to provide a short glossary of words from reading texts with their transla-
tion, and the grammar reference was in Spanish. Neither of these features could be used in
Reach Up where false cognates had to be presented using a synonym or explanation, as in
the following example: deception = dishonesty (≠ disappointment).
Curriculum requirements
As described above, there is a need to cover the ministry-prescribed language curriculum
for grammar, vocabulary, and the four skills. In Reach Up, as in many coursebooks, this
entailed using the grammar syllabus as a starting point for the scope and sequence which
was dictated by the publisher, based on market research. The grammar syllabus was then
overlaid with a topic syllabus, ensuring that potential reading and listening texts contained
examples of the target language.
Ensuring that materials comply with the LOMCE seven key competences did not par-
ticularly restrict course content. It was rather a question of highlighting the activities in
which the competences were developed. In Reach Up, this was achieved by means of small
icons representing each of the seven competences. So, for example, grammar rules would be
accompanied by a ‘linguistic competence’ icon, a listening or reading strategy by a ‘learning
to learn’ icon, an activity involving online research would have a ‘digital competence’ icon,
and an activity which required analysis of a chart or graph would have a ‘mathematical or
science competence’ icon.
In Reach Up, apart from linguistic competence, the ‘Learning to learn’ competence
received most coverage. Activities to promote learner autonomy have been present in EFL
materials, including in Spain, for many years, but the presence of these was bolstered and
flagged more explicitly due to the new LOMCE requirements and consequent teacher
expectations. In addition to vocabulary learning strategies (e.g. memorisation and vocabu-
lary recording techniques) and skills strategies, every unit contained general learning advice
in the form of ‘smart learner’ statements (see examples below):
·· smart learners set learning goals

·· smart learners organise time to manage learning
·· smart learners revise and recycle regularly
·· smart learners never give up and see every mistake as an opportunity to learn
In this section, we have discussed how the needs of upper-secondary learners were addressed
in the writing of Reach Up through judicious selection of topics and activity-types, the use
379
of teen-appropriate language, the provision of mixed-ability activities, and appropriate art-

work. We have also considered how the specific homogenous linguistic needs of Spanish
teenagers were targeted, whilst taking into account political and cultural sensitivities, and
fulfilling curriculum requirements.

In this section, we consider what a writer needs to know to produce effective materials and
what constitutes good practice when writing for this sector.
What does a writer need to know to create effective materials for this sector?
A writer needs to have knowledge of the following areas, which will be provided by the
publisher, and some of which is informed by their market research:
·· what was successful or unsuccessful about previous Bachillerato courses, produced by

the publisher, and the competition;
·· Ministry of Education curriculum requirements;
·· which exams the students will be working towards and what they entail;
·· what the educational trends are in Spain;
·· what the cultural taboos are.
In addition, a good working knowledge of the Spanish language, or a similar romance lan-
guage (e.g. Portuguese, French, or Italian) is helpful, along with relevant cultural knowl-
edge, plus experience of teaching Spanish students to ensure familiarity with the typical
errors they make. During the course of writing Reach Up, British teenagers were consulted
about topics of potential interest and informal research was undertaken about typical teen
language. Spanish teenagers were also asked about which famous people they had heard of,
and about lifestyle questions, such as what they do in their spare time, or how they celebrate
birthdays.
What is good practice in the writing of materials for this sector?

Author involvement in the early development of the course is recommended as effective
course development involves a high degree of collaboration between author and publisher
(see MacKenzie and Baker this volume). Publishers provide invaluable insights amongst
other things about market preferences and teachers’ expectations regarding methodology
which must be blended with author’s input to operationalise the writer’s brief and craft the
materials. This may include, for example, collaboration in decisions about the approach
to the teaching of vocabulary, the unit structure, the order of lessons within the unit, how
to approach mixed abilities, learner autonomy, flipped learning, and indeed the title of the
course. Involving the author at an early stage also gives the author a sense of ownership
and hence increased motivation, which will hopefully result in high-quality materials.
Writing for a local market may also afford opportunities for the author to visit and gain
insights into different classroom contexts (including state schools and private religious
school classes), how teachers manage the classes, how closely they adhere to the course-
books, and so forth.
380
Another important consideration is the piloting of materials and whether this is best car-
ried out by the class teacher or the author. There are advantages to both approaches.
The advantages of the local class teacher piloting the material are that:
·· this is most likely to highlight unforeseen issues with the content

·· it allows writers to see how the material may be interpreted by someone else
·· the teacher’s rapport with the class may ensure a more effective response
·· it is more cost-efficient if the author does not live in Spain
The advantages of author piloting are that:
·· he/she can gain first-hand experience of what works well and does not work well
·· he/she knows what potential issues to look out for
·· it does not rely on full, accurate, and honest reporting from the teacher
The ideal scenario would be to have both teachers and authors piloting together (see Gok
this volume) and in addition to the piloting of sample material, it is good practice for other
units to be sent to teachers for feedback (see Donovan 1998; Amrani 2011).
Future directions
We would like to see the following developments in materials writing projects for teenagers
and secondary education: greater collaboration between stakeholders; more principled lan-
guage selection; and greater research into the topics, tasks, and methodology that motivate
teenage learners.
Greater collaboration between all stakeholders, including teachers, learners, and Ministries
of Education, would be welcome in local materials development projects to ensure that mate-
rials meet the intended learning outcomes of the curriculum and the needs and wants of the
particular context. This might entail authors attending focus groups with the aforementioned
stakeholders and observing lessons. Although the timescale and budget of a particular pro-
ject may impact upon this possibility, remote classroom observations and virtual discussions
could facilitate this type of collaborative approach to materials development, where expertise
and resources are shared. Tomlinson (2011:25) has advocated this approach for many years:
We all have constraints on our time and our actions, but it must be possible and poten-
tially valuable for us to get together to pool our resources and share our expertise in a
joint endeavour to develop materials which offer language learners maximum opportu-
nities for successful learning.
Useful as it is to conduct informal research regarding suitable language and topics for teen-
ager learners, which often draws upon the author’s contacts and the publisher’s networks, a
more principled approach would be preferable and would avoid the pitfalls of writer intui-
tion. With teenage learners, the age gap between author and target audience is an obvious
sensitivity, as authors may struggle to authentically represent the teenage vernacular, given
its dynamic and rapidly changing nature and its potentially taboo content. Corpora of teen-
age language could be consulted to allow authors to make more informed decisions about
appropriate language to include, taking into account the obvious tension between creating
381
durable, pedagogical materials which are motivating and resonate with the end users, whilst
meeting curriculum requirements (see Burton this volume).
Navigating appropriate topics, tasks, and methodology for teenage learners can also be
challenging and therefore merits further research. Involving local teachers and learners in
action research to find out which topics, tasks, and methodologies they find engaging and
useful could inform future approaches to materials development in these contexts. There is
a dearth of research into materials in use (see Harwood this volume). Such research could
offer great potential value to remote authors by informing them about how existing materi-
als are implemented and adapted in the specific educational culture. The research could also
inform teacher development sessions in order to support teachers when a new coursebook
series is adopted.
Conclusion
Writing materials for Spanish upper-secondary learners requires a clear understanding of
the following:
·· key cognitive, developmental, and behavioural characteristics of the learners

·· the practical needs of the age group (e.g. large, mixed-ability classes)
·· linguistic needs
·· appropriate methodology and curricular requirements
·· cultural and political considerations
Whilst there are challenges involved in writing for any age group and culture, and it is widely
acknowledged that there is no perfect fit when it comes to learning materials and specific, cul-
tural contexts (Garton and Graves 2014; Maley 2011), the aforementioned requirements offer
the writer a clear starting point, and as Maley and Bolitho (2015) highlight, working within
particular constraints can promote creativity, inspiring writers to produce their richest ideas.
Further reading
Coe, N., 2001. Speakers of Spanish and Catalan. In Swan, M. and Smith, B., eds. Learner English. 2nd
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This chapter gives a detailed description of the language interference problems faced by Spanish
and Catalan learners of English, in the areas of phonology, orthography and punctuation, grammar,
and vocabulary.
Mauchline, F. 2017. How To Write Secondary Materials. ELT Teacher 2 Writer. Available at: www
.eltteacher2writer.co.uk.
This training module looks at the challenges involved in writing successful materials for the
secondary classroom and implications for choice of topic and type of activity. It also looks at the
different stages of cognitive development during adolescence.
Dudley, E., 2018. ETpedia Teenagers. Shoreham-by-Sea: Pavilion Publishing.
This teaching resource book provides ideas, insights, and activities to help teachers understand,
motivate, and support teenage learners.
Related topics
Selecting language for materials writing, culture and materials development, developing a
primary coursebook series for Turkey.
382
References
Association of Psychological Science, 2013. Teens’ Self-consciousness Linked with Specific Brain,
Physiological Responses [Online]. Retrieved on 24 August 2020 from: https://www.psychologic
alscience.org/news/releases/teens-self-consciousness-linked-with-specific-brain-physiological
-responses.html.
Coe, N., 2001. Speakers of Spanish and Catalan. In Swan, M. and Smith, B., eds. Learner English. 2nd
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donovan, P., 1998. Piloting: A publisher’s view. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials Development in
Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dubin, F. and Olshtain, E., 1986. Course Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Education First, 2019. EF English Proficiency Index: A Ranking of 100 Countries and Regions by
English Skills [Online]. 9th ed. Retrieved on 24 August 2020 from: ef.com/epi.
Ellis, R., 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
European Commission, 2012. Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and their Languages [Online].
Retrieved on 24 August 2020 from: https://skillspanorama.cedefop.europa.eu/en/useful_resources
/special-eurobarometer-386-europeans-and-their-languages.
Garton, S. and Graves, K., eds. 2014. International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gesthuysen, C. and Harrop, J., 2012. Move On Student Book 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gilmore, A., 2007. Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language
Teaching, 40/2:97–118.
Kingsley, J., 2011. English language market report: Spain. A report prepared for the UK’s English
Language Sector [Online]. Retrieved on 24 August 2020 from: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk
/sites/teacheng/files/English%20Lanaguge%20Market%20Report%20Spain_final_web-ready.pdf.
Krantz, C., 2012. Move On Student Book 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krantz, C. and Roberts, R., 2018a. Reach Up 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krantz, C. and Roberts, R., 2018b. Reach Up 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Legutke, M.L., 2012. Teaching Teenagers. In Burns, A. and Richards, J., eds. The Cambridge Guide to
Pedagogy and Practice in Second Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
López-Barrios, M. and Villanueva de Debat, E., 2014. Global vs. local: Does it matter? In Garton, S.
and Graves, K., eds. International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Dordrecht: Springer.
López-Barrios, M., Villanueva de Debat, E. and Tavella, G., 2008. Materials in use in Argentina and
the Southern cone. In Tomlinson, B., ed. English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review.
London: Continuum.
Maley, A., 2011. Squaring the circle: Reconciling materials as constraint with materials as empowerment.
In Tomlinson, B., Materials Development in Language Teaching 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Maley, A. and Bolitho, R., 2015. Creativity. ELT Journal, 69/4:434–436.
Mauchline, F., 2016. Gaga’s grandma and garden clippings: Or choosing themes for teens. MaWSIG
Blog [Online]. Retrieved on 24 August 2020 from: https://mawsig.iatefl.org/gagas-grandma-and
-garden-clippings-or-choosing-themes-for-teens/.
Press.
Nation, I.S.P. and Macalister, J., 2010 Language Curriculum Design. New York and Oxon: Routledge.
383
Nunan, D., 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
OECD, 2014. Spain - Country Note - Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators [Online]. Retrieved
on 25 August 2020 from: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.oecd.org/education/Spain
-EAG2014-Country-Note.pdf&sa=D&ust=1598350416306000&usg=AFQjCNFd_m3taL0Dmesj
CEDDnkj66srNvA.
Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B., 1969. The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Pichette, F. and Lesniewska, J., 2018. Percentage of L1-based errors in ESL: An update on Ellis
(1985). International Journal of Language Studies, 12/2:1–16.
Pinter, A., 2016. Secondary ELT: Issues and trends. In Hall, G. ed. Routledge Handbook of English
Language Teaching. London: Routledge.
Richards, J.C., 2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J., 2006. Materials Development and Research: Making the Connection. RELC Journal,
37/1:5–26.
Sanz, A., 2016. Report on Education in the Valencian Language (English Version) [Online]. Retrieved
on 25 August 2020 from: https://intersindical.org/index.php/noticies_actualitat/article/report_on
_education_in_the_valencian_language.
Somerville, L.H., 2013. The teenage brain: Sensitivity to social evaluation. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 22/2:121–127.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S., 2002. Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to
reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37/3–4:285–304.
Swan, M. and Smith, B.,1987. Introduction. In Swan, M. and Smith, B., eds. Learner English.
Tagliamonte, S.A., 2016. Teen Talk: The Language of Adolescents. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Taylor, F., 2013. Listening to Romanian teenagers: Lessons in motivation and ELT methodology.
In Ushioda, E., ed. International Perspectives on Motivation: Language Learning. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Thurlow, C., 2003. Teenagers in communication, teenagers on communication. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 22/1:50–57.
University Press.
Tomlinson, B., 2011. Introduction. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials Development in Language
Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A.B. and Ng, M., 2000. Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 9/2:147–170.
Vygotsky, L., 1978. Mind and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wingate, U., 2018. Lots of games and little challenge: A snapshot of modern foreign language teaching
in English secondary schools. The Language Learning Journal, 46/4:442–455.
384
26
Writing materials for an English-
speaking environment
Lizzie Pinard
Introduction
The term English-speaking environment (ESE) and its applications have evolved over
time. Historically, ESE referred only to the small number of countries in Kachru’s inner
circle (Bhatt 2001), e.g. the UK and the US, where English is the mother tongue and pri-
mary language of the inhabitants. However, over time, use of English has grown exponen-
tially; so much so, that it is now considered an international language (McKay 2012) or a
truly global language (Crystal 2012). This means that in addition to inner circle countries
(Kachru 1992), the ESE label should arguably now also include countries in the outer
circle (ibid), which consists of more than 70 countries, such as Nigeria and India, that use
English as a second language or in an official capacity, i.e. in law, politics, education, and
the media (Crystal 2012). Some would also include expanding circle countries (Baker
2012:63), such as Indonesia, where English may be the most commonly taught language,
as well as being used as a lingua franca in the workplace, giving the language a privileged
status (Crystal 2012).
In terms of materials development, one difficulty this presents is that each individual
country that the label ESE could apply to has its own unique combination of native cultures,
both large and small (Moran 2001) (for definitions see ‘Culture’ below), demographics,
policies, additional languages/dialects, and other such features. This is further complicated
by the heightened mobility that characterises the modern world, illustrated by the fact that
according to MigrationWatch UK, 550,000 people migrated to the UK alone in the year
ending September 2017. This mobility leads to the coexistence of the culture of the host
country with the cultures of the migrants. Additionally, writing for an ESE is relevant to
contexts such as English as an additional language (EAL) in primary/secondary school,
English for academic purposes (EAP) in higher education, ESOL (taught to non-English
speaking migrants in some English-speaking countries, an ESE-unique and diverse context
with very specific needs), private language schools where EFL is taught, and so on. While
a range of materials have been designed specifically for these sub-contexts, the majority
are either directed towards a general audience (e.g. global coursebooks), or commissioned
by a specific stakeholder (e.g. the Ministry of Education in Singapore, for use in secondary
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-32 385

Lizzie Pinard
schools there), or versioned for a potentially lucrative particular national or regional audi-
ence. The popular Headway series developed by Soars and Soars, for example, has a version
for Italy, where it is broken into Part A/Part B, and one for the Middle East, where content
and design are altered to cater for this specific audience (Buchanan and Norton 2018; see
also Buchanan and Norton this volume).
Defining the term English-speaking environment, then, is complex. For the purposes of
this chapter, what is important to recognise is that while there is great diversity across the
hundreds of countries that could fall under this umbrella, there are also a small number of
commonalities:
·· the English language (regardless of the variety or dialect in question) is widely spoken
outside the classroom, in the wider community;
·· English language classes are often multilingual rather than monolingual, and learners
have usually left their home country, be it temporarily (for a holiday, for short-term
employment, to study) or permanently (to reside indefinitely, for whatever reason), and
are studying in a host country (see exceptions below);
·· there is often a need to use English outside the classroom in order to function effectively.
This is particularly true for those wishing to reside indefinitely. However, though the
need for some degree of integration exists, individuals may not necessarily feel moti-
vated by this requirement at all, or at all times, depending on the reason for relocation.
This chapter therefore defines ESEs as those countries which share the three characteristics
outlined above, as it is arguably in these countries that learners would benefit most from
targeted learning materials.
In the next section, a number of critical issues are considered with reference to key theo-
retical perspectives and research. Associated implications and challenges are then explored,
and finally, a number of recommendations are put forward and possible future directions are
discussed.

Having dealt with the thorny issue of defining ESE, in this section the focus will be on two
key issues that need to be considered in the development of materials for students learning
in such an environment: learner autonomy and motivation, and culture.
Learner autonomy and motivation in the ESE

Learner autonomy has long been considered a key element of learning in ELT, with discus-
sion around definitions of it, its importance, and how best to realise it dating back at least as
far as 1981, when Holec (1981:3) first used the oft-quoted words ‘the ability to take charge
of one’s own learning’ to describe it. Since then, multiple theories of learner autonomy have
been proposed (e.g. Benson 2011; Nunan 1997; Oxford 2003; Vandergrift and Goh 2012),
meaning that materials writers should decide which perspective to use in order to inform
their approach to fostering autonomy and sustaining motivation. This choice is likely to be
influenced by a mixture of the following: the writer’s beliefs regarding the degree to which
autonomy over learning is possible, what aspects of learning learners can and should have
control over, and what conditions enable autonomy to develop, as well as the context in
question.
386
Writing materials for an ESE
In terms of the ESE, the importance of learner autonomy arguably centres around its
role in enabling learners to exploit the ESE as a language resource. Hann (2013) argues that
learners may struggle to use this resource successfully if development of certain strategies
is not promoted within the classroom. Therefore, a practical approach to helping learners
become autonomous in their learning, and using that autonomy to harness ESE language
resources is required (Hann 2013; Pinard 2015; Pinard 2016a). To this end, Pinard (2016b)
developed a series of task-based lessons written specifically for use in an ESE. These mate-
rials guide learners through the process of collecting language samples via informal inter-
views, conducted in the local community, and using these as the basis for further learning,
with the aim of developing the skills and awareness necessary for learning about foreign
cultures. Pinard (2016b) makes use of a combination of approaches in these materials:
firstly, the language awareness approach (Borg 1994), which treats language as dynamic
rather than a fixed factual body and emphasises exploration, discovery, and talking about
language; secondly, an intercultural approach (Corbett 2003), which encourages learners to
engage critically with cultural content, set within a task-based learning framework (Ellis
2003, 2009; Skehan 1998; Willis and Willis 2007). This combination of approaches is well
suited for use in an ESE as it encourages critical interaction with language and culture,
fostering the necessary skills to do so in the local community without the guidance of the
teacher. Importantly learners are also taught strategies to overcome potential difficulties,
such as how to stop people in the street effectively and how to deal with awkward situa-
tions, as well as providing all-important practice of these strategies, so that learners have the
confidence to engage with their ESE.
Unfortunately, global coursebooks, which are widely used in ESEs, according to
Tomlinson’s (2008) and Tomlinson and Masuhara’s (2013) survey reviews, provide limited
help in fostering the skills mentioned above, nor do they motivate or prepare learners to
exploit the linguistic resources available outside the classroom. This is likely to be because
global coursebooks, driven by the need to make a profit, target a variety of EFL and ESE
markets, but in so doing, may fail to adequately meet those markets’ needs (Masuhara et
al. 2008). The globalisation of English (Crystal 2012), and resultant widespread uses of
English as an international language (McKay 2012) and as a lingua franca, only serve
to increase the complexity of this issue. While it is clearly true that despite these issues,
global coursebook sales, and therefore profit margins, remain high, and new series are
published regularly, a clear question emerges: whether ELT has reached a point where the
concept of a global coursebook, which can be used equally effectively by learners across
a wide range of contexts, is in conflict with the needs of a globalised world which have
emerged in recent years.
Like learner autonomy, and closely related to its development, motivation is another key
element in language learning. Now commonly regarded as a dynamic system rather than
static in nature (Dӧrnyei and Ushioda 2010), it can change over the course of a single les-
son and over longer periods of time too, influenced by both internal and external factors. It
could be argued that learners studying in an ESE should have a higher degree of motivation
as developing their ability to speak the language in use outside the classroom is immediately
relevant to them. However, this may be only one of a number of influencing factors. Others
might include what brought the learner to the ESE; whose decision the visit or relocation
was, for example, a holiday, political turmoil, parental wishes, the economic situation; and
the goal of the visit or relocation (e.g. pleasure, long-term refuge, improving school grades,
employment purposes). All of these factors, and more, will influence the degree of motiva-
tion experienced at any given time.
387
Lizzie Pinard
This is illustrated in Ushioda’s (2014) directional timeline, which gives a temporal view
of motivation fluctuation within a long-term language learning process. Here, she shows
that motivation is influenced by past experiences, future goals, and current experiences,
i.e. learning experiences in the classroom. The first two encompass the influencing factors
referred to above, and to the final dimension, as well as language learning experience, we
could also add target language interactions in the ESE, as the success or failure of these may
also influence the degree of motivation a learner feels. Importantly, as well as the effect of
individual experiences, there is also the effect of an accumulation of experiences. Therefore,
if a learner repeatedly fails to engage successfully with target language users in the local
community, this will have a detrimental impact on their learning and on their motivation to
continue trying to exploit the ESE. This highlights the importance of a systematic approach
to fostering learner autonomy, incorporating, for example, the type of scaffolding seen in
Pinard (2016b), earlier described, in which learners are able to rehearse the interactions
they aim to have in the ESE and the strategies needed to increase the chances of these being
successful. That is, strategies such as approaching people in the street and making polite
requests, as well as those necessary for dealing with problems, such as apologising.
Culture
Gray (2010) describes culture as notoriously difficult to define, pointing out that Williams
(1976:87) labelled it as ‘one of the … most complicated words in the English language.’
This is reflected in the fact that Moran (2001) identifies no less than seven different perspec-
tives from which culture might be considered. Kramsch (1998, cited in Kramsch and Hua
2016:38) defines culture as ‘membership in a discourse community that shares a common
social space and history, and common imaginings … a common system of standards for
perceiving, believing, evaluating and acting.’ This definition aligns with the description of a
‘small c’ cultural perspective (Halverson 1985, cited in Moran 2001:4). While Halverson’s
description is limited by country, Kramsch’s definition could also encompass subcultures
within a country that are based on, for example, age, gender, or socio-economic class.
With regards to ELT materials, there has been a shift in what is considered appropri-
ate in terms of cultural content, with a clear movement towards ensuring that ‘textbooks
reflect progressive and politically acceptable values’ (Richards 2014:27). This shift mir-
rors the growth of English into what Shin et al. (2011) describe as a global language, no
longer belonging to Kachru’s inner circle (Kachru 1992) countries. This has given rise to
an ELT landscape which no longer fits the traditional ESL-EFL binary (Ushioda 2013).
Therefore, teaching for example British or American cultural norms in English lessons, as
one would teach students about Italian cultural norms in Italian lessons, is no longer relevant
or appropriate. However, Shin et al. (2011) argue that cultural content related to inner circle
countries continues to dominate in ELT materials which also fail to help learners to engage
critically with that content. In addition, Garton and Graves (2014) argue that the approach
used in most materials does not help learners become interculturally aware, lacking what
López-Barrios and de Debat (2014:43) refer to as the ‘critical confrontation,’ rather than
‘mere consumption’ of cultural information, which is a prerequisite of cultural reflection.
Another facet of culture which needs to be considered in the design of ESE learning
materials is that of representation. Gray (2010:3) describes coursebooks as ‘particular con-
structions of reality.’ The content used in such published material is the result of a deliberate
process of design and selection, resulting in portrayals of a reality that may be distant from
388
that of the teacher and learners’ context. Licata (2018) illustrates this through an activity
conducted with learners at International House, Milan. Learners were asked to list people
and topics missing from their global coursebook – the ‘others.’ This resulted in a list of 25
items, the majority of which were different types of people such as immigrants, refugees,
and poor, obese, ugly, transgender, and gay people. The students then created some materi-
als which included the ‘others,’ thus producing a construction of reality that was closer to
their own than that in the published materials. This activity is an example of the kind of criti-
cality that Banegas (2011) promotes, as students are encouraged to question and transform
the contents of the coursebook. However, it is important to remember that this evaluation
and transformation, while laudable, does not eliminate the issue of non-representation, and
therefore discrimination by omission, in learning materials, especially as a large number of
educators, especially early-career teachers, may, according to Garton and Graves (2014),
not feel confident enough to subvert the materials they use in this way.

Implications and challenges for learner autonomy and motivation
A key role for learner autonomy is in enabling learners to make use of the language in the
out-of-class environment. As Tomlinson and Masuhara (2013) point out, the majority of
materials do not exploit this opportunity for language learning, failing to prepare students
for the obstacles they might encounter when using the language outside class. The chal-
lenge, then, is to promote autonomy in learning with regard to out-of-class language use,
which also requires a degree of self-confidence and motivation. It is common for learners
to feel anxious about interactions with people in the community, so simply including tasks
that force learners to engage in such encounters is unlikely to suffice in terms of developing
autonomy and ensuring continued use of out-of-class language resources. As Pinard (2015,
2016a), Benson (2011), and Smith (2003) point out, autonomy needs to be fostered and scaf-
folded, rather than simply expected, which is common practice in the language classroom.
As far as materials development for an ESE is concerned, the key factor here is whether
the learners feel intrinsically motivated by the concept of their ideal self or indeed extrinsi-
cally motivated by the expectations placed upon them; and whether the learning environ-
ment exerts any further influence on this (Dornyei and Ushioda 2010). Learning materials
in an ESE should be able to help learners better engage with the local community. This can
be achieved, as demonstrated in Pinard (2016b), by providing learners with engaging top-
ics and texts, which serve as the basis for developing relevant linguistic tools and skills,
as well as by scaffolding autonomous ESE language use, by ensuring the growth of the
intercultural skills and strategies needed to communicate successfully with both L1 and L2
English speakers. Such an approach, as well as engaging learners cognitively and affec-
tively, may also serve to remove affective barriers to motivation, such as lack of confidence
and uncertainty. Materials writers are recommended to incorporate the approach and skills
that are suggested in Chong (2018) when developing ESE learning materials. This could be
done, for example, by drawing upon Chong’s ADAPT (‘Awareness, Don’t judge, Analyse,
Persuade yourself, Try’) model (Chong 2018:45–46) and including, as she does, critical
incidents, or example interactions which showcase different aspects of intercultural commu-
nication. As demonstrated in Chong (2018), these can usefully be combined with reflective
questions which encourage learners to reconsider their own views and become better able
to accommodate different perspectives as well as norms. For this to be successful, it should
389
Lizzie Pinard
be ensured that critical reflection on and comparison between cultures do not identify indi-
vidual cultures as superior or inferior to their counterparts.
Another challenge for materials writers is to ensure learners are empowered as English
users by their learning materials. This, of course, links back to the discussion around inclu-
sion of lingua franca interactions and intercultural communication skills development in the
materials: positioning learners as valid users rather than interlopers, through inclusion of
audio and tasks which reflect this, rather than focusing primarily or exclusively on native
speaker accents and pragmatic norms (see Cogo this volume). This empowerment is impor-
tant as it impacts on the level of confidence a learner feels in approaching and engaging with
the local community. If they do not consider themselves to be valid language users, they are
likely to be hesitant to converse with others whom they do perceive as meriting that label.
Implications and challenges for culture

As seen earlier, learners in an ESE will come into contact with a range of cultures and
Englishes. Therefore, materials ideally need to use an approach which helps students to
develop the necessary skills for intercultural communication rather than simply training
them to mimic mother tongue speaker norms. Chong (2018:40) identifies ‘curiosity: finding
out about the “other”’ as one of her top ten tips for intercultural communicators. It could be
argued that materials designed for an ESE could usefully arouse this curiosity in learners
by facilitating critical discussion of cultural similarities and differences, thereby capitalis-
ing on the tendency for class groups in the UK to be multilingual. An example of this can
be seen in Pinard (2016b) Lessons 3 and 4, where learners compare their eating habits with
their classmates’, engaging with text and audio which feed in other perspectives, as well
as providing a base for exploring useful language. Ideally, as previously noted, materials
should also scaffold engagement with the local community. This is not only to help learn-
ers develop linguistically but also to help them continue the process of learning about and
engaging with the ‘other’ which, as has been seen, is a key factor in successful intercultural
communication.
In order to facilitate successful intercultural communication, there is also undeniably a
need for learners to be helped to better understand and interact with the different varieties
of English they will hear outside the classroom. Within a single country there may be a
wide range of accents and dialects that could be encountered. Using the UK as an example,
a learner who is based in Edinburgh will have a very different experience from that of a
learner based in London, the Midlands, or Yorkshire. Additionally, while expanding circle
countries have been excluded from this discussion, students studying in an inner/outer circle
ESE are likely to interact with a range of different L1 speakers, which, according to Cogo’s
(2015) definition, constitutes lingua franca usage. Here, native speakers do not provide the
benchmark of correctness or appropriacy (Baker 2012:63) and therefore students in an ESE
also require what Baker refers to as ‘the skills of multilingual communicators.’ Therefore,
materials writers for ESEs need to go beyond introducing basic knowledge of the structures,
vocabulary, and pronunciation associated with a particular variety of English (Baker 2012)
and include pragmatic strategies and linguistic resources associated with multilingual users
of English in successful communication, such as those identified by Sung (2018) who draws
on Galloway and Rose (2015) and Jenkins (2015). Examples include repetition, paraphras-
ing, and seeking clarification, as well as code-switching. The move away from reliance on
native speaker norms and interest in cross-cultural lingua franca communication have given
390
rise to publications such as Chong (2018)’s Successful International Communication, which

also highlights a number of skills and strategies which were mentioned above. It seems
clear, then, that ESE learning materials should follow this trend and maximise the potential
for developing such skills that the ESE learning context provides.
There have been innovations such as those mentioned above (see Pinard 2016b).
However, a module of tasks and a complete series of courses are of course very different
undertakings. Questions such as how to incorporate, for instance, research findings around
the use of English as a lingua franca and what should or should not be taught are yet to be
fully answered. There is also the issue of practicality. Take for example phonological rep-
resentation: it is one thing to agree that a greater range of voices is needed in materials in
order to adequately prepare learners for real-life situations, but quite another to implement
it. Pitfalls include relying on actors to mimic ‘foreign’ accents, with dubious results, and the
time, effort, and cost of sourcing the genuine article. That said, according to Tomlinson and
Masuhara (2013), the Global coursebook series developed by Clandfield and colleagues
does incorporate audio with ELF users and English Unlimited tries to draw on a range of
accents, both of which are promising developments. The challenge going forward will be to
overcome the practicality issues in order to consistently and effectively integrate a range of
voices in published materials, so that this becomes the rule rather than the exception.
The need for inclusive materials is also widely recognised. Indeed for over 20 years, pub-
lishers have aimed to eliminate racism, sexism, and stereotypes from their books, with clear
guidelines regarding representation, in terms of both quantity and quality, language varie-
ties, and other such factors (Gray 2010). Great steps have been made in terms of phonologi-
cal representation and different varieties of English too. One issue which these inclusive
representational practices and the drive for equality do not appear yet to extend to, though, is
that of heterosexism (commonly defined as a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in
favour of opposite sex sexuality and relationships). A notable exception to the above state-
ment, albeit sadly temporary, is Goldstein et al.’s (2003) Framework Intermediate. Gray
(2010) explains that this coursebook initially had a gapfill exercise in which gayness was
treated similarly to heterosexuality: unproblematic and normal. However, subsequently, the
coursebook was opened up to a wider audience and the gay relationship was replaced with
a more acceptable heterosexual equivalent.
This state of affairs may be considered particularly problematic for students studying
in those ESEs where gayness is accepted both socially and by law – for example the UK,
Canada, Australia, parts of the US, South Africa, New Zealand, and inner circle countries
such as Malta. Here, materials which reflect that reality would surely be helpful in terms
of mediating the potential distance between a home country and the host country in this
regard, as well as ensuring that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and
asexual (LGBTQIA+) students do not find themselves invisibilised, thus avoiding what
Akbari (2008) describes as further marginalisation of those already being marginalised by
the societies in which they are othered. Unfortunately, the ESE countries mentioned above
are amongst those for which materials thus far do not tend to be ‘versioned’ (Buchanan and
Norton 2018; Seburn 2018), meaning that global materials tend to be used, and that, where
a message of inclusivity could and should be sent out by materials used in these contexts,
this particular minority group remains invisible.
It is clear, then, that while coursebooks have made great progress in terms of represen-
tation and inclusivity, there is still a long way to go as far as homosexuality, a key aspect
of identity, is concerned. Identity and identity construction are considered of great impor-
tance in foreign language learning (for an overview of the rich array of research and theory
391
Lizzie Pinard
around the relationship between language, language learning, and identity, see Sa’d 2017
and Shahri 2018; for a better understanding of the role that identity plays in motivation with
regards to language learning, see Ushioda 2013). It is also easy to see how heteronormativ-
ity (defined by Cameron and Kulick 2003:55 as cited in Gray 2013:14 as ‘those structures,
institutions, relations and actions that promote and produce heterosexuality as natural, self-
evident, desirable, privileged and necessary’) in learning materials used in an ESE may
hamper language learning for those excluded by it. The obvious challenge, then, for pub-
lishers is how to balance the need to promote inclusivity and diversity by addressing the
heterosexism prevalent in global materials with the need to produce materials that will sell.
Publishers may, however, be reticent about making this change as homosexuality is not yet
acceptable or legal in certain parts of the world where global materials are used, and a key
focus for publishers, explained by Gray 2010 and acknowledged by Amrani (2011), is the
need to make a profit. This is an example of the tension between global materials and a local
context, that in other situations is solved by versioning (as with the Headway Middle Eastern
version, Headway Plus, example cited above) or commissioning country- or region-specific
materials. Thus, as will be seen below, there is a strong argument for versions of materials
designed specifically for ESEs, in which the issue of representation could be addressed.

The above discussion and challenges presented prompt the following recommendations,
which could be achieved in learning materials written for an ESE context:
·· materials written for an ESE must incorporate tasks which promote the development of
the skills and strategies needed by learners to capitalise on the language around them,
rather than assuming that this will happen for learners as a natural consequence of
residing in an ESE.
Innovation in how this is achieved, such as that seen in Pinard (2016b) and Sung (2018), is
needed. Learners traditionally flock to ESEs because they believe that residing in a com-
munity where English is used will benefit their learning. However, as demonstrated by Hann
(2013), living in an ESE does not necessarily result in effective language learning, and it
is therefore vital for materials to deliberately and systematically exploit the ESE. Writers
should, therefore, incorporate the development of learner autonomy and intercultural aware-
ness, sensitivity, and competence, while capitalising on learners’ motivation to use the lan-
guage outside the classroom, or in cases where this is lacking, encourage it.
·· materials writers and publishers need to incorporate activities which promote develop-
ment of the skills and strategies that enable effective lingua franca communication.
Arguably such activities should also incorporate examples of successful lingua franca com-
munication, between users of English who do not share the same mother tongue. As noted
earlier, this could include interactions between those whose mother tongue is English and
those for whom it is not. This approach could be used to build awareness of and allow
opportunities for practice of the skills and strategies, such as code-switching, paraphrasing,
and seeking clarification, as discussed above. Inclusion of such content would also help give
learners the skills they need to interact within the local community and greater confidence
to do so.
392
·· materials require the concept of culture to go beyond the nation-based framework

(Kramsch and Hua 2016), and this is particularly important for ESE learning materials.
This approach to materials development would recognise the complexity and multifaceted
nature of peoples’ identities, taking into account, for example, race, gender, ethnicity, occu-
pation, age, and sexuality. The recent plenary, ‘Gender and Sexuality in ELT – Inclusive
Education vs. Queer Pedagogy’ by John Gray at the International Association of Teachers
of English as a Foreign Language’s (IATEFL) annual conference in 2018, suggested that
inroads are being made within the ELT profession. To this end, it may be useful to acknowl-
edge and draw upon the language and literature of the LGBTQIA+ community, which tran-
scends national boundaries. This would help to address the heterosexism prevalent in most
current materials. For LGBTQA+ students from repressive (in this regard) nations who are
studying in more liberal ESEs, this would provide opportunities to use the English language
to express this part of their identity. As more and more countries move towards acknowledg-
ing and accepting their LGBTQA+ residents in the eyes of politics and the law, as well as
socially, there should be increasing scope for this to be reflected in ESE materials.
However, the lack of materials made specifically for ESEs is clearly a great obstacle to
following the above recommendations. If publishers cannot commission materials for spe-
cific ESEs due to insufficient market value and therefore global coursebooks must continue
to be used, the consideration of how to balance ESE needs and global materials becomes
critical. A possible solution is offered below.
Future directions
In order to maximise the potential for learning that an ESE provides, by incorporating the
recommendations for practice outlined above, publishers could create an ESE section on
their websites. This could include materials available for a small fee, to supplement global
coursebooks or act as alternative units/tasks/activity sequences, available to all purchasers
of these publications. Based on the recommendations above, these could include:
·· tasks and activities which scaffold engagement with English in the local community,
using a language awareness approach and an intercultural approach, as exemplified in
Pinard (2016b), as well as the ADAPT model and critical incidents approach used in
Song (2018);
·· authentic listening texts incorporating suitable phonological representation (as seen in
the Global coursebook series);
·· the integration of LGBT-friendly texts and content, such as the activity included in
Goldstein et al. (2003) and LGBT-specific language, such as ‘I am in a civil partnership’;
·· treatment of topics and people that might be considered too controversial for global
coursebooks (for an example of how such units could look, see Taylor and Coimbra
2019).
As supplementaries and alternatives, institutions and teachers in ESE contexts could decide
whether or not to use those materials, selecting those that would best meet the needs of the
learners in their specific teaching context. It is important, however, that such materials not
be purely supplementary: providing alternatives is crucial as in many places there is tension
between the time available for study and the quantity of content to be covered during a given
393
Lizzie Pinard
period. If materials are purely supplementary, the danger is that they will be ignored due to
lack of time, while alternatives to existing units, tasks, and sequences, such as those found
in Taylor and Coimbra (2019), could be used without expanding the amount of time required
to complete the syllabus.
Providing such materials electronically would address the issue of cost regarding print-
ing materials for a smaller (compared to global coursebooks or regional coursebooks) target
audience, while providing support for teachers in terms of being more inclusive and helping
students develop the skills and confidence needed to fully exploit ESE learning opportuni-
ties. This approach of providing quality materials online has worked well for Macmillan’s
Onestopenglish website.
Conclusion
This chapter has discussed the complicated (and oft-ignored) issue of writing materials for
an ESE, focusing on the key issues of learner autonomy and motivation, and culture. As has
been seen above, these issues are closely interwoven, resulting in a complex situation. It
could be argued that materials development is at a crossroads, with important decisions to be
made regarding how to address the issues identified in this chapter and how to negotiate the
resultant complexity. It is hoped that after many years of little change, publishers will begin to
address these issues head on to better meet the needs of English language learners worldwide.
Further reading
H. and Cogo, A., eds. International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: pedagogical
insights. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
This chapter provides a useful historical overview of theory and issues relating to English as a
Lingua Franca.
Seburn, T., 2018. LGBTQ+ inclusivity in the language classroom: Attitudes and considerations [Online].
In Contact Magazine, TESL Ontario. Available at: http://contact.teslontario.org/lgbtq-inclusivity/.
This article provides a good overview of issues around LGBTQA+ invisibility in ELT materials
and classrooms, in an ESE context.
Chong, C.S., 2018. Successful International Communication. Hove: Pavilion Publishing.
This book provides an in-depth coverage of the skills necessary for effective international
communication.
Hann, N., 2013. Mining the L2 environment: ESOL learners and strategies outside the classroom. In
Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing Materials for Language Teaching 2nd ed., London: Continuum Press.
This chapter explores the issues that arise when learners are asked to engage with the ESE and how
to address them.
Related topics
From global English to Global Englishes: questioning approaches to ELT materials, culture
and materials development, representation in coursebooks: a critical perspective, writing
materials for ESOL.
References
Akbari, R., 2008. Transforming lives: introducing critical pedagogy into ELT. English Language
Teaching Journal, 62/3:276–283.
394
Amrani, F., 2011. The process of evaluation: a publisher’s view. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
Baker W., 2012. From Cultural Awareness to Intercultural Awareness: Culture in ELT. English
Language Teaching Journal, 66/1:62–70.
Banegas, D.L., 2011. Teaching more than English in secondary education. English Language Teaching
Journal, 65/1:80–82.
Benson, P., 2011. Teaching and Researching Learner Autonomy. Oxon: Routledge.
Bhatt, R.M., 2001. World Englishes. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30/1:527–550.
Borg, S., 1994. Language awareness as a methodology: Implications for teachers and teacher training.
Language Awareness, 3/2:66–71.
Buchanan, H. and Norton, J., 2018. Versioning coursebooks for different contexts: what, where and
why? Presentation at IATEFL 2018, Brighton, UK.
Cameron, D. and Kulick, D., 2003. Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chong, C.S., 2018. Successful International Communication. Hove: Pavilion Publishing.
H. and Cogo, A., eds. International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical
Insights. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Corbett, J., 2003. An Intercultural Approach to Language Teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Crystal, D., 2012. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dӧrnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E., 2010. Teaching and Researching Motivation. Oxon: Routledge.
Ellis, R., 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., 2009. Task Based Language Learning and Teaching: Sorting out the Misunderstandings.
Galloway, N. and Rose, H., 2015. Introducing Global Englishes. London: Routledge.
International Perspectives on Materials in ELT . London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goldstein, B., Jose, M., and Murgatroyd, N., 2003. Framework Intermediate Student Book. London:
Richmond Publishing.
Gray, J., 2013. LGBT invisibility and heteronormativity in ELT materials. In Gray, J., ed. Critical
Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Halverson R.J., 1985. Cultural and vocabulary acquisition: A proposal. Foreign Language Annals,
18/4:327–32.
Hann, N., 2013. Mining the L2 environment: ESOL learners and strategies outside the classroom.
In Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum
Press.
Holec, H., 1981. Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J., 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes
in Practice, 2/3:49–85.
Kachru, B., 1992. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Kramsch, C., 1998. Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. and Hua, Z., 2016. Language and culture in ELT. In Hall, G., ed. The Routledge Handbook
of English Language Teaching. Oxon: Routledge.
Licata, G., 2018. Queering your pedagogy: teachers’ queries out of the closet. Presentation at IATEFL,
2019, Brighton, UK.
López-Barrios, M. and de Debat, E.V., 2014. Global vs. local: Does it matter?. In Garton, S. and
Graves, K., eds. International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Masuhara, H., Hann, N., Yi, Y. and Tomlinson, B., 2008. Adult EFL courses. ELT Journal, 62/3:294–312.
McKay, S.L., 2012. Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and
Approaches. Oxford: OUP.
395
Lizzie Pinard
MigrationWatch UK n.d. [Online]. Retrieved on 9 July 2020 from: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org

/statistics-net-migration-statistics.
Moran, P., 2001. Teaching Culture: Perspectives in Practice Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
Nunan, D., 1997. Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In Benson, P. and
Voller, P., eds. Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Oxford, R., 2003. Towards a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In Palfreyman, D and
Smith, R., eds. Learner Autonomy Across Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pinard, L., 2015. Looking outward: Using learning materials to help learners harness out-of-class
learning opportunities. Innovation in Language Teaching and Learning, 10/2:133–143.
Pinard, L., 2016a. Harnessing technology to foster learner autonomy via reflection. In Bird, P. and
Ioannou-Georgiou, S., eds. Teaching English Reflectively with Technology. Faversham, Kent:
IATEFL.
Pinard, L., 2016b. Compass [Online]. Retrieved on 8 July, 2020 from: http://www.onestopenglish.com
/skills/integrated-skills/compass/.
Richards, J., 2014. The ELT textbook. In Garton, S. and Graves, K., eds. International Perspectives on
Materials in ELT. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sa’d, S.H.T., 2017. Foreign language learning and identity reconstruction: Learners’ understanding of
the intersections of the self, the other and power. Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal,
7/4:13–36.
Seburn, T., 2018. LGBTQ+ inclusivity in the language classroom: attitudes and considerations
[Online]. In Contact Magazine, TESL Ontario. Available at: http://contact.teslontario.org/lgbtq
-inclusivity/.
Shahri, M.M.N., 2018. Constructing a voice in English as a foreign language: Identity and engagement.
Tesol Quarterly, 52/1:85–109.
Shin, J., Eslami, Z. and Chen, W., 2011. Presentation of local and international culture in current
international English language teaching textbooks. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
24/3:253–268.
Smith, R., 2003. Pedagogy for autonomy as (Becoming) appropriate methodology. In Palfreyman, D
and Smith, R., eds. Learner Autonomy Across Cultures. Basingstoke: Palsgrave Macmillan.
Sung, C.C.M., 2018. Out-of-class communication and awareness of English as a Lingua Franca. ELT
Journal, 72/1:15–25.
Taylor, J. and Coimbra, I., 2019. Raise Up! A Diverse and Inclusive View of English. Retrieved on 9
July 2020 from: https://raiseupforelt.com/.
Tomlinson, B., 2008. EFL materials in the UK. In Tomlinson, B., ed. English Language Learning
Materials: A Critical Review. London: Continuum.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., 2013. Adult coursebooks. ELT journal, 67/2:233–249.
Ushioda, E., 2013. Motivation and ELT: Global issues and local concerns. In Ushioda, E., ed.
International Perspectives on Motivation: Language Learning and Professional Challenges.
Ushioda, E. 2014. Motivation, autonomy and metacognition. Exploring their interactions. In
Lasagabaster, D., Doiz, A. and Sierra, J.M., eds. Motivation and Foreign Language Learning:
From Theory to Practice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Vandergrift, L. and Goh, C., 2012. Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening: Metacognition
in Action. Oxon: Routledge.
Williams, R., 1976. Key Words: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Willis, D. and Willis, J., 2007. Doing Task-based Teaching: A Practical Guide to Task-based Teaching
for ELT Training Courses and Practising Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
396
Part 7
Materials development and
technology

27
Developing blended learning
materials
Sharon Hartle
Introduction
Blended learning (BL), or hybrid learning, is a format which is increasingly popular for
course delivery in contexts where the internet is easily accessible. It has, however, ‘proved
difficult to define’ (Hockly 2018:97). In ELT the term dates back approximately to the publi-
cation of Blended Learning by Sharma and Barrett (2007), whose definition was a departure
from the way the term was used at the time in the business world, to describe situations
where employees continued to work full-time but simultaneously attended training courses.
Sharma and Barrett described BL in language teaching as being the blend of a face-to-face
(f2f) component with a digital one and in more detail:
The term blended learning can be applied to a very broad range of teaching and learn-
ing situations. It is commonly applied to a course where all the learners meet with a
teacher in a face-to-face (f2f) class, but in which the course includes a parallel self-
study component such as a CD-ROM or access to web-based materials.
(Sharma and Barrett 2007:7)
This would seem to imply a clear distinction between what is done online and what is done
in the classroom with the online component as a ‘support’ to the f2f classroom providing
further self-study work. This is, however, only one view of BL, as online work may be
done prior to or following and extending classroom work or may also be integrated into
f2f contexts, so that the whole process can perhaps better be seen as a cycle where neither
online work nor classroom work are superior to each other but both complement each other
reciprocally.
This chapter aims firstly to explore some current definitions, key issues and general prin-
ciples related to BL and then moves on to focus on materials development with a particular
view to helping educators develop their own blended course content which is tailor-made
for their learners. A final aim is to provide two practical examples of how this might be
done. Firstly, however, it is useful to consider some of the critical issues and topics related
to materials in BL.
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-34 399

Sharon Hartle

Materials, tools, and processes in the 21st-century blend
Nowadays, in fact, the distinction between f2f classroom and online work is no longer so
clear. Increasingly, the ‘blend’ is interpreted as the interaction between online and f2f com-
ponents and the ways in which using digital tools together with classroom-based work are
transforming the learning process. In the words of McCarthy (2016:3): ‘[T]he machine is no
longer the cold, soulless metal box or hand-held device, but becomes a “participant” in the
interaction that generates new and enhanced learning experiences.’ Technology, in fact, actu-
ally influences and transforms the very nature of classroom interactions (Kiddle 2013; Mishan
2016), and whilst there is still a lingering notion of print as being the most common medium
for materials development with digital ones being adapted from them, Mishan (2016:123)
describes technology as having ‘transformed materials from being products into processes,’
and Kiddle (2013:192) refers to a ‘shift from the concept of creation of “materials” (as in
content created for learners’ use) to the harnessing of “tools”, both those initially designed for
language learning and teaching, and those adopted and adapted from an alternative intended
use.’ Digital tools, both in an f2f classroom and on an online platform, can be used for recep-
tive and productive skills work as learners watch, listen, read, and discuss content and also
produce both written and spoken language, channelled by tools such as voice recorders, which
can be shared by posting on online platforms. Both educators and learners can contribute
their comments on each other’s thoughts and language, and the process becomes a cycle of
interaction that increasingly may start in the f2f classroom, be extended beyond it, only to be
reintegrated once again at a later stage as learner production is brought back into an f2f lesson
for purposes such as discussion or language analysis (see Mishan, this volume).
Furthermore, in many classrooms, technology has become increasingly ‘normalised,’ to
use Bax’s (2003) widely cited term, meaning that ‘technology’ has become such a normal
part of life, such as sending emails or posting messages online, that it is no longer consid-
ered innovative. Although technology in the form of internet access, for instance, is still
controversial in many mainstream classrooms such as primary schools because of ethical
issues, traditional interactions can, in fact, be facilitated by technology and technology can
be combined with more traditional tasks.
Blended learning: a point on a continuum or percentages of online or

f2f work
Many see BL as occurring on a continuum ranging from traditional f2f teaching with no
technology to online distance learning delivered almost exclusively online (Bates 2016a;
Sharma and Barrett 2018). At times it is defined according to the percentage of online com-
pared to f2f work. This percentage, however, may differ according to context (see Tomlinson
and Whittaker 2013 for a more detailed account). One commonly cited recommendation is
provided by Dudeney and Hockly (2007:138–139), who mention 75% of a BL course being
delivered online and 25% f2f. Whittaker (2013a:17), however, questions this use of percent-
ages stating that the blend of the components varies according to the needs and means of
specific contexts. It is perhaps more useful then to focus on designing a principled blend of
tasks, or activities and materials to meet the pedagogical needs of the specific course, rather
than being over preoccupied with percentages. Suffice it to say that a BL course should have
a mix of online and f2f components and that these should reflect the aims and requirements
of the local context it is designed for.
400
Developing blended learning materials
Blended learning, distance learning, and flipped classrooms

BL differs from other similar approaches such as pure distance learning and flipped class-
room learning not only insofar as the amount of work done online differs but also in the
philosophy inherent in the approaches themselves. Distance learning is carried out primarily
online and may be mediated by human tutors or instructors to varying extents, and sup-
ported by f2f components at times, such as residential or summer schools, for instance. The
flipped classroom approach, a term originally applied in the context of general education
rather than specifically for language learning, was coined by Bergman and Sams (2012)
and popularised by Salman Kahn in his frequently referenced TED Talk (Kahn 2011). It
approaches learning by providing the explanations or clarification of new ideas in video
content that learners can access independently and digest at their own speed in their own
time, so that more time can be devoted in class to teacher-monitored and facilitated practice
or experimentation. BL may include elements of both these approaches, allocating some
work to be done online, by ‘flipping’ it, whilst other aspects of ELT are better suited to the
f2f context.
Blended learning and materials development

The blending of materials, tasks, and tools is becoming more and more common as materi-
als, which in the past were often considered to be static products, are now both static and
interactive (Day and Sharma 2014). To appreciate what is involved, however, in develop-
ing materials for BL, we need to pause and consider some of the different ways in which
materials are currently being developed for BL contexts and what distinctions exist between
materials in general, tools, and tasks.
BL materials: the current situation

At present, the materials developed for BL are developed for two ends of a scale, where one
end is commercially produced materials which often supplement coursebooks. The devel-
opment of these is still very much top down, in that publishers often design materials for
global use and, as such, cannot take specific local learner contexts into consideration. Their
BL course materials tend to consist of coursebooks to be used in f2f classes in the traditional
way, but they increasingly provide DVDs or online sites that enable teachers to present the
coursebook material on interactive whiteboards (IWBs) or projection screens. A degree of
interaction is possible with these materials in that teachers can highlight items and can often
add notes or even slides. Whether or not such courses are truly BL is a matter for debate,
however. Lάzάr (2016:139), for instance, emphasises the need for BL not only to ‘supple-
ment’ but to improve the quality of the learning process, protesting that: ‘using a computer
and an interactive whiteboard to show exactly the same old reading passage with the same
old reading comprehension questions as teachers did two decades ago on the blackboard
cannot be considered to be BL.’
Whilst some publishers also provide their own commercially developed online platforms
which are linked to their own courses but which do, nevertheless, cater for a certain degree
of learner participation in the form of discussions, the general approach is quite traditional
(see Mishan, this volume). These materials present texts, tasks, and activities in similar for-
mats to those used in printed coursebooks in the past, albeit with feedback which is instantly
available to facilitate distance learners.
401
Sharon Hartle
Developing online materials for commercial platforms, nowadays, often involves work-
ing in teams to a strict brief provided by a publisher, which, in turn, means that the author
writes course components but has little control over the flow of the course design, since both
syllabus and infrastructure are usually controlled by the publisher. Economic factors drive
publishers increasingly to adopt ‘versioning’ (Day and Sharma op. cit.:Kindle loc. 651)
where one exercise, such as a reading comprehension text, will be written and tagged for
level or language use, stored in a database, and then used in different digital courses. The
language in one item may be adapted slightly from a general English text, for instance, to
make it suitable for use in an English for special purposes (ESP) course. In this way, how-
ever, the author is less involved in the overall design.
At the other end of the scale is the educator, often a teacher who, whether by choice,
or because of institutional policy, develops his or her own course. In these cases, teach-
ers are often presented with virtual learning environments (VLEs), such as Moodle
or Blackboard,1 and are required to author their own content. According to Whittaker
(2013b), until recently, very little support or guidance was available for such individuals
or groups, and even now, although many studies concentrate on BL, they are often col-
lections of case studies (Gruba and Hinkelman 2012; Rubio and Thoms 2014) or focus on
macro, institutional BL course design (Tomlinson and Whittaker 2013). There are fewer
studies, however, that focus on developing the materials themselves and selecting appro-
priate media at the micro level of teachers planning lessons at the digital chalkface. This
is, in fact, one of the crucial tasks for teachers who want or need to develop their own BL
courses, and Bates (2016b) provides a detailed approach to such selection. The question
of teachers developing their own materials for specific contexts will be discussed in more
detail below.
Materials in BL contexts
Perhaps the most critical topic, which has already been mentioned above, is the question of
what materials are in BL contexts and how using technology may transform the learning
process.
Traditionally materials are considered to be products or objects that facilitate learning.
One practical definition of materials is Tomlinson’s: ‘anything which can be used to facili-
tate the learning of a language’ which might be ‘linguistic, visual, auditory or kinaesthetic’
(2003a:2). Although this definition is very broad and includes items such as dictionaries, that
may be generally considered to be resources rather than materials that have been designed
specifically for language learning, he nevertheless extends the notion of materials being
more than simply printed texts. In the era we know as Web 2.0, when internet users increas-
ingly create their own content and interact online with each other, the process of producing
language itself, particularly thanks to the affordances of digital and social media tools such
as blogs, wikis, and shared content platforms, actually contributes to and influences the
materials being produced. This means that the line between the learning process, materials,
and tasks is becoming blurred.
Exercises and tasks

Ellis (2011:Kindle loc. 4218) advocates the primary focus of a task as being ‘meaning’
with language being used to ‘achieve an outcome’ rather than being ‘an end in itself.’ He
402
describes exercises designed to practise ‘correct language production’ as form-based rather

than meaning- based. Willis (2008) agrees but believes that there is still a place for form-
focused exercises, even though they may not be actual tasks. Whereas the affordances of
many of the web-based tools being used today in the Web 2.0 era enable direct learner
content generation and can, therefore, be more ‘meaning-focused,’ there is still the need
for form-based exercises such as gap fill, multiple choice, matching, or ordering exercises,
when learners practise new language forms, and these are still widely available. When
developing materials for BL, what is essential is that the appropriate task or exercise should
be combined with suitable tools and materials to achieve the aims required.
Entering a digital age

In the Web 1.0 era, when content was provided top down on the internet or on specifically
produced CD-ROMS and users read or accessed it as a resource but rarely interacted or cre-
ated it, tasks, exercises, and materials were generally produced by publishers as ‘ready made’
products for use by teachers and learners. In this way, there was little difference between the
printed materials to be found in commercially produced coursebooks and what was available
in digital formats. These materials, however, could not be adapted digitally for specific learner
needs in local contexts. Motteram (2011:Kindle loc. 5899) stresses the fact that ‘teachers like
to be able to adapt materials, what these days would be described as “re-mixing”’ (Pegrum
2009, cited in Motteram 2011:Kindle loc. 5902). Mediation of materials to suit local con-
texts has always been part of a teacher’s work and in the Web 2.0 world, tools that are freely
accessible make it possible for educators to author their own materials both for online and f2f
contexts. Whether this means creating a complete course requiring a VLE, an online space
for learners to post their ideas, or simply a matching exercise to pre-teach vocabulary, an
array of digital tools are now available to do a range of different things. In Table 27.1, there
are a few examples of the most commonly available tools at the time of writing.
Although the tools for creating materials may be different from those that were available
in the past, in many ways the principles behind materials development have not changed
essentially. Tomlinson (2003a:126) stresses the fact that ‘the activities in a course should
match with learner needs and wants and with principles of language learning,’ going on
to say that this involves considering the context, the experience, and the learners and then
developing a ‘flexible’ framework which may be informed by the needs of the particular
course, its specific requirements, levels, or aims. Educators developing materials will have
different aims and principles, and these need to be the basis on which such materials are built.
An example of blurring the boundaries between f2f and digital tools

To illustrate this blending of tools, tasks, and materials, then, here is a simple example:
·· learners may be asked to post written or spoken language digitally during an f2f lesson
using tools such as Socrative or Padlet (see Table 27.1) on their devices or computers,
posting their work online;
·· this is then displayed often in real time, either on a projection screen or IWB;
·· the process of creating this type of text may also involve integrated skills in group work
if learners are asked to work in pairs or small groups to read, answer questions, and talk
together to negotiate their text production;
403
Sharon Hartle
Table 27.1 Some of the most commonly available digital tools for authoring and organising content
VLEs for content organisation Description
Moodle This open-source platform enables educators to create and organise

https://docs.moodle.org/35/en their own materials: documents, multimedia, discussions, and
/Main_page groupwork. It also allows for tracking and email communication.
Blackboard This commercial VLE is similar to Moodle.
https://www.blackboard.com/
index.html
Edmodo This platform is freemium2 and allows educators to share ideas with
https://www.edmodo.com/ each other. Its noticeboard display is visually similar to Facebook,
which may make it familiar to some users.
Canvas Instructure This is freemium and user-friendly. Content can be organised easily into
https://canvas.instructure.com modules with separate pages resulting in easy access for learners
/login/canvas and teachers when navigating the materials.
Examples of digital tools
available online
Socrative This is a freemium digital tool which enables the authoring of quizzes,
https://www.socrative.com/ the posting of written content, or question and answer spaces for
formative assessment. It can be used quickly and easily in or outside
class.
Padlet Padlet is freemium and provides a blank canvas for learners to write on
https://padlet.com or record their voices and comment on content.
Mentimeter This freemium tool can be used quickly and easily to create quizzes,
https://www.mentimeter.com/ polls, or word clouds for learners as well as providing space for them
to answer questions in or outside class.
Quizlet Quizlet is a freemium tool for creating digital flashcards, and includes a
https://quizlet.com/ range of features for learners to interact with the content.
Offline digital tools
Hot Potatoes Hot Potatoes is free open-access software developed for authoring
https://hotpot.uvic.ca/ a range of standard exercises such as gap fillers, matching, or
crossword activities. It is user friendly, and generally the content
created can easily be uploaded to online spaces.
·· the language produced can then be stored, shared, and reintegrated at other stages in
the learning process.
The ‘materials’ produced like this from learner content can be used in various ways, such
as asking learners to read each other’s texts with tasks and voting for the one they like best,
which may be done either traditionally or digitally. Alternatively, they may be asked to listen
to the texts and comment on them online either in class or independently. The teacher may
take the language produced and prepare it for error analysis in a later class, or for discussion
of the main ideas learners have expressed, and further work may grow out of the original task.
This is just one example of how materials, interactions, and tools can intermingle and
spread out across the classroom to the digital platform and back again both within the f2f
context and outside it. The boundaries between tools, task, classroom interactions, and
learner production, as has already been mentioned, become increasingly blurred, and the
development of materials can no longer be considered as creating discrete objects but rather
as developing a framework for the flow of the blended learning process itself.
404
Implications and challenges

The main challenge for those wishing to develop materials for BL contexts is the question of
how to blend materials, tools, and tasks so as to provide a successful balance of interaction
types to reflect learner needs and preferences, whilst ensuring that the choices of tools and
tasks achieve the aims of the lesson and the course logically.
Dropout rates in BL courses according to Stracke (2007:57 cited in Tomlinson and
Whittaker 2013: 233) are due to ‘a perceived lack of support and connection/complementa-
rity between the f2f and computer-assisted components of the “blend”.’ Success, according
to Sharma and Barrett (2007:13–14), means using technology to ‘complement and enhance
f2f teaching.’ The most sophisticated materials and tools in the world, in fact, are ineffective
if access is difficult and the instructions for use are unclear.
Drawing on the strengths of f2f and digital classrooms

An efficient way of combining digital tools, materials, and tasks in one place where they can
be accessed outside the classroom, but also used inside it, is to use a platform that becomes
a digital classroom. For BL to work, the materials and tools developed must draw on the
strengths of both digital and traditional contexts, some of which are summarised in Table
27.2. The f2f classroom refers to a traditional setting but the online space refers to digital
classrooms where activities, tools, and spaces are made available for learners to access.
This may be a VLE such as the examples provided in Table 27.1, or it may be a more social
space like a wiki or blog. These platforms contain features such as space for materials to
be uploaded and stored by teachers and learners, a chat feature is increasingly common, as
is space for interactions both inside and outside the classroom, notices can be posted, mes-
sages sent, and learner work tracked.
As the table shows there are advantages and disadvantages in both types of classroom,
which is why effective BL combines the best of both contexts. This means that educa-
tors developing BL courses need to decide which part of the learning process can be best
placed in the f2f context, perhaps because greater monitoring or social interaction is benefi-
cial, such as peers working together to construct knowledge and experiment with language.
Table 27.2 A comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of f2f and digital classrooms
F2f classrooms Digital classrooms
Limited by lesson times 24-hour access

Teacher-determined pace Learner-determined pace
Limited learner contributions due to peer Less peer pressure for some learners when interacting
pressure with a keyboard rather than speaking out in class
Eye contact and physical proximity help learners Contact may be at one remove
and teachers to understand each other
Teachers can monitor learners directly Monitoring may be asynchronous
Language used in class may disappear Language produced online can be stored, analysed,
and recycled in various ways
Peers can also provide support Working online can lead to feelings of isolation or
frustration without adequate scaffolding
405
Sharon Hartle
Twenty-four-hour access, on the other hand, may be helpful when using different types of
explanatory or reference materials. By drawing on such strengths, materials can be devel-
oped that will benefit the learners and provide various learning paths that reflect their needs.
In order for such tasks and materials to truly transform learning in the way that Mishan
(op. cit.) described (see also Mishan, this volume), however, it is important to constantly
consider the fact that an activity must gain something by being digital and not simply be
a version of something that could easily be done with pen and paper. In the same way an
f2f activity must not simply be something that could be done independently but must have
added value because it is done in the socially situated context of an f2f classroom.

One of Tomlinson’s main requirements, as mentioned above, for the development of mate-
rials, in fact, is that they should be based on solid principles which reflect the aims of the
learning process (Howard and Major 2005; Richards 2006; Tomlinson 2003b; Tomlinson
2011), and this is just as true of BL as it is of f2f materials.
One of the traps that many digital materials developers fall into is that of novelty. Some
‘early adopters’, a term coined by Rogers (1962), are attracted to technological or media-
based tools simply because they are attracted to innovation. The use of tools only because of
their novelty factor, however, is often criticised by those, such as Bax (op. cit.), who consider
novelty for novelty’s sake to be negative and who advocate the use of technology because it
has become an integral part of our lives. On the other hand, novelty has its place in materi-
als development in that it can achieve what Tomlinson (2011:Kindle loc. 505) refers to as
‘impact.’ He was discussing the choice of ‘unusual topics, illustrations and activities’ as being
motivating for learners, and unusual digital interactions can be added to the list. Impact, then,
is motivating but, as Sharma and Barrett (2007:8) say, ‘a blended learning course run without
a principled approach may be seen as an “eclectic” blending together of course components
and can end up as rather a mish-mash.’ To avoid this, a framework needs to be developed,
which may involve simply asking appropriate questions when selecting activities at each stage
of the learning process and bearing in mind the strengths and weaknesses of the f2f and digital
classrooms outlined above or may be moulded by the units or modules of the course itself.
BL materials development at the micro level of task creation

At the micro level of task development, this means considering the aims of the task, the activ-
ity, and the tools being used. Educators developing such materials need to ask themselves:
·· what would be best suited to f2f contexts done in traditional ways?

·· what would be enhanced by using digital tools in the classroom?
·· what could be provided online to be accessed either before (flipped) or after a lesson?
·· how much scaffolding needs to be provided for the online activities and materials?
Whether an entire course is being developed, or a coursebook is simply being supplemented

with extra materials, educators need to think about their learners, their context, and the
individual components they intend to include. Planning these elements will inevitably lead
to combinations that vary from context to context but to illustrate the process, here is one
example from my own context, teaching undergraduate university students.
406
·· Firstly an overview of the module or lesson and its stages needs to be outlined. If, for
instance, the key aim of a lesson is to enable intermediate learners to describe memo-
rable moments, the first decision to take is whether this will be written, oral, or both. In
my context the answer was ‘oral’.
·· Secondly, the tasks and exercises may need to be developed in such a way as to provide
remedial work as well as more challenging tasks, and there must be a balance of form-
based and meaning-based tasks. In my example, this led to a framework beginning with
remedial language work (both form and meaning-focused), then went on to focus on
receptive skills work, followed by a focus on oral production with the sub-skills of a pro-
nunciation focus on weak forms in sentences and then fluency in a final discussion task.
·· The next stage was to decide which activities are better suited to the f2f context and which
ones would be better online. In this case, for instance, the f2f work began with a review of
tenses done as a test-teach-test format. This is useful to do f2f because learners can collabo-
rate in pairs sharing and building their knowledge together. The tenses were then clarified by
means of matching and gap fill activities, created by Hot Potatoes (see Table 27.1) and pro-
vided online. Hot Potatoes enables authors to create hints in the form of questions to guide
learners as well as providing the feedback of which answers are correct or not. This means
that learners can return to the work later to review or can prepare in advance working inde-
pendently. One of the advantages of online content is that both teachers and learners can use
the materials in differing ways to suit different needs. Learners who cannot attend, or who
miss lessons, for instance, can do such cognitive study work independently even though
they miss the interactive experimentation work done in class and monitored by the teacher.
·· Finally digital tools used in class need to enrich the learning process, adding some-
thing that would not be provided by traditional print-based materials. To see this in
more detail, let’s look at the oral production task of describing memorable experiences.
Images are always a useful springboard to discussion, and many learners these days
have smartphones with their own personal image galleries (see Dudeney and Hockley,
this volume). Using such images adds learner-centred relevance to the task. A good
point to start then is to ask learners in class to find three photos that are particularly
memorable to them. Learners can use such images to describe these moments to each
other or to ask each other questions about them, and if the aim is to focus on the past,
integrating the tense work just done. Learners might be encouraged to ask questions
like: ‘What were you doing just before the photo was taken? What happened next?
What was he/she thinking?’ The task in this case combines technology and f2f inter-
action and is meaning-based, drawing on the sharing of real experiences, whilst also
being form-based with its slant towards past tenses. The follow-up to such work may
also vary according to the needs of the group, ranging from error analysis to further
skills work. The tools and the materials are blended in this way for greater impact in
Tomlinson’s terms, whilst being an integral part of the learning process, and this is only
one example of the ways in which such materials, tasks, and exercises can be combined.
(See the worksheet provided in Appendix A for a step-by-step approach designed to help
educators develop materials for blended learning.)
Experimenting with new language: personality adjectives

nother example of a specific task which can be transformed by combining digital and tra-
A
ditional tools, for instance, is the practice of experimenting with personality adjectives. At an
407
Sharon Hartle
intermediate level, this might be done by asking learners to match an adjective such as ‘sociable’
with an image of someone at a party or chatting with friends. In an f2f context, this activity can
be done in pairs so that learners can provide support for each other as they work and teachers
can actively monitor such activities providing help where needed. If the matching is simply done
digitally with adjectives that are dragged to images, then it does not add anything to the process if
only used in class. It would be useful for the digital matching exercise to be ‘flipped’ or used later
for review purposes. Rather than replicating a matching exercise that can successfully be done
with printed materials, it would make more sense in the classroom to do a traditional matching
exercise and then to use a tool like mentimeter.com (see Table 27.1) to project a word cloud.
Learners may be asked, for instance, to post three positive personality adjectives that describe
their own characters by using menti.com (available as an app) on their devices, and as they do
so they can see the words appearing instantaneously on the IWB or the projection screen in the
classroom in the shape of a word cloud where item size reflects frequency of learner choice
(Figure 27.1 gives an idea of what a word cloud may look like). This happens almost instantane-
ously when learners select their adjectives and seeing the dimensions of the adjectives appear
on the screen also contributes to learners elaborating these items further. The word cloud can
then be used in different ways. The fact that ‘sociable’ in this example was frequently posted, for
instance, could form a stimulus to discussion of ways in which the group is sociable. This could
be followed by pair or group work where learners attempt to match at least three of the adjec-
tives to the individuals who posted them, explaining their choices. The tools in this case enhance
the activity, and the language produced may then be stored in a way that would not be possible
if learners simply wrote their adjectives on paper, as they might have done in the past. Here the
border between tool, learner-produced content, and materials becomes blurred, and the novelty
of the format is motivating in that it is unusual, whilst being an integral part of the learning pro-
cess selected to provide a personalised experimentation phase in a lesson.
However materials development for BL is approached it makes sense to consider the
aims, tools, tasks, and different ways these can be combined for different learners and at dif-
ferent times. Blended learning gives us the opportunity to have the best of both worlds: the
ing
polite tolerant
k
or
intelligent outgoing
-w
loyal
creative
loveable
nd
sociable
ha
generous proud
extrovert
talkative
opt
imis
helpful
tic
Figure 27.1 Learner choices of positive personality adjectives to describe their characters.
408
interactive f2f context and the more independent online world, but each of these contexts
needs to be exploited for optimal use. Digital tools in the f2f classroom must add something
innovative, but at the same time remain principled to the work being done.
Future directions
The future is inevitably hard to predict, and this is particularly true of digital tools. Not so long ago
virtual worlds were being advertised as the way forward. Materials and activities, such as Second
Life (Motteram 2013), were developed by organisations, ranging from the British Council to
universities. These days, however, Second Life itself is a virtually abandoned place, and many
of the islands created there for ELT no longer exist. The growth in popularity of smartphones
and other hand-held devices, however, has led to an increase in bring your own device (BYOD)
approaches, such as the use of mentimeter.com described above. The widespread normalisation
of social media usage also suggests that the border between formal teaching and informal learn-
ing may become even more blurred, as learners take greater responsibility for their own learning
by exploring social media and online resources.
Virtual reality (VR) is one field which, at the moment, looks promising with Google
producing low-cost headsets such as Cardboard3 that can be combined with smartphones.
VR, rather than virtual worlds, already enables learners to practise real-life language skills,
such as giving presentations or doing job interviews by combining specific apps on their
smartphones with a VR headset. One example of such an app is Virtual Speech,4 originally
designed to supplement business skills. Cambridge English, in fact, have recently devel-
oped Cambridge Beta 3605 which can be used with Google Cardboard to take potential
exam candidates into the 3D experience of arriving at the oral exam. Immersive technology
like this seems to promise a truly three-dimensional experience which goes far beyond the
idealised, two-dimensional avatars of Second Life. This may provide further opportunities
to blend digital and f2f work, asking learners, for instance, to experience an immersive
experience of an exam, arriving at the centre, finding the correct room, and literally being
in the environment. This can then be followed up in the f2f context with discussion and
further simulation.
Web 3.0 is about merging technology into our lives, rather than escaping into new ones, so
mobile technology and BYOD approaches will probably continue to increase accessibility ena-
bling communication in ways that reflect everyday life as well as enhancing language learning.
Conclusion
In conclusion, BL is fundamentally about reflecting the norms of communication that are
prevalent in our world to optimise learning. This means the materials developed must
provide choices for different learning contexts and learners. There is no longer a clear
distinction between digital tools, f2f activities, and tasks, so that developing materials in
a logical way means examining the digital and traditional tools and asking what added
value using such tools brings to the process. Educators are increasingly developing con-
tent for specific groups of learners, and their task is to select tools and design materials
that reflect the pedagogical aims and the learning contexts involved. Materials develop-
ers need to ask key questions when developing such materials, for example, the ones
outlined in the ‘Recommendations for Practice’ section above. These may vary according
to individual teaching contexts, but it is essential to consider which materials to develop,
409
Sharon Hartle
for which aim, and how to combine materials, tasks, and exercises into a principled
teaching process.
Simply providing materials online without any direction as to how to use them may cause
frustration in learners and lead to high dropout rates. An effective blend, on the other hand,
can be perceived as a more complete process. In the words of one advanced undergraduate
from Verona University:
Attending and participating actively in class both traditionally and with digital tools
is essential for the direct understanding of the subject, but the integration with the
e-learning online platform makes it even more complete.
(personal communication 2018, student feedback comment, online group,
C1-level BL language course)
In short, developing materials for blended learning means considering both the f2f context
and the online one and creating principled materials and tasks with appropriate tools for
both these situations in order to enhance the learning process for all participants.
Notes
1 The references in this chapter to internet sites and tools are correct at the time of writing but
because of the phenomenal speed with which technological advances are made, they may not still
be current in the very near future.
2 Freemium refers to tools that have some free features but others that have to be paid for.
3 Google Cardboard can be seen and the app can be downloaded from https://vr.google.com/
cardboard/
4 Virtual Speech can be accessed at https://virtualspeech.com/
5 Cambridge Beta 360 http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/beta/360/
Further reading
Dudeney, G. and Hockly, N., 2007. How to Teach English with Technology, Harlow: Pearson Education
Ltd.
This is a classic text for all those interested in the technological side of blended learning.
Tomlinson, B. and Whittaker, C. eds., 2013. Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course
This is a highly accessible text which gives an overview of many of the issues involved in designing
blended learning courses.
Day, J. and Sharma, P., 2014. How To Write For Digital Media [Online]. ELT Teacher 2 Writer.
Retrieved on 20 March 2018 from: www.eltteacher2writer.co.uk.
This gives a comprehensive guide to the basics when authoring digital materials.
Bates, T., 2016b. Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for Designing Teaching and Learning.
Vancouver, BC: Tony Bates Associates.
Although this was not developed primarily for ELT, Bates has extensive experience with the Open
University among other institutions and provides a comprehensive state-of-the-art picture of teaching
in a digital age and how to develop materials for it.
Mishan, F., 2016. Reconceptualising materials for the blended language learning environment. In
This is a fascinating account of the way in which materials need to be reconceptualised in order to
enhance the language learning experience in a digital world.
410
Related topics
Language learning materials in the digital era, materials for mobile learning.
References
Bates, T., 2016a. Are you ready for blended learning? Online Learning and Distance Education
Resources [Online]. Retrieved on 3 April 2020 from: https://www.tonybates.ca/2016/12/12/are-we
-ready-for-blended-learning/ .
Bates, T., 2016b. Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for Designing Teaching and Learning. Vancouver,
BC: Tony Bates Associates. Retrieved on 20 March 2018 from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx
?direct=true%7B&%7Ddb=a9h%7B&%7DAN=3663267%7B&%7Dsite=ehost-live.
Bax, S., 2003. CALL-past, present and future. System, 31/1:13–28.
Bergman, J. and Sams, A., 2012. Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every
Day. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
Day, J. and Sharma, P., 2014. How To Write For Digital Media [Online]. ELT Teacher 2 Writer.
Retrieved on 20 March 2018 from: www.eltteacher2writer.co.uk.
Dudeney, G. and Hockly, N., 2007. How to Teach English with Technology. Harlow: Pearson Education
Ltd.
Ellis, R., 2011. Macro- and micro-evaluations of task-based teaching. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
Development in Language Teaching 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gruba, P. and Hinkelman, D., 2012. Blending Technologies in Second Language Classrooms.
Basingstoke: Palgrave, Macmillan.
Hockly, N., 2018. Blended learning. ELT Journal, 72/1:97–101.
Howard, J. and Major, J., 2005. Guidelines for designing effective English language teaching materials.
In Proceedings, Ninth Conference of the Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, October
2004, 101–109.
Kahn, S., 2011. Salman Khan talk at TED 2011 [Online video]. TED Talks. Retrieved on January 15,
2015 from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM95HHI4gLk.
Materials for Language Teaching 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury.
Lάzάr, I., 2016. Developing activities and materials to support effective interaction online. In
McCarthy, M., 2016. Blended learning. In McCarthy, M., ed. The Cambridge Guide to Blended
Learning for Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mishan, F., 2016. Reconceptualising materials for the blended language learning environment. In
Motteram, G., 2011. Developing language-learning materials with technology. In Tomlinson, B., ed.
Materials Development in Language Teaching 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Motteram, G., 2013. Innovations in Learning Technologies for English Language Teaching. London:
British Council.
Pegrum, M., 2009. From Blogs to Bombs. Crawley, Western Australia: University of Western Australia
Press.
Richards, J.C., 2006. Materials development and research: Making the connection. RELC Journal,
37/1:5–26.
Rogers, E.M., 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Rubio, F. and Thoms, J., 2014. Hybrid Language Teaching and Learning: Exploring Theoretical,
Pedagogical and Curricular Issues. Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage.
Sharma, P. and Barrett, B., 2018. Best Practices for Blended Learning. Hove: Pavilion Publishing and
Media.
411
Sharon Hartle
Sharma, P. and Barrett, B., 2007. Blended Learning Using Technology in and Beyond the Language
Classroom. Oxford: Macmillan.
Stracke, E., 2007. A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners drop out of blended
language learning (BLL) environments. ReCALL, 19/1:57–78.
Tomlinson, B., 2003a. Developing materials for language teaching. In Tomlinson, B., ed., London:
Continuum.
Tomlinson, B., 2003b. Developing principled frameworks for materials development. In Developing
Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum Publishing.
Tomlinson, B., 2011. Materials Development in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tomlinson, B. and Whittaker, C. eds., 2013. Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course
Whittaker, C., 2013a. Introduction. In Tomlinson, B. and Whittaker, C., eds. Blended Learning in
English Language Teaching: Course Design and Implementation. London: British Council.
Whittaker, C., 2013b. Preface. In Tomlinson, B. and Whittaker, C., eds. Blended Learning in English
Language Teaching: Course Design and Implementation. London: British Council.
Willis, J., 2008. Criteria for identifying tasks for TBL [Online]. Retrieved on 23 December 2017 from:
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/criteria-identifying-tasks-tbl.
Appendix A: worksheet: preparing language teachers to develop

blended learning materials
Activity One
Preparation task
1) Consider a lesson or lesson stage that you are going to teach and specify the aim.
Example. Enabling intermediate learners to describe memorable past moments
(both spoken and written)
2) Use the table below to map out which work would be better in an f2f context and which
online. The exact activities can be planned later. This is an outline to give you an idea
of the shape of your lesson (substitute the model with your own ideas, and add further
states):
Activityx f2f work Digital work Before, during, or after class

Tense review Pair work to do test teach Clarification and Digital work before class/explanations,
test activity/further examples online + examples, and form-based
practice if required. matching/ gap fill exercises. These can also be
activity with feedback. accessed later for those who need
them.
Activity Two
1) Look back at one or more of the stages in exercise 2 above and consider the tools, tasks,
and materials your learners will use and what they will do with them:
Example. Stage 4. Learners can be asked to choose two or three photos on their
mobile devices. They should show these to a partner and discuss what makes them
memorable.
2) Describe the value of using tools, tasks, and materials in this way.
412
Example: using the digital tools in class personalises the content and the materials
because they come from learners’ personal worlds and are therefore relevant to those
individuals. Learners can be asked in advance to bring photos, but many may have
images with them on their devices in any case. Blending this with speaking work in
pairs or small groups reinforces the supportive classroom context and gives the teacher
the opportunity to monitor, gather information for follow-up work, provide support
where required, etc.
413
28
Materials for mobile learning
Introduction
Since its appearance in the world of education in the mid-2000s, exactly what is meant by
the term ‘mobile learning’ has been the subject of some debate (Kukulska-Hulme 2009;
Traxler 2009). An initial emphasis on the mobility of learners – the often-quoted idea that
one can learn ‘on the move,’ at any time and in any place – and on the portability or mobil-
ity of the devices themselves, have given way to an emphasis on the importance of con-
text. Mobile learning encompasses both formal classroom-based learning, and informal and
formal learning opportunities outside the school environment; this learning can take place
across multiple devices, and in a variety of physical and temporal arenas. How learners
interact with the mobile device itself is only one aspect; of more importance are the inter-
actions that mobile devices support, and how these interactions may (or may not) lead to
learning.
In this scenario, the role of the materials writer is key. Writing materials for mobile-
based interactions that support language learning goes beyond creating apps. Although
there is a plethora of off-the-shelf English language learning material available that
has been designed especially for mobile delivery, much of it relies on a behaviourist
model of learning. Translation and memorisation activities tend to feature heavily in
these materials, and although there is a place in language learning for both of these,
opportunities for production in the form of meaningful written or spoken interaction
are rare. The high dropout rate in the use of language learning apps like Duolingo
(Vesselinov and Grego 2012) foreground their usefulness as supplementary learning
materials, most suitable for individual out-of-class study. For the communicative lan-
guage teacher wanting to integrate effective mobile-based language learning activities
into his/her teaching practice, this represents something of a quandary. How to design
effective mobile learning materials that do indeed provide opportunities for learners to
interact and communicate with others, two cornerstones of effective language teaching
and learning? We explore this issue in this chapter, and in particular how the materials
writer – whether a professional materials developer or a teacher designing materials for
his/her own students – may best address it.
414 DOI: 10.4324/b22783-35


Mobile materials in ELT
The first self-study app-based English language learning materials appeared around 2009,
developed by the British Council, and focusing primarily on vocabulary and grammar, as
well as audio materials designed for EFL learners. The British Council was closely followed
by major ELT publishers who began to produce stand-alone and coursebook-related apps
for language learners. The integration of mobile materials into the field of ELT was initially
somewhat ad hoc, driven by early adopter teachers and self-motivated learners; however,
larger scale institutional, national, and regional initiatives soon saw mobile-based English
language learning projects in developing and developed countries (see Pegrum 2014 for
descriptions of mobile-based language learning case studies).
In the field of ELT, mobile learning is often referred to as mobile-assisted language
learning, or MALL, derived from the term computer-assisted language learning or CALL.
However, the term mobile-assisted language use (MALU) has also been proposed, to reflect
the use of mobile devices to support both formal language learning and the acquisition of
language in more informal social contexts (Jarvis and Achilleos 2003).
Four types of MALL are suggested by Pegrum (op. cit.), each focused primarily on one
of these areas:
·· content MALL: for example, self-study content such as listening to podcasts or read-
ing e-books;
·· tutorial MALL: based on behaviourist theories of language learning, for example
vocabulary flashcard apps, pronunciation/repetition apps, quizzes, and games;
·· creation MALL: activities including the creation of text, images, audio, and/or video;
·· communication MALL: for example, the sharing of created digital artifacts via mobile
devices, either locally, and/or internationally via networked groups.
The first two types of MALL (content and tutorial MALL) reflect a behaviourist theory
of learning, in which learners consume content, and may reproduce it in very controlled
contexts. The second two types of MALL (creation and communication MALL) sit more
comfortably with a communicative or task-based approach to teaching and learning, based
on socio-constructivist theories of learning. These four types of MALL are not mutually
exclusive, and it is possible to have several types appearing within the same activity. What is
clear, however, is that creation and communication MALL require the guidance of a teacher.
Therefore, they are arguably more suited to classroom-based tasks where teachers are able
to provide guidance and feedback. The mobile materials writer can produce materials for
any or all four types of MALL; keeping in mind the differences between them at the design
stage may help writers produce more effective materials that can be used across a variety of
contexts, and for both in-class and out-of-class language learning.
Research
With over a decade of mobile-based language learning experiences to draw on, there is
a growing body of research into the use of mobile devices to support language learning.
However, given the wide range of factors involved in language learning, and the importance
of context and interaction over device type, as described in the Introduction to this chapter,
it is perhaps not surprising that research results are mixed. Studies that have attempted to
415
ascertain whether a mobile device itself is a determining factor in the success or otherwise
of language learning are inconclusive; the role of mobile materials, however, appears key.
Given the limitations of space in this chapter, only two example studies are discussed below
for the purposes of illustration (see Hockly 2016 for more research studies).
A study in the Netherlands with primary school EFL learners explored the use of smart-
phones out of class to support vocabulary acquisition (Sandberg et al. 2011). Three groups
of students were given the same in-class vocabulary lesson on animals. Two experimental
groups were then given smartphones with location-based vocabulary games and visited a
zoo where they had to play vocabulary games as they moved around the zoo visiting the
animals. One of these two experimental groups was asked to take the smartphones home for
two weeks; these devices were pre-loaded with extra vocabulary games on animals. Results
were compared against a paper-based in-school-only control group. Scores on a vocabulary
post-treatment test showed gains in vocabulary acquisition for all three groups, with the stu-
dents who took the smartphones home performing best. However, there was no significant
difference in post-test scores between the control group, who received paper-based class-
room instruction only, and the experimental group, who visited the zoo but did not take the
mobile devices home.
The researchers suggested that the additional time spent working with learning materials
by the group who took the phones home – an average of 1.5 hours per student – was the
defining factor that improved their learning outcomes in this study. It appears that this group
was motivated by the additional vocabulary games in the phones, but the researchers also
reported that the amount of time students spent playing the games significantly decreased
over the two weeks, suggesting that as the novelty of the content wore off, motivation and
engagement with the learning materials decreased.
This study (Sandberg et al. 2011) seems to show that motivation is a key element in keep-
ing students engaged with learning content, and that it is difficult to assert that multimedia
content alone, or the use of a mobile device will automatically lead to improved learning
outcomes.
Let us return to the question of whether the use of mobile devices can automatically
improve learning outcomes. A study by Hung et al. (2009) explored the effect on vocabu-
lary acquisition of a crossword game played on a tablet computer compared to the same
game played by students with pen and paper. In a class of 32 Taiwanese primary school
EFL students, half the class used tablet computers, and the other half used pen and paper.
The researchers found no significant differences between the two groups, although learning
outcomes, motivation, and attitude improved for all the students, and especially for lower
achieving students. In this case, the design of the activity (a crossword puzzle) appeared
to be the main motivating factor that led to improved learning outcomes, not the tablet
technology.
These studies suggest that effective task design, and additional time spent on out-of-class
tasks, are determining factors in helping students learn English, rather than the use of any
specific mobile device. We can also conclude that one role of the mobile materials writer is
to ensure the creation of engaging and motivating materials that will encourage learners to
spend extra time out of class engaging with these materials.
Parameters for mobile materials design

Hockly (2013) suggests six principles for the design of mobile-based materials and tasks
that reflect the principles of communicative language learning:
416
1 Hardware
Hardware focuses on the technology: that is, whether learners have access to mobile
devices for classroom use (e.g. their own devices, or devices provided by the school),
the device affordances (i.e. what the devices can do), and connectivity for the devices
(e.g. school Wi-Fi, or the learners’ own mobile data plans). Not all learners have access
to the latest mobile devices; however, even in low-resource contexts, learners may
have access to so-called feature phones, which have photo-taking and audio-recording
capabilities. Both of these functions can be used to design language learning tasks. In
high-resource contexts where learners have access to smartphones, tasks that leverage
the affordances of smartphones (e.g. audio, video, access to apps, geolocation, and
augmented reality capabilities) can be designed. Device features such as screen size are
also important for task design. Having learners read or produce long texts on mobile
phones is not ideal, so text-based work is best focused on text genres that suit the
mobile phone interface, such as short social media texts or text messaging.
Task design will also be influenced by whether learners have access to an internet
connection on their devices out of school. For example, working with a group of adult
international EFL students using their own devices in the UK, Hockly (ibid.) found that
not all learners had mobile internet connections outside of school, and therefore task
design could not rely on real-time sharing of information or images outside of school.
Clearly, the mobile hardware available to students directly affects what is (and is not)
possible in terms of task design. Materials writers need to be able to design mobile tasks
that allow for a lack of connectivity or mobile affordances, as well as the presence of
these, so that teachers can take advantage of what hardware is available in their context,
and mobile learning tasks can fit this reality.
2 Mobility
Closely linked to the question of hardware is that of mobility. Designing tasks for
Pegrum’s (op. cit.) three categories of mobility described in the next paragraph (whether
the devices, learners, or learning experience are mobile) is directly influenced by some
of the factors described above, such as access or connectivity.
For example, whether students use their own devices or devices provided by the school
affects whether they are able to carry out mobile-based tasks outside of the school environ-
ment. Learners are often not allowed to take school-based devices home, which means that
materials writers need to design mobile-based tasks that only take place in the classroom,
as mobile learning experiences in the wider world are not possible. Similarly, out of school
connectivity, or the lack of it, will affect whether tasks requiring an internet connection
need to be confined to the geographical location of the school itself, or whether learners can
collect data (image, audio, video) outside of class, which can then be brought to class and
integrated into project work or classroom-based tasks. These logistical issues are important
considerations for effective mobile materials/task design.
3 Technological complexity
Learners will typically have varying levels of expertise and experience in mobile
device use. Some learners may be proficient users of more complex mobile-based tech-
nologies like geolocation and augmented reality; some learners may use their mobile
devices for phone calls and taking photos and little else. When designing tasks for
mobile devices, the level of technological complexity needs to be kept in mind. For
example, if learners are expected to use complex geo-location or map apps while com-
pleting a linguistic task such as giving directions, then the cognitive load associated
with the task is significantly increased. Learners may be struggling with an unfamiliar
417
technology at the same time as having to activate their language resources. Especially
for lower level learners, this may be overwhelming. Mobile materials designers need
to create a balance between technological complexity and linguistic demands; as a rule
of thumb, the language aims of a mobile-based activity should always take preference
over the technology, and keeping the latter simple is key.
4 Linguistic/communicative competence
When designing a mobile task, the linguistic and communicative competence of the
learner needs to be taken into account. There needs to be a good fit not only between
the mobile-based feature being used, but the linguistic aims of the tasks, and the com-
municative competence of the learner. The technological demands should not distract
from the learning aims. For example, a seemingly simple task, such as asking low-level
students to video themselves while completing a speaking task in pairs, can induce an
unnecessary level of stress to what may already be a linguistically challenging task for
these learners. Depending on the learners, it may be less demanding for them to audio
record rather than video record themselves.
5 Content, tutorial, creation, or communication MALL
Asking to what extent mobile-based materials/tasks allow for creation and com-
munication can help material designers move away from a behaviourist app-based
approach to one in which communication and interaction (with peers and the teacher)
become a key part of the task outcome. Although all four types of MALL may be
present in ELT materials (as discussed earlier), tasks designed to take place in the com-
municative classroom should be significantly weighted towards creation and commu-
nication MALL. These tasks might involve, for example, communication based on a
language point between learners in a social network; or the creation of a meme using
a freely available meme generator app. In both of these examples, the affordances of
MALL are leveraged to enable the creation of tasks that are not simply possible via
more traditional means, such as pen and paper.
6 Educational/learning context
For learners new to using mobile devices for language learning, or from educational
contexts in which behaviourist approaches to language learning are preferred or are
the norm, it may make sense for learners to spend some time initially on content and
tutorial MALL tasks. By taking into account the educational or learning context, the
mobile materials designer can create a judicious blend of activities that progress from
content and tutorial MALL to creation and communication MALL. For example, some
short content or tutorial MALL activities may be designed to take place during class,
and others outside of class (e.g. for homework), before learners are introduced to more
communicative MALL tasks in the classroom, in a carefully staged approach. This
approach is arguably most effective when designing mobile materials for monolingual
contexts, where an appropriate type of MALL can be introduced at the initial stages
depending on the wider educational context, and learner and teachers’ expectations and
needs can be more easily taken into account.
To summarise, we suggest that six parameters need to be taken into account by materials
writers in the design of communicative tasks using mobile devices in the classroom:
·· hardware (device affordances including features and connectivity capabilities)

·· mobility (devices, learners, or learning experience)
418
·· technological complexity (related to learners’ technological competence)

·· linguistic/communicative competence
·· content, tutorial, creation, and/or communication MALL activities
·· educational/learning context (related to learners’ expectations and preferences)
By keeping these six parameters in mind, and by ensuring a fit with the syllabus, mobile
materials writers may be better equipped to design and sequence effective mobile-based
communicative classroom tasks for English language learners.

With mobile use itself an increasingly popular approach, it is certainly the case that published
materials are beginning to incorporate mobile content, or – at the very least – adapt materi-
als to a more responsive design, allowing them to be used on mobile devices. These tenta-
tive forays into mobile materials development are often predicated on a risk-averse strategy
based around adapting current materials to work in mobile-friendly learning management
systems, or to more prosaic uses such as linking QR codes to supplementary resources
online, extra practice, and additional information. The Usborne English Readers (https://
www.usborneenglishreaders.com/), as one example, include QR codes which link to audio
recordings of the books in both US and UK English voices. The Cambridge University Press
general English course Evolve, published in 2019, also makes use of QR codes to link to
supplementary audio resources in which real students discuss various issues related to the
course content.
Alongside these relatively conservative and traditional implementations, there has also
been a sustained period of app development from most publishers, although much of the
output has involved the repurposing of more traditional, print-based content, rather than the
development of mobile-specific materials. Typical examples include Cambridge University
Press titles such as English Grammar in Use and English Vocabulary in Use, and vocabu-
lary applications such as Learn Match (https://learnmatch.net/en/). It should come as no
surprise, however, that the great majority of these language-related apps falls squarely into
the first two (behaviourist) types of MALL suggested by Pegrum (op. cit.) and will usually
only address receptive skills and practice opportunities. It is also the case that quality across
the range of available apps is highly variable, particularly when we consider ‘one-person’
operations, or individuals developing apps in isolation. Developing materials for creation
and communication MALL is an entirely different level of challenge, often requiring spe-
cific tools and apps, and is subject to the ephemeral nature of app creation and availability.
Such activities would seem to have a more useful role to play in teacher-developed materi-
als, where the ability to iterate, change, and adapt is greater than it ever can be in published
materials, due to the very nature of their production cycle, where months – and sometimes
years – can pass between the original idea and the finished product, and where changes
must await a new edition of the printed product. More recently, anecdotal evidence from the
industry suggests that app development is now no longer a priority (apart from the inherent
marketing possibilities apps afford) due to the long development, testing, and deployment
cycle, and the focus has now moved firmly on to the use of mobile platforms and responsive
web design as a means of producing and deploying mobile materials. Among the many
benefits to this approach, perhaps the most salient feature is that mobile materials can be
deployed across multiple platforms (web, virtual learning environment, app) without any
419
redevelopment time, and are designed to be completely platform and technology agnos-
tic, making them adaptable and less reliant on proprietary plugins (such as Flash, Java,
JavaScript) which are so often the source of end-user technology issues.
The greatest challenge for mobile materials development, then, would seem to be navi-
gating away from the behaviourist approaches inherent in content and tutorial MALL, to
the more communicative, task-based approaches afforded by creation and communication
MALL. For publishers, this represents a unique, and perhaps insurmountable challenge of
how to create opportunities for learners to create and share content, whilst linking these
in a principled and useful fashion to their existing print-based materials and syllabi, since
these opportunities will most likely take learners away from the printed materials and into
unchartered and uncontrollable waters.
Such opportunities are generally inherent in most traditional materials but are often
under the control of the teacher herself, guided by the coursebook, but enacted in the class-
room, often with additional resources. There is a rich history in such adaptation, with teach-
ers using the printed materials as a springboard to creative practice. As noted above, much
content creation and sharing on mobile devices is dependent on the integration and use of
third-party apps and platforms, and this creates an unstable and unpredictable ecosystem
which is anathema to traditional publishing. Locked into lengthy development cycles, and
print-based materials with supplementary online resources, looking outside the internal
product range and attempting to incorporate external tools and apps is simply not a viable
option currently. It is for this reason that mobile materials development has not moved
beyond its current incarnation, and there is little evidence that commercial producers of
materials are developing for the more productive side of mobile materials, allowing learn-
ers to experiment with content creation, multimedia, storytelling, and other more creative
technology uses.
In the classroom, by contrast, where the teacher materials developer has more control
over the ecosystem, and where she can map, measure, and evaluate what is available, and
what is possible, the creation of mobile materials is a much more realistic option. In this
scenario, the teacher can make informed choices about mobile materials and activities,
recommend apps and platforms, help learners navigate to suitable content, and ensure that
ample opportunities for creation and language practice are made available. Writing mobile
materials for your own classroom and students, often mapped to coursebook content and
programmes, is simply a case of understanding where the affordances of mobile devices
can impact most efficiently on the language acquisition and practice cycle. It should be
noted, however, that where publishers are often restricted in their mobile materials devel-
opment opportunities by their working practices, teachers can sometimes find themselves
overwhelmed by the possibilities, and the single biggest challenge facing them is often
understanding the mobile world as a whole and getting to grips with the implications for
learning. In a world where we primarily view our mobile devices as sources of entertain-
ment, it is not always immediately obvious how they might impact upon learning and, con-
sequently, not at all obvious how one might develop mobile learning materials. At the same
time teacher materials developers increase their understanding of mobile learning possibili-
ties and the potential for materials development in the field, it is equally ‘important for us
to help students orient themselves in this new space’ (Dudeney et al. 2013). The teacher
and learner can work well together in this scenario, exchanging ideas and experiences, and
gradually building their repertoire and confidence. There is obviously a role for teacher
development in this process, and it is gratifying to see more literature, and more conference
presentations in this burgeoning field.
420

Whether publisher-produced, or teacher-produced, however, mobile materials – as with all
technology-mediated materials – must be seen to bring something to the learning outcomes,
something which is unique, and not otherwise attainable. Hockly (2011) suggests a set of
criteria which should be applied to any design of technology-related materials or activities.
These are outcomes, added value, time and effort, syllabus, location, and role. Any materials
involving technology might usefully be viewed through the lens of this checklist in order
to fully evaluate their appropriateness: what do the learners learn from the tasks, what does
technology bring to the tasks, are the time investment and the effort worthwhile, do the tasks
sit appropriately within the wider syllabus, where will the activities take place, and what
role will the learners play? This checklist is relevant to any developed materials where tech-
nology plays a part and is a useful way of evaluating mobile materials in development too.
For mobile materials specifically, the issue of location is clearly one of the most impor-
tant considerations. Pegrum (op. cit.) identifies three modalities of mobile learning: learning
where the devices are mobile, but the learners and the learning experience are not (learners
are in class, engaged in mobile phone-based activities); learning where devices and the
learners are mobile, but the learning experience is not (learners are learning outside class,
using apps to help with their language study); and learning where the devices, learners, and
learning experience are all mobile (learners are using their devices in real-world contexts,
to access information, produce multimedia artefacts, and more). These three modalities of
MALL also have a bearing on materials development, for some of the reasons we have
explored above, notably with reference to the following: connectivity, device availability,
and device affordance. Materials must be designed with the learner in mind, the types of
devices available, and whether or not they require connectivity in or out of class. Once the
modality of mobile learning is established, and the infrastructure identified, the materials
developer can move on to consider specific types of activities.
In many ways, a good starting point for mobile materials development might originate by
mapping device affordances onto potential language learning opportunities. A grid approach
to this kind of development allows both developers and end-users to understand the relation-
ship between the devices and the learning potential. An example of an affordance mapping
grid is shown in Table 28.1.
As this basic mapping with a few suggested activities shows, many such activities and
materials are possible on older, standard, or feature phones, with only the higher-end activi-
ties necessitating connectivity, or the use of free or paid apps. This allows the materials
developer to produce materials which will work in her own particular context. Once again,
it is exactly this kind of complex and varied set of variables which makes publisher develop-
ment of mobile materials more complex, and often more restricted. This grid is, of course,
a simplified lens on the actual process, which is complicated by issues of access and web
censorship around the globe, cyber-security and digital safety implications, learner attitudes
to technology use, and many other factors. It will be the job of the teacher to decide which
digital activities are viable in her own context.
Many of the in-built affordances allow the materials developer to approach familiar top-
ics with a fresh eye, and – often – an eye which is more firmly rooted in the everyday expe-
rience of the learners. In the mobile era, it no longer makes sense, for example, to practice
giving directions using an invented map on the printed page. It is far more engaging, more
real, and more relevant to use apps such as Google or Apple Maps to practice the same task.
The same might be said, perhaps, of practising prepositions of place: what use is there for a
421
Table 28.1 Device affordance mapping grid
Device affordance Example activities, resources, language foci
Text input (notes, contacts, diary) Note taking, making arrangements, contacting people
Text display (document reader) Reading materials, magazines, newspapers
Image recording (camera) Vocabulary collection, picture dictionaries, flashcards
Image display (photos app, web) Presentations, picture narratives, project work
Audio recording (voice recorder) Fluency, pronunciation work
Audio reproduction (music app) Podcasts, extra listening, self-recording, peer listening
Video recording (camera) Advertising, projects, presentations
Video reproduction (photos app, YouTube, Learning materials, ‘inspirational’ content
TED)
Web browsing Project research, webquests
Messaging Functional language, making arrangements, class
communications
Maps Directions, prepositions of place, travel, tour guides
Apps [Unlimited]
drawing of a high street (‘the bank is opposite the chemist’) in a coursebook when one can
do the same thing using a real high street in Google Street View? It is exactly this kind of
challenge which faces producers of traditional print materials on a daily basis. It might be
argued, of course, that giving directions in this day and age is a skill that few people need
to master in another language, given that most people will simply use their maps app to get
from one point to another. It is worth noting, however, that there are still plenty of people
in the world who do not own smartphones and do not have constant connectivity, so – just
as with paper books – there is still a demand for basic language skills. It is the case, though,
that where mobile activities such as this are possible, they provide more realistic, and more
useful opportunities for language practice. Where such technologies are used, a layer of
meta language around the technology itself may also need to be taught in order for activities
of this type to be carried out successfully.
Taking just one example of how this works with materials development in practice, we
will briefly consider the use of the camera in mobile devices. Available in mobile devices
for over 15 years now, from basic phones through to smartphones, the camera application
allows for the development of a wide variety of materials based on the image. Learners can
use their phones to collect examples of English in the street and bring them into class for
analysis and discussion (see Map of the Urban Linguistic Landscape for examples – https://
www.flickr.com/photos/mapurbanlinguisticlandscape/); they can take photographs around a
theme, as a springboard to the introduction of a topic in a coursebook (e.g. photograph five
forms of transport before the next class); they can be used for a variety of personalisation
tasks, from talking about daily routines, hobbies, holidays, or family members, to ‘show and
tell’ activities and beyond; they can be used to collect vocabulary in a flashcard app such as
Quizlet (https://quizlet.com/); they can be the starting point for articles, posters, and more.
The act of taking a photograph is both a memorable act, and a creative act, and the use of
mobile cameras to collect experiences and talk about them is motivating, involving a degree
of agency and personal investment.
Hockly and Dudeney (2014) suggest using device affordances as the organising principle
for the introduction of mobile activities to learners, suggesting that starting from the most
422
basic device affordances such as working with text and image, and working through to more
complex materials involving the use of video production, apps, and beyond to augmented
reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) allows learners time to become familiar with their
devices and what they can do, whilst at the same time developing their understanding of
mobile devices as learning tools.
It is probably safe to conclude that mobile materials development along the lines we
have explored here is much easier at the institutional level – for teachers – than it is at the
publisher level. Whilst it would be difficult for publishers to actively incorporate these kinds
of tasks, activities, and materials in their products, we do see scope for addressing them at
the ‘teacher’s book’ level, as suggestions and opportunities, rather than concrete additions
to the print materials. This kind of approach would go some way towards addressing the
often perceived disconnect between what is advocated in the coursebook, and what learners
actually do outside the rarefied atmosphere of the classroom.
Future directions
The future of mobile learning itself seems guaranteed. Having undergone a turbulent period
of development in the past 20 to 30 years, education technologies – much like consumer
technologies themselves – seem to be in a period of stasis. This period of stasis is character-
ised by a lack of new technology innovation triggers, and a consolidation of currently avail-
able technologies. Mobile devices, with their increasing ubiquity, are both firmly embedded
in our daily lives, and increasingly a part of how we choose to gain new insights, stay
informed, and engage with study opportunities, from ad hoc solutions related to hobbies and
interests, to more structured study through the use of apps, mobile platforms, and materials.
Technologically, we are seeing a move away from more proprietary approaches based
around the use of Flash, Java, and other systems to the more open standards promoted by
the use of HTML5, and more and more mobile-friendly content can be seen on the market.
As it becomes easier and more cost-effective to produce mobile materials, it can be reason-
ably argued that we will see more of them produced. Modern development platforms such
as Articulate 360 (https://articulate.com/360), a rapid, responsive browser-based eLearning
development tool built by Adobe, make it a relatively straightforward process to produce
good-quality responsive materials, both from a publisher point of view, and from the stand-
point of an institution or individual teacher. Development environments such as these will
slowly begin to impact both on teaching, and on teacher training materials development,
allowing non-technical users to produce high-quality materials in relatively little time.
Whilst augmented reality and virtual reality are yet to make any significant impact in
the field of language education, the first exploratory products are currently beginning to
surface, particularly in the realm of virtual reality, allowing for a form of immersion which
may impact significantly on certain areas where situational language production is generally
formulaic and easily mapped. These applications may include such fields as tourism and the
hotel trade, catering, etc., which tend to revolve around a limited set of interactions which
are more easily described – and, crucially, more easily programmed into such systems.
Augmented reality, which is the process of using a device camera to explore the world
around us, with a layer of data superimposed on it, may be one future possible direction
for materials development. In such a process, users may, in the most basic of implementa-
tions, see the objects around them, each clearly labelled in their own language, and the
target language. Such a geolocated vocabulary pool has great potential for subject-specific
423
areas and specialised fields such as medical English, business English, and more. With
object recognition, voice recognition, and machine translation very much at the heart of
much technology development currently, the possibilities in this field seem both exciting
and achievable.
But it is perhaps in the realm of virtual reality where we may see potentially interesting
materials development moving forward. Virtual reality involves the user donning a headset,
into which a mobile device is usually inserted. The headset then makes use of the device
itself to display a three-dimensional space. VR is very much a technology in its infancy, and
headset sales have been frustratingly slow for developers (Hills-Duty 2018), but there are
signs that this is set to change in the near to mid-term future. At present, applications for
VR are mostly limited to simple games, video watching, photo browsing, and other rela-
tively trivial activities, but recent developments have seen the launch of a variety of com-
panies such as Mondly (http://www.mondly.com) and ImmerseMe (http://immerseme.co/
home) which are developing VR language learning applications, and this is a trend which
we would see continuing. For many, learning a language is a matter of specific need, in a
specific context, and being able to immerse oneself in that context and practice the targeted
language needed would appear to make much more sense than working with more general
English materials.
The field of serious games (games designed for a purpose other than pure entertainment)
has long recognised the value of location-specific training in a variety of professional fields,
from battlefield triage to oil industry safety, and it can only be a matter of time before we
see more materials of this nature, again, providing more meaningful language practice for
healthcare professionals, business people, and beyond. This represents a great challenge for
materials developers working on the commercial side: VR materials are costly to develop,
and the market is currently still extremely small. As with all emerging technologies, there is
potential for investment to yield no significant return, yet – at the same time – there is a risk
of missing out on a potentially large and lucrative future trend.
In the area of technology – and in an era which has been marked by accelerated techno-
logical development – making confident predictions about where developments will lead,
even in the short term, is both a challenging and uncertain endeavour. Nevertheless, it is
probably safe to assert that with the field of ELT being essentially conservative in nature,
it may be some time before the kinds of immersive and productive applications mentioned
above emerge. However, as mobile devices increase in sophistication and affordance, it
is unrealistic to assume that the kinds of developments we see in other fields will not be
reflected in our own discipline.
Conclusion
The growing integration of mobile devices into our personal and professional lives means
that English language learners increasingly expect access not just to mobile-based study
materials, but to mobile-based study experiences. This presents a challenge to the mobile
materials developer, whether he/she is a professional materials writer, or a practising teacher
wishing to create tasks that leverage the use of mobile devices both in and outside the
classroom. The mobile materials developer needs to think beyond an app-based approach to
learning materials, in which pre-packaged content is delivered to learners via their devices,
to how to design mobile-based learning experiences that are feasible on learners’ devices,
but also cater to mobility and context.
424
In this chapter, we explored a number of concepts and principles that can help the mobile
materials designer/teacher develop mobile learning materials and experiences that fit with
a communicative approach to language learning. In order to design a range of effective and
engaging mobile-based language learning materials, materials developers need to first con-
sider the type of MALL (content, tutorial, creation, and/or communication) that underlies
tasks or activities. Most mobile content for EFL learners to date has prioritised content and
tutorial MALL, although some creation and communication MALL activities have started
to appear in ELT coursebooks and related materials. However, to avoid the ‘one size fits all’
approach to mobile-based language learning materials and tasks, materials writers/teach-
ers also need to consider five additional design principles to ensure contextual appropri-
acy (hardware, mobility, technological complexity, linguistic/communicative competence,
and educational/learning context). Affordance mapping – where the features of the mobile
devices available in a particular learning context are mapped to task type – is an additional
tool that can be used by materials developers to ensure contextual fit, at least in terms of
hardware. In addition, materials developers need to ask themselves some key questions
at the design stage. These include questions about whether and how the mobile material,
task, or activity supports specific learning outcomes (and what these are); whether using a
mobile device enhances the task (and if so how); and whether the time and effort needed to
complete the task or access the materials via a mobile device are worth it, among others.
Mobile devices are clearly here to stay, and the days of thinking that they are peripheral
or irrelevant to language learning are long gone. As mobile device capacity and ubiquity
continue to increase, ELT materials developers would also be wise to start developing the
skills necessary to produce language learning materials and tasks that exploit the unique
affordances of more sophisticated mobile devices, such as augmented and virtual reality.
Early adopter teachers are already experimenting with these mobile technologies with their
language learners in a range of contexts, and the mainstream of materials writing will at
some point catch up with this trend. Although not all students, classes, or contexts will be
integrating these newer mobile technologies in the immediate or even medium-term future,
materials writers do need to provide choice and challenges in materials, to both teachers and
learners. Mobile-based materials and tasks are uniquely placed to provide both choice and
challenge to language learners, and to deliver these into their own hands.
Further reading
Hockly, N. and Dudeney, G., 2014. Going Mobile: Teaching with Hand-held Devices. Peaslake, Surry:
Delta Publishing.
This book examines key issues and challenges in using mobile devices in the English language
classroom, and provides teachers with a wealth of practical activities for how to use them in a
principled and pedagogically sound way.
Pegrum, M., 2014. Mobile Learning: Languages, Literacies and Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
A wide-ranging exploration of the use of mobile devices in language teaching and literacies. It
includes case studies of mobile device use in language teaching around the world, and considers likely
future development in the field of mobile-based learning.
Sanchez, S., 2014. Learning to Go [Online]. The Round. Available from http://the-round.com/resource
/learning-to-go/.
An e-book with lesson plans, resources, handouts, and tips for teachers wishing to incorporate
mobile devices into their language teaching.
Wilden, S., 2017. Mobile Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
425
This book provides guidance and support for teachers to use mobile devices in and outside the
language classroom. It includes many practical ideas, activities, and advice.
Related topics
Language learning materials in the digital era, developing blended learning materials.
References
Dudeney, G., Hockly, N., and Pegrum, M., 2013. Digital Literacies. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
Hills-Duty, R., 2018. Reports shows dip in VR headset sales [Online]. VRFocus. Retrieved on 9
August 2018 from: http://www.vrfocus.com/2018/06/reports-shows-dip-in-vr-headset-sales/.
Hockly, N., 2011. The principled approach 2 [Online]. Retrieved on 9 August 2018 from: http://www
.emoderationskills.com/the-principled-approach-2/.
Hockly, N., 2013. Designer Learning: The Teacher as Designer Of Mobile-based Classroom Learning
Experiences. Monterey, CA: The International Research Foundation for English Language
Education. Retrieved on 7 August 2018 from: https://www.tirfonline.org/publications/mobile
-assisted-language-learning/.
Hockly, N., 2016. Focus on Learning Technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hockly, N. and Dudeney, G., 2014. Going Mobile: Teaching with Hand-held Devices. Peaslake, Surry:
Delta Publishing.
Hung, H-C., Young, S., and Lin, C-P., 2009. Constructing the face-to-face collaborative game-based
interacted environment for portable devices in English vocabulary acquisition. In Dimitracopoulou,
A., ed. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning. Rhodes, Greece: University of the Aegean.
Jarvis, H., and Achilleos, M., 2003. From computer assisted language learning (CALL) to mobile
assisted language use (MALU). TESL-EJ, 16/4:1–18.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., 2009. Will mobile learning change language learning? ReCALL, 21/2:157–165.
Pegrum, M., 2014. Mobile Learning:Languages, Literacies and Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Sandberg, J., Maris, M. and de Geus, K., 2011. Mobile English learning: An evidence-based study
with fifth graders. Computers and Education, 57:1334–1347.
Traxler, J., 2009. Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning,
1/1:1–12.
Vesselinov, R. and Grego, J., 2012. Duolingo Effectiveness Study [Online]. Retrieved on 7 August
2018 from: http://static.duolingo.com/s3/DuolingoReport_Final.pdf.
426
Part 8
Developing materials for
publication

29
Learner contributions to materials
in language teaching
Introduction
Bryan works at a language centre in an English-medium university in Asia. He has been
assigned to teach a series of advanced grammar workshops at a summer school for under-
graduates run by the centre. He is not particularly impressed with the textbook selected by
the summer school coordinator. In his view it is dated and presents a decontextualised view
of grammar. Early in his career he embraced a learner-centred philosophy, and these days
the philosophy underpins everything he does in the classroom. Above his desk is a sign that
reads ‘Anything you do for your learners that they could figure out how to do for themselves,
robs them of an opportunity for learning.’ At the beginning of the first workshop, he sur-
prises his students by telling them that he has no textbook, or other materials to give them,
that they will be actively involved in co-constructing the course with him. As the university
is an English-medium institution, all signs and public notices are bilingual. He instructs the
students to spend the first 45 minutes of the class walking around the campus in pairs, find-
ing examples of environmental print that either contain errors, grammatical structures that
are puzzling, or where the translations are challenging or problematic in some way. When
they come across suitable signs and notices, they are to photograph them and bring them
back to class. He then dispatches them on their assignment. When they return, he instructs
them to select one of the signs/notices and prepare a short presentation describing where
they came across the sign, and say what was interesting or problematic about it from a
grammatical point of view. They are to create a brief PowerPoint presentation which will be
presented to the class at the next workshop. As they work on their PowerPoint presentation,
he circulates around the room, making himself available to provide assistance and advice.
In the next class, he asks who would like to be the first pair to present. Cynthia and Dora,
anxious to get their presentation out of the way, self-nominate. They load their PowerPoint
and present the first slide. The text reads, ‘When there is fire, do not use the lift.’
‘There’s no prize for guessing where this notice comes from,’ says Dora, ‘but what’s
wrong with it?’
One of the students calls out, ‘There’s a grammar mistake – no indefinite article. Should
be a fire. When there is a fire, not when there is fire.’
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-37 429

‘Hmm, could be,’ replies Dora. ‘Anyone else see something wrong?’
Another student says, ‘it shouldn’t be “when,” it should be “if.”’
‘Is that a grammar error?’ asks Cynthia.
‘No, not really, but it gives the, um, the wrong meaning. “When” means there will defi-
nitely be a fire, but maybe there will never be a fire, so you have to use “if.”’
‘Correct,’ says Cynthia. She shows the next slide which summarises, with examples, the
three conditional types with examples. She and Dora then get their classmates to articulate
the different meanings inherent in the different conditional statements.
There is nothing particularly exceptional about this vignette, but it illustrates some of the
concepts and issues we will explore in the chapter. The purpose of the chapter is to argue the
case for learner involvement in materials development in language teaching. The notion of
materials development as a collaboration between teachers and learners is not to deny the
value of commercial materials. In fact, good commercial materials should, and do, provide
opportunities for learner- contributions (see, for example, the ATLAS (Nunan 1995) and
Touchstone (McCarthy, McCarten and Sandiford 2005) textbook series).
The rationale for engaging learners in contributing to materials development derives
from a learner-centred view of education. Over 30 years ago, Nunan (1988:2) argued that:
the key difference between learner-centred and traditional curriculum development is

that in the former, the curriculum is a collaborative effort between teachers and learners
since learners are closely involved in the decision-making process regarding the con-
tent of the curriculum and how it is taught.
The vignette demonstrates the process of materials development as a collaboration between

teacher and learners (and also between the learners themselves). The teacher provides the
goals and framework for the course, and then guides the learners as they collect input and
decide on the procedures for the pedagogical exploitation of the input. In this process, learn-
ers do not create materials for learning and then learn from them: the two processes co-
occur. Contributing to materials development is an intrinsic part of the learning process. As
Tomlinson (2013: 2) says:
[the function of materials] can be instructional, experiential, elicitative or exploratory,

in that they can inform learners about the language, they can provide experience of
the language in use, they can stimulate language use or they can help learners to make
discoveries about language for themselves.
Our admittedly rather programmatic definition of materials is that they are resources for
learning which consist, minimally, of goals/intended learning outcomes, input (spoken/
written texts, multimedia sources such as tables, grids, visuals, etc.), and procedures (what
learners actually do with the data – the pedagogical exploitation in terms of exercises, tasks,
projects, etc.). Additionally, the resulting ‘products’ should be usable by other learning
groups with similar goals. The case for learners to contribute to materials development has
been advocated by numerous authors working within a learner-centred tradition. For exam-
ple, Nunan states that the
spoken, written or visual input data that learners work with in the course of completing
a task can be provided by a teacher, a textbook or some other source. Alternatively, it
can be generated (or supplied) by the learners themselves.
(Nunan 2004:47–48)
430
However, in the literature on materials development, there are few practical examples of
how learners can contribute materials to their own learning. One of our motives in writing
this chapter is to address this gap. We are not arguing for learner-generated materials as an
alternative to commercial or teacher-created materials, but as a supplement. Along with
other student-centred tasks such as self- and peer-assessment, they foster autonomy and
encourage learners to take greater responsibility for their own learning. Ultimately, it is the
teacher’s responsibility to make decisions about the feasibility of activating student-centred
learning based on student needs, course goals, the age and proficiency of their learners, and
other situational and contextual factors.
In the vignette, learners are responsible for generating the input, and also for the ped-
agogical exploitation of the input. The input consists of campus signs and notices which
learners determine to be linguistically problematic or noteworthy in some other way.
The pedagogical exploitation takes the form of a student-led discussion of a linguisti-
cally problematic aspect of a campus sign. The vignette exhibits key characteristics of
task-based language teaching (TBLT): the input is authentic, the procedure focuses on
the exchange of meaning, rather than the manipulation of linguistic form, and it has
a tangible outcome (Bygate et al. 2001; Nunan 2004). The teacher is responsible for
determining the course goals, providing a framework for the task, and for supporting
the learners as they carry it out.
In summary, this section offers a definition of pedagogical materials for language
learning, and a justification and exemplification of the involvement of learners in
materials development. We have defined pedagogical materials as resources for learn-
ing consisting of input and procedures for exploiting the input. The second section of
the chapter deals with critical issues and topics, and reviews relevant theoretical and
empirical research dealing with synthetic and analytic syllabus design, experiential/
constructivist models of education, authenticity of input and procedures for exploiting
the input, and learner autonomy along with the related notion of resourceful learning.
While learners can contribute to materials development in courses based on synthetic
syllabi, our experiences and the examples presented in this chapter are located within
the analytic paradigm. By definition, an experiential rather than transmission view of
learning provides a compelling rationale for engaging learners in all aspects of their
own learning, including materials development. This engagement fosters the develop-
ment of autonomy and resourcefulness as discussed in the next section. In conventional
approaches to curriculum development and materials design, a clear distinction is drawn
between syllabus issues (the selection and sequencing of linguistic and experiential
content) and methodology (the selection and sequencing of pedagogical procedures).
For convenience, we have maintained this distinction in the following ‘critical issues’
section. However, as Breen (1987) argued many years ago, with the development of
Communicative Language Teaching, a strict separation between syllabus issues (the
‘what’) and methodological issues (the ‘how’) becomes difficult to sustain. As materials
developers ourselves, we concur with Breen, and in our own work as writers we find
a close harmony between analytical approaches to content selection, and experiential/
constructivist approaches to creating learning experiences.
These concepts are elaborated upon in the next two sections where they are defined and
exemplified. We then go on to spell out implications and challenges of learner collaboration
in materials development as well as making recommendations for practice. The chapter
concludes with a discussion of future directions.
431

Syllabus design (the ‘what’)
Despite the wide range of options available, all syllabuses belong to one of two paradigms, the
synthetic and the analytic (Wilkins 1976). Synthetic syllabuses take as their organising principle
the individual linguistic elements (that is, sounds, words, and grammar items) that make up the
language which are selected, sequenced, and integrated to provide a blueprint for the develop-
ment of courses and materials. Diverse methods such as grammar-translation and audiolingual-
ism differ dramatically in their views about how languages should be taught. What they share
is a belief that the syllabus should be organised around linguistic elements, and these should be
‘taught separately and step-by-step so that acquisition is a process of gradual accumulation of
parts until the whole structure of language has been built up’ (Wilkins 1976:2).
The organising principles for analytic syllabuses are non-linguistic. Content-based
instruction, syllabuses organised around topics and themes, and texts-, task-, and project-
based instruction are all analytic. In all cases the point of departure in the design process is
an analysis of learner needs. Learners are presented with holistic chunks of language. In the
early stages, they communicate using prefabricated chunks formulaically, and later learn
to analyse these into their constituent parts, by, for example, identifying the linguistic ele-
ments that make up the chunks, which may be sentences or spoken/written texts. Although
the organising principle for an analytic syllabus will be non-linguistic, this does not mean
that the phonological, lexical, and grammatical elements are ignored. However, these are
selected as second order activities after content, input, and procedures have been identified.
The course from which the classroom vignette at the beginning of the chapter was taken is
analytic, because it is organised according to texts and tasks.
Although it would be feasible for learners to make contributions to the development of
materials for courses based on synthetic syllabuses, they would not have the technical skills
required to select, sequence, and integrate linguistic elements. In fact, this is a skill that
challenges teachers who are not experienced as syllabus designers and materials writers.
Analytic syllabuses are a different matter. In our work, we have found even young learners
are capable of nominating topics, selecting input, and creating tasks and projects. In the
literature, there are numerous studies where students make major contributions to the selec-
tion and organisation of content, how the content is to be treated, and how learning is to be
assessed (for earlier examples, see Legutke and Thomas 1991; for more recent ones, see
Nunan and Richards 2015).
Nunan (2017) describes an intensive, three-week, summer course conducted at the
University of Hong Kong for a group of undergraduate exchange students from Japan. The
teachers decided that the three-week course would be based on a project to create a website
on the theme of ‘Contemporary life in Hong Kong.’ The teachers determined course goals,
the nature of the project, and the experiential theme, and took on the roles of advisors
and guides, providing scaffolding, frameworks, and information. The students did the rest,
deciding on four sub-themes for the website and, with guidance from the teachers, creat-
ing the materials (selecting input and determining procedures) they needed for the website.
They then designed and carried out over 60 out-of-class tasks independently of the teachers.
The range of tasks was impressive. Here are some examples.
·· planned and shot video documentary of a trip to Cheung Chau Island, a popular tourist
destination in Hong Kong;
·· produced an illustrated, guided walking tour of Hong Kong’s antiques district;
432
·· prepared and carried out an interview with a famous Canto pop star;
·· created and administered a questionnaire for tourists to Hong Kong;
·· researched and wrote a review of Hong Kong’s top ten restaurants.
As a coda, and consistent with our definition of materials, the resulting ‘product,’ the web-
site, could be (and was) used by other learner groups.
Methodology (the ‘how’)

As we indicated above, in a learner-centred classroom, students construct knowledge by
connecting what they already know to what they have to learn, rather than having new
knowledge transmitted to them unidirectionally. This is not to say that the transmission of
information has no part to play in the construction of knowledge by the individual learner,
but transmission and construction are quite different, as are information and knowledge.
The experiential, constructivist approach to learning also articulates well with analytic
approaches to syllabus design.
Experiential learning is not new. In fact, it can be traced back to the American philoso-
pher and educator John Dewey’s progressive model of education (Dewey 1933). The name
most closely associated with contemporary approaches to experiential learning is David
Kolb (1984). His model is based on the notion of ‘learning by doing,’ which is a central tenet
of learner-centred instruction. In the model, ‘learners were actively involved in learning by
doing: engaging in concrete tasks and projects that connect to their personal experiences,
reflecting on the learning experience, and transforming learning by deriving abstract princi-
ples from their reflections’ (Choi and Nunan 2018:50). Kolb’s model is based on a four-step
procedure, as follows (for examples of this procedure in action refer back to the vignette at
the beginning of the chapter, and the HKU Website Project. For additional examples, see
Kohonen 1992):
Step 1: concrete experience

Learning is initiated with a new experience that connects to existing experience,
and can either add a new dimension to that experience or transform it in some way.
Step 2: reflective observation
Learners reflect on the experience and ask, ‘What did I learn from it?’
Step 3: abstract conceptualisation
Learners make generalisations based on the reflection.
Step 4: active experimentation
Learners apply/try out the new ideas to the world around them.
From these brief descriptions, the connection between learner-centredness and experiential
learning should be clear. While the teacher scaffolds the learning process, particularly at the
initial stage, at all stages, the learner is central to the process: making connections between
what they already know and what they need to learn, reflecting, making generalisations, and
applying new learning. With more advanced learners engaged in creating their own materi-
als from scratch, or working collaboratively with a teacher, Kohonen’s four-step procedure
adds a critical, self-evaluative dimension, which can be applied to the materials develop-
ment process.
433
Authenticity
The issue of authenticity has generated considerable discussion and debate since the con-
cepts first emerged with the advent of CLT in the 1970s. (For a review of the arguments for
and against the use of authentic materials, see Tomlinson 2001, 2013.) Initially, discussion
focused on input authenticity. A rule of thumb definition of authenticity was that the input,
be it spoken, written, or some other visual or auditory source, came about in the course of
real communication, rather than being created for instructional purposes. With the advent
of TBLT, it was realised that authenticity had to extend to what learners did with the input.
Authentic input data was of limited use if classroom procedures bore little or no relation-
ship to what learners would have to do with the language outside the classroom. Procedural
authenticity thus has to do with the extent to which classroom tasks resemble or ‘mimic’ real-
word or target tasks (Nunan 2004). More recently, learner authentication has been included
in the discussion, the argument being that input and procedures, regardless of whether or
not these are authentic, will be of limited utility if their value as learning resources is not
acknowledged or ‘authenticated’ by the learners, a point made by Widdowson (2003).
While we are committed to the appropriate use of authentic materials in the classroom,
we are not suggesting that non-authentic materials such as specially written dialogues, sim-
plified readers, controlled practice, and grammar exercises have no place in the language
classroom. We also accept some of the criticisms made of the (usually inappropriate) use of
authentic materials. The issue of authenticity is relevant to the theme of this chapter because
involving learners in contributing to the generation or adaptation of materials for their own
learning requires them to make decisions about what sort of input data they should draw on,
and how they should exploit the data in creating pedagogical tasks that are relevant to their
learning needs. Engaging them in discussing, selecting, and justifying input and procedures
sensitises them to the processes of learning. We discuss this issue in greater detail below.
In the experiences we have had with learner-generated materials, the emphasis has been
largely biased towards input and procedural authenticity. This is exemplified in the vignette
that frames this chapter as well as the ‘contemporary life in Hong Kong’ website project
described above. In the vignette, the input, signs, and notices, taken from a university cam-
pus, are clearly authentic. The procedure, what the two students did with the sign in the
vignette (and bear in mind that the vignette captures just one of eight learner-generated
tasks), requires some discussion. On the surface, a student-led discussion of a point of gram-
mar might seem at odds with our discussion of procedural authenticity. However, certain
classroom interactions, such as the one which occurred in the discussion of if/when clauses,
have their own authenticity (cf. Widdowson 2003). The students agreed, disagreed, made
suggestions, sought clarification, repaired unclear utterances, etc. Student-led tasks such as
group problem-solving and decision-making tasks, where teachers take a back seat, usually
generate authentic classroom discourse (Walsh 2006). Additionally, at a general level, the
thinking and communication skills the learners exhibited in their interactive presentation are
very much in line with the 21st century competencies such as collaboration, creativity, and
resourcefulness, which are being called for these days by government and industry leaders.
(For an inventory of these competencies, see Soland et al. 2013.) In the vignette, learners
discuss pragmatic issues surrounding the use of the conditional rather than practising that
particular grammatical form in spoken and written drills and exercises. The classroom dis-
course is therefore ‘genuine’ as Widdowson (2003) calls it. The vignette also illustrates the
notion of ‘learner authentication,’ in that the learners themselves acknowledged, through
their personal engagement, the authenticity of the input and exploitation behind the task.
434
This is hardly surprising, given that they were generated by the students in the first place.
Teachers can present authentic input along with authentic exploitation, but if the students
do not see their relevance, and they do not engage the learners, they lack learner authenti-
cation. The key point here is that while input and procedures and tasks may be authentic,
they may not engage the learners. If there is no engagement, learning is unlikely to occur.
Involving learners in generating input and procedures promotes engagement for reasons
already spelled out.
Autonomy and resourcefulness

Autonomy and the related concept of resourcefulness, which we touched on earlier in the
section, are relevant to the theme of this chapter. Autonomy is the capacity to take control
of one’s own learning (Benson 2001; Benson and Voller 1997; Holec 1981). Holec, the first
to produce a book-length treatment of autonomy in language learning, elaborated on this
definition, arguing that:
To take charge of one’s own learning is to have and hold the responsibility for all
the decisions concerning all aspects of the learning, i.e. determining the objectives,
defining the content and progression, selecting the methods and techniques to be used,
monitoring the procedure of acquisition, properly speaking (rhythm, time, place etc.),
evaluating what has been acquired.
(Holec 1981:3)
A resourceful learner is one who exercises initiative, drawing on a range of linguistic and
non-linguistic resources, to achieve their communicative goals. Autonomy and resourceful-
ness are closely related constructs. As constructs, they cannot be directly observed but have
to be inferred from observable behaviour. Autonomy is a disposition or attitude towards
learning that manifests itself in the kinds of observable behaviours described by Holec,
above. Resourcefulness is an attitude towards language use. Resourceful learners are aware
of a range of linguistic and non-linguistic ‘tools’ that they possess, however imperfectly, to
resolve communication problems and breakdowns, and achieve outcomes that go beyond
language itself. We realise that learning language and using it are not strictly separable and
have written about this elsewhere (Choi and Nunan 2018).
From the vignette and the Hong Kong University website project, it should be evident that
for learners to invest in their own learning by contributing materials to that learning, they
must exercise a degree of autonomy, and this requires resourcefulness. Autonomy implies a
degree of learner control over curricular issues, including materials. As Benson (2001:163)
states: ‘Curriculum-based approaches to autonomy extend the principle of learner control
over the management of learning to the curriculum as a whole.’
Nunan (1997) argues that few students begin language learning as fully autonomous
individuals, that autonomy is a matter of degree, not an all-or-nothing concept, and that
autonomy can be taught. He asserts that ‘developing some degree of autonomy is essential
if learners are to become effective language users, and that the ability to direct one’s own
learning can be developed through pedagogical procedures of one sort or another’ (Nunan
1997:192). His own approach is a five-level procedure for developing learner autonomy.
Each level has two domains: a language content and learning process domain. Table 29.1
adapts the framework to the theme of this chapter. At level 1, learners are made aware
435
Table 29.1 Steps to learner autonomy through contributing to materials for learning
Level Learner action Input Procedure
1 Awareness Learners are made aware of the Learners are made aware of the
different types of input in the different types of procedures in
materials they are using, e.g. the materials they are using, e.g.
authentic vs specially written in a speaking course, rank order
conversations in a listening task different procedures such as
practising model conversations, role
plays, interview surveys, from most
to least interesting/useful
2 Involvement Learners are involved in selecting Learners make choices among a
additional/alternative input from range of options, e.g. in a lesson
a range of options, e.g. which on buying a new TV set. Learners
text types to use in grammar are given the choice of either
dictation task (Wajnryb 1990) doing a role play based on a set
of scenarios, or discussing which
of the models described in the
scenarios would suit them best
(Nunan 1995)
3 Intervention Learners are involved in modifying Learners modify and adapt tasks and
and adapting the input for a materials (for examples, refer back
given task, e.g. in a speaking to the Hong Kong project, above)
task, modifying an interview
questionnaire on leisure activities
to reflect their own preferences
and interests
4 Creation Learners input drawing on their own Given a piece of input, learners create
experiences, e.g. learners create a set of procedures to exploit that
language learning trajectory input, e.g. learners create a set of
grids based on their own learning procedures for exploiting a YouTube
histories (Nunan and Choi 2019) clip appropriate to course goals and
based on a framework provided by
the teacher
5 Autonomy Learners select or generate input Learners create a set of procedures
beyond the classroom, e.g. based on input which they have
interviewing and recording generated/collected, e.g. in an
tourists’ impressions of their city undergraduate EAP English for
Science unit, students create a set
of procedures for exploiting a video
they created on an environmental
problem in their city
Source: derived from a procedure in Nunan 1997:195.
of the input and pedagogical processes on which the materials guiding their learning are
based. While the learners are relatively passive at this initial level, raising their awareness of
input and procedural options is an important preliminary step before getting them actively
involved in making choices and so on. At level 5, they are able to identify input relevant to
their own learning and create procedures for exploiting that input. We should point out that
436
the two domains are not in lockstep. Learners could be working at one level in the input
domain and at another in the procedure domain.
In this section, we have looked at key issues to be considered when incorporating learner-
generated materials into the curriculum. We have argued that an analytic rather than syn-
thetic syllabus is the more appropriate model to follow in terms of content selection. The
active participation of learners in materials development is consistent with an experien-
tial/constructivist view of the learning process. Authenticity in its various manifestations
has been a controversial issue in the literature for many years, and we have included it
here because, in selecting and constructing input and procedures, learners are themselves
authenticating those elements in the materials. Another justification for involving learners in
contributing to materials for their own learning is that it requires autonomy and resourceful-
ness, although, as we have pointed out, these are not all-or-nothing notions, but exist on a
continuum.
We have also tried to demonstrate how the theories and concepts are interrelated as well
as illustrating ways in which they may be realised in practice. Not unexpectedly, the issues
are also pertinent to materials developed by teachers and professional materials writers.
However, this does not make them less relevant for materials in which learners have contrib-
uted in some way to the input and procedures that constitute those materials.

Redefining teacher and learner roles
Engaging students in learner-centred activities such as materials development requires rede-
fining teacher and learner roles. It is no longer adequate for teachers to see themselves
as transmitters of knowledge, nor for learners to be passive recipients of that knowledge.
Students from traditional backgrounds may question why they are being asked to modify,
adapt, and create materials for learning and need to be educated into redefining their roles as
materials developers through the sorts of activities described and exemplified in the preced-
ing section. While learners must go through a process of discovery and learning as contribu-
tors to and co-constructors of pedagogical materials, this does not mean teachers merely
play a supporting role responding to students’ requests as they arise. They need to provide
frameworks and scaffold the process of materials development. While asking learners to
contribute to materials development results in artefacts such as websites, videos, etc., the
process of developing the materials is an intrinsic part of their learning experiences.
For teachers to play a significant role in learners’ creative meaning-making processes,
we suggest a ‘co-learning’ stance where teachers move away ‘from the role of a classroom
manager and information provider to a fellow analysist and interpreter (albeit a more experi-
enced one)’ (Kramsch 2014:308). In a task such as the Hong Kong project mentioned in this
chapter, and in reference to the five-level stages to learner autonomy in Table 29.1, teach-
ers can begin this process by introducing a range of different materials learners might use,
discussing the importance of thinking carefully about their choice of materials to include
in their websites (Awareness, level 1). Teachers can help students to form groups, and ask
individuals to negotiate a plan with their group members in selecting places they would
like to visit to collect the input they think they will need. Teachers listen to the different
groups’ ideas to make sure their ideas are practical and ethical. Once plans are finalised,
learners head out to collect their materials over a short period of time (Involvement, level
2). During this period, it is likely learners will contact their teacher to ask further questions
437
about the requirements of the task and whether adjustments either to the structure of the
task, design of their work, or appropriation of certain authentic materials they found could
be possible according to their ongoing negotiations with the group members and issues they
encounter as the project progresses. Being physically apart from the learners, teachers at
this stage can encourage learners to provide clear arguments for adjustments they wish to
make, ask questions about their processes to help students think about issues or ideas they
haven’t considered, and provide additional advice and resources that may be useful for their
projects (Intervention, level 3). Learners then assemble the materials together in their own
time. Teachers are available to answer further questions but do not intervene in the mean-
ing/design learners seek to make (Creation, level 4). Learners present their work in class,
receive feedback from the whole class, and make decisions about how they might address
issues that arise and/or further enhance their website for publication purposes with the guid-
ance of their teacher (Autonomy, level 5). As shown in this example, teachers are involved
in every step of students’ meaning-making journeys, not as managers but as co-collaborators
with the learners to help create meanings in ways that make sense to them. Teachers pro-
vide structures and become facilitators and critical friends in the meaning-making process.
Learners generate the materials and make decisions about what and how materials are used.
While it may seem like teachers do not play a strong role in this process, such approaches
to learning require considerable judgement and expertise on the part of teachers in multiple
areas, including, but not limited to, content and pedagogical knowledge, sociopolitical and
cross-cultural awareness, and interpersonal communication skills in facilitating the experi-
ence. Some learners may never have experienced such active and group-based methods of
learning and can thus be highly anxious.
Many teachers themselves have never experienced such ways of teaching/learning so
it can be difficult for them to let go of controlling the learning process. Testing regimes,
crowded curricula, shorter study periods, funding cuts, temporary contracts for teachers,
particularly for early career teachers who need time to experience and accumulate knowl-
edge of their field, and micro-management of teachers, make learner-centred endeavours
difficult to achieve. In such a climate, teachers will need to also ‘develop skills in negotiat-
ing, not only with their learners, but also negotiating “upwards” with program adminis-
trators, course directors and others in control of the curriculum’ (Choi and Nunan 2018).
However, notwithstanding the pressures, resourceful teachers who do not see their learners
in terms of their deficits still manage to create such positive learning partnerships.

Few learners are naturally equipped to embrace a learner-centred philosophy. In fact, most
learners are conditioned by previous learning experiences to be directed by the teacher. For
this reason, in learner-centred education, we advocate the incorporation of learning process
goals alongside language content goals.
The five-step procedure summarised in Table 29.1 for developing autonomy has been
adapted to helping learners develop skills in materials development. We would recommend
that teachers who are interested in engaging learners in materials development follow these
steps, adapting them, where necessary, to their own context. At step 1, learners are made
aware of the range of input types and procedures that constitute language learning materi-
als. Raising awareness of these elements is the first step in a process of leading learners
to the point where they can produce or select their own input and create procedures for
438
exploiting the input. The final step in the process could be learners working collaboratively
in groups, to create an out-of-class project such as those to be found in Nunan and Richards
(2015).
Future directions
The opportunity to write this chapter led to a struggle over the definition of ‘materials.’ It is
one of those taken-for-granted terms that those of us who have been in language teaching for
any length of time assume we know. We debated questions such as ‘What is the difference
between materials and resources?’ and ‘Does hardware such as interactive whiteboards and
CDs/DVDs constitute materials?’ as suggested by Tomlinson (2013:2). With all due respect
to Tomlinson, and acknowledgement of his seminal role in elevating materials development
to a respectable topic of scholarly inquiry, we feel his definition of materials as ‘anything
which can be used to facilitate the learning of a language’ (2013:2) is too broad. In focusing
on learner involvement in the generation of materials, we decided that pedagogical materi-
als development would minimally consist of the selection of input and the specification of
procedures for the exploitation of the input. With the ubiquity of technology, the popularity
of video games, and so on, we feel the time is ripe for a reassessment and redefinition of the
concept of materials and materials development.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have made a case for involving learners in the generation of materials.
The theoretical rationale for this stance is derived from the notion of learner-centredness:
that with the incorporation into the classroom of reflective learning-how-to-learn activities,
learners can (and should) be involved in making decisions about what to learn, how to learn,
and how to be assessed. This involvement can occur at different levels, from the modifica-
tion and adaptation of pre-existing materials (learner-mediated materials) to the selection
of input and the creation of pedagogical tasks for the exploitation of that input (learner-
generated materials) in ways described and exemplified in the body of the chapter. We also
made the point that learners do not first create materials and then learn from them, but that
the processes of creation and learning are inextricably entwined, and that this intertwining
fosters positive engagement, critical reflection, resourcefulness, and autonomy.
Further reading
Cummins, J., and Early, M., 2011. Identity Texts: The Collaborative Creation of Power in Multilingual
Schools. London: Institute Education Press.
This book contains case-studies followed by a variety of creative works constructed collaboratively
by educators and students in various parts of the world to promote powerful forms of learning among
culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Nunan, D., 2013. Learner-centered English language education: The selected works of David Nunan.
In World Library of Educationalists. New York: Routledge.
This volume contains a selection of Nunan’s scholarly writings on learner-centred English language
education over a 40-year period.
Tomlinson, B., 2013. ed. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Bloomsbury.
This book provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved in developing materials for
language teaching.
439
Related topics
Why do we need coursebooks?, the discipline of materials development, authenticity in
language teaching materials.
References
Benson, P., 2001. Autonomy in Language Learning. London: Longman.
Benson, P. and Voller, P., eds. 1997. Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.
Breen, M., 1987. Learner contributions to task design. In Candlin, C. and Murphy, D. eds. Language
Learning Tasks. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M., 2001. Introduction. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M.,
eds., Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. New York:
Pearson Education Limited.
Choi, J. and Nunan, D., 2018. Language learning and activation in and beyond the classroom.
Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1/2: 49–63.
Dewey, J., 1933. How We Think. New York: Dover Publications Inc.
Holec, H., 1981. Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kohonen, V., 1992. Experiential language learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner
education. In Nunan, D. ed., Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge:
Kolb, D., 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kramsch, C., 2014. Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. The Modern
Language Journal, 98/1: 296–311.
Legutke, M. and Thomas, H., 1991. Process and Experience in the Language Classroom. London:
Longman.
Nunan, D., 1988. The learner-centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D., 1995. ATLAS: Learning-centered Communication. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle/
Thomson Publishing.
Nunan, D., 1997. Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In Benson, P. and
Voller, P., eds. Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.
Nunan, D., 2004. Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D., 2017. The integrated syllabus: Content, tasks, and projects. In Snow, M.A. and Brinton, D.,
eds. The Content-based Classroom: New Perspectives on Integrated Language and Content. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Nunan, D., and Richards, J., 2015. Language Learning Beyond the Classroom. New York: Routledge.
Nunan, D., and Choi, J., 2019. Co-constructing teaching and learning through multimodal tasks.
Presentation at IATEFL 2019, Liverpool, UK.
McCarthy, M., McCarten, J., and Sandiford, H., 2005. Touchstone. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Soland, J., Hamilton, S. and Stecher, B., 2013. Measuring 21st Century Competencies. Santa Monica
CA: Rand Corporation.
Tomlinson, B., 2001. Materials development. In Carter, R. and Nunan, D., eds. The Cambridge Guide to
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B., ed., 2013. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury.
Wajnryb, R., 1990. Resource Books for Teachers: Grammar Dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walsh, S., 2006. Investigating Classroom Discourse. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Widdowson, H., 2003. Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wilkins, D.A., 1976. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
440
30
How do writers write?
Introduction
In this chapter we will attempt to shine a light on the process of developing materials for
commercial publication, drawing mainly from our own experience of over 20 years writing
global ELT coursebooks for adults for a major publisher. We will also aim to reflect and
build on other writers’ perspectives as they are reported in the relevant literature on materi-
als development for language teaching or through discussions held with colleagues.
We will begin by introducing ourselves as materials writers. Then we will describe what
we consider to be the overall trends in materials writing during our time as writers. We will
consider critical issues and topics, such as the issue of potential homogenisation and the
rise in expectations of authenticity. We will then look at the implications and challenges for
materials development focusing on the writing process itself in some detail, before making
our own recommendations for practice. Finally, we will outline a few of what we believe to
be future directions for materials development.
The authors met while working at International House (IH), London. At the time, IH was
something of a hotbed for materials and methodology writers. Inspired by this atmosphere of
creativity and productivity, we began collaborating in 1998 when we sent a proposal for one
level of a coursebook that later became Language to Go (Clare and Wilson 2002). We continued
collaborating on another series, Total English (Clare and Wilson 2006) and New Total English
(Clare and Wilson 2012), for which we wrote two levels. Later, we co-authored four levels of the
global bestseller Speakout (e.g. Clare and Wilson 2015a, 2015b, 2016, and 2018). We have also
written or co-written methodology and teacher resource books, such as How to Teach Listening
(Wilson 2008) and The Creative Teacher’s Compendium (Clare and Marsh 2020).
During our time as materials writers we have witnessed significant changes to the way
that materials are developed. These changes and related issues are discussed below.
Increased focus on authenticity of text

Teachers and learners nowadays have ready access to huge amounts of authentic material on
the internet. This is one factor that has increased their expectations of authenticity in course
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-38 441

materials. And pedagogically this is backed up by SLA research into the use of authentic
texts as a basis for language-learning materials. Mishan (2005:41) writes: ‘Authentic texts
provide the best source of rich and varied comprehensible input for language learners.’
More coursebook texts (in particular listening and reading texts) are authentic, or at least
pseudo-authentic, and sound more realistic than in the past.
Focus on utility and measurability of the language taught

The prevalence of international standards for describing language ability, such as the
Common European Framework of Reference, the Association of Language Testers in
Europe, Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality Language Services core inventory, and
Pearson’s Global Scale of English, ensures that the language syllabus for most coursebook
materials is standardised, and increasingly based on corpus information (see McCarthy and
McCarten this volume). High-frequency items are more likely to be dealt with than more
obscure language, and there is an emphasis on testing the language that has been taught.
Extensive use of video

Perhaps as a reflection of the ubiquitous nature of video in today’s society, filmed material is
usually an integral part of any language course, rather than an optional add-on. This change
has also led to publishers seeking partnerships with media companies (e.g. Pearson deals
with the BBC and Disney) or media companies moving into the ELT publishing world (e.g.
National Geographic and TED).
Increased emphasis on lexical chunks of language

Whilst the traditional grammar syllabus still remains a strong guiding principle for the lan-
guage syllabus, there has been a definite emphasis on ensuring that materials also have a
more comprehensive vocabulary syllabus, often based on corpora. There is more use of
lexis appearing in formulaic chunks of language as opposed to single items and also a move
to ensure a more thorough treatment in terms of coverage, revision, and practice (Timmis
2013; Webb and Nation 2017).
English as a lingua franca

There is recognition that English is being used globally as a lingua franca. It is estimated that
80% of interactions which take place in English no longer involve a native speaker (Seidlhofer
2004). This has implications for communicative competence, and most notably materials for
teaching pronunciation now tend to be geared towards intelligibility rather than one particular
model of English (Pennington and Rogerson-Revell 2019; Rogerson-Revell 2011).
The rise of digital learning

There is an ever-increasing rise in the number of digital resources available for language
learners. Course materials will usually have a digital component or access to an online
learning platform (see Hartle this volume). Technology is changing the way we present
information to learners (e.g. flipped learning), and also how they work with the information
we give them (online/mobile practice or collaboration). There are new skills that learners
442
require, such as digital literacies, and there are new skills for writers, too, as writing for
digital can be quite different to writing for print.
Personalised, autonomous learning

There has been a move within coursebook material to make learning more personalised,
with personalised tasks and activities, where learners use the language to talk about things
relevant to their own lives (Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). Increasing amounts of supple-
mentary materials are provided for teachers and learners to choose from, allowing learners,
to a certain extent, to tailor the course to their needs. Learner training strategies and tips are
incorporated, designed to help students become more autonomous and make the most of the
learning opportunities available to them (see Pinard this volume).
Adaptive learning, data retrieval, and testing

Advances in educational technology have given rise to adaptive learning platforms. Adaptive
learning software tailors learning materials and tasks to the end-users, based on the way that
individuals learn and their proficiency levels, leading to more efficient and personalised
learning (Kerr 2014). Many learning apps and platforms are now using this technology, with
systems being developed which track a learner’s progress and offer them specialised content
according to the progress they have made. With big data driving how companies plan to do
business, these systems have huge implications for how material is created and delivered.
21st-century skills, digital literacies, global citizenship, and CLIL

There has been an emphasis on the Four Cs of 21st century skills (collaboration, commu-
nication, critical thinking, and creativity) as well as inclusion of a complex combination
of other new literacy skills (digital literacies, visual literacies, and intercultural literacies).
Materials often aim to promote global citizenship, social awareness, and problem-solving
skills, so more content focuses on global issues and employability or life skills. content and
language integrated learning (CLIL) has become the umbrella term for learning content –
i.e. a subject such as physics or geography – through the medium of English (Coyle, Hood
and Marsh 2010). All of these new skills and approaches are influencing the development of
materials, particularly materials for primary and secondary levels.
New ways of working

There have also been significant changes to the ways that materials are conceived and pro-
duced (some of which are mentioned above). Previously, publishers looked to authors to
help provide new directions, particularly in terms of methodology. Authors were paid roy-
alties, and there was a sense of shared ownership of the final product. In the post-method,
digitally driven era, publishers increasingly look to develop new products according to their
own priorities and briefs. Scope, sequence, methodology, and design template are created
by the publishers, and parts of the book, or components, are rationed out in a piecemeal
fashion to large teams of authors. These writers, often from very different contexts, might
work simultaneously on a project, but will have little or no contact with one another and are
probably paid discrete fees for the material they produce. Ownership of the final product
remains with the publisher (Amrani 2011).
443
These trends will be discussed in the next sections, as we examine how they impact
materials writing in the 21st century.

We have identified six critical issues concerning the writing of classroom materials. These
are issues that have proved problematic or challenging for us as coursebook authors over
the years. The issues are as follows: homogeneity and how to stand out from the crowd,
topicality and how to ensure the materials do not date too quickly, authenticity and the use
of authentic materials and tasks, measurability and finding ways to prove that students are
progressing, consistency in terms of level and approach, and the bringing together of theory
and practice. We will deal with each of these in turn.
Homogeneity
English language teaching is big business. Publishers know there is money to be made from
the global demand for English. As a result, they are commissioning more and more global
coursebooks in the hope that one will hit the jackpot just as Interchange and Headway did
in previous decades.
Global coursebooks, by definition, are designed to be used anywhere in the world. They
contain general, timeless topics such as travel, work, and leisure, and functional areas
such as shopping, meeting people, and getting around. These topics are found in almost all
coursebook series partly because they’re useful and partly because that’s what teachers and
students have come to expect. This is an example of what Tomlinson (2003:7) refers to as
‘a washback effect’ – when teachers and curriculum developers adopt the approaches and
themes of well-known coursebooks, assuming this is what students want.
Besides the topics regurgitated ad infinitum, different coursebooks include more or less the
same grammar items in the same order (Clandfield 2010; see also Burton, this volume). They
have banks of similar-looking practice exercises at the end of a unit or at the back of the book.
They also have a glossy, magazine-y feel to them, with large colourful pictures. They are all
roughly the same physical size and length, and the methodology – at least, of the books pro-
duced in Europe – is almost always based on some variant of the communicative approach.
To many eyes, modern coursebooks come across as Russian matryoshka dolls: almost-iden-
tical products emerging immaculately from previous incarnations. No wonder critics conclude
that global coursebooks suffer from a stifling homogeneity (Thornbury 2014; Tomlinson 2013;
Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018). This is not entirely surprising. The world of commerce is full
of one-off successes that spawn copy-cats. It happens in literature (vampires and wizards), film
(superhero franchises), games, clothing – in fact, anything that can be bought and sold.
The core constituents of global coursebooks therefore vary little because the publishers
are all hearing the same thing from their end-users when they conduct market research.
And, of course, publishers are loath to take risks. Coursebooks cost millions of pounds to
produce, so it makes sense to follow a commercially successful and stable formula. A criti-
cal issue, then, for writers, is how to develop materials that stand out from the crowd, and
which contain a spark of originality.
Topicality
Related to originality, there is topicality. Materials writers try to find topics that will engage
students. In local contexts, this does not sound too challenging: the latest gossip, news
444
stories, or social trends may suffice to get students talking. With global coursebooks, it is
not so simple. There is a time lag between the writing and the use of the materials (it usually
takes 18 months or more for the materials to be produced). There’s also topic censorship.
Certain topics can be discussed in some cultures but are taboo in others. Publishers have a
list of taboos, commonly known by the acronym PARSNIP: politics, alcohol, religion, sex,
narcotics, -isms, and pork. Writers of global coursebooks cannot touch these subjects for
fear of offending the markets and thereby sabotaging potential sales. The embargo on these
topics means coursebooks are sometimes accused of being trivial, bland, and anodyne (Bell
and Gower 2011; Saraceni 2013).
Authenticity
A third critical issue concerns authenticity (see Jones this volume). As noted in the
Introduction, students have greater access to authentic English than ever before, and the
trend is to replicate this in coursebooks. There are numerous definitions of authentic materi-
als in the literature. For the purpose of this chapter, we define them as any materials – film,
texts, recordings – which have been written for a general audience, as opposed to language
learners, and written with the assumption that the audience consists of completely proficient
speakers. There is no grading of language nor enhanced input, in terms of adding numerous
examples of particular lexis or structures.
Tasks, too, benefit from being authentic. An authentic task is any linguistic task that
users of the language might do in their daily lives. Making phone calls in English, book-
ing a table in a restaurant, or telling anecdotes have real-world relevance. They involve
genuine communication in order to convey a message, and measurable outcomes in
terms of success or failure.
The question then arises of how writers find usable, authentic materials and come up
with authentic tasks representative of real-life language use. The challenge is particularly
taxing with lower levels. Beginners or A1 students may struggle to cope with such material
when they know barely any vocabulary and grammar. Much of what they read and hear, if
it is authentic, will probably be incomprehensible to them. It has been argued, for example
by Guariento and Morley (2001) and Richards (2006), that it may be worth sacrificing text
authenticity at low levels in order to achieve authentic communicative responses in our stu-
dents. This means adapting the text to the level, perhaps by removing difficult vocabulary
and replacing it with easier words, simplifying grammatical structures (for example, includ-
ing only present tenses), or shortening the text’s length, or a combination of these.
Measurability
A fourth critical issue is measurability. In a data-driven society, measurability grows in
importance for publishers and school administrators. In such a climate, it’s no longer enough
to say ‘she’s making progress.’ Instead, we need measurements to prove it. Similarly, a
writer’s intuition is no longer enough to design a syllabus. As such, many language courses
now use international standards to construct a syllabus. Each lesson is tied to a descriptor of
linguistic tasks. These are standards or benchmarks describing what students need to be able
to do with the language at this stage of their learning (for example, make a formal phone
call, write a CV, tell an anecdote). As mentioned in the previous section, these descriptors
may come from a number of sources – for example, the Common European Framework of
445
Reference (CEFR) ‘Can Do’ statements or Pearson’s Global Scale of English. As an integral
part of the syllabus, they provide a basis for measuring student progress.
Consistency
Related to measurability is the issue of consistency in terms of level. For example, one
writer’s idea of an advanced (C1) text might be another’s idea of an upper intermediate
(B2) text. Digital tools (e.g. corpora for checking word frequency) may help resolve this
issue: if a text contains a certain number of very low-frequency words, it probably belongs
at a high level. Also, global standards/benchmarks can help here: if the material matches,
say, a descriptor at C1 level on the CEFR framework, then it probably belongs in a book for
advanced students.
Another issue regarding consistency arises when large teams of disparate writers work
on materials. In this case, it is important to ensure a consistent approach in terms of tone and
style. Of course, there is a brief, that is, a set of instructions provided by the publisher for
the writer, detailing features to be included, length of manuscript, formal or informal style,
etc. There is also editorial input. However, individual writers may vary wildly in how they
interpret the brief, and some elements of writing are not usually considered in a brief: ele-
ments such as humour and sociopolitical perspectives.
Theory and practice

The final critical issue is the bringing together of theory and practice. This is a thorny topic
which is well-documented in the literature (e.g. Medgyes 2017; Paran 2017; Ur 2019 and
Timmis this volume). Between theorists and practitioners there is, undoubtedly, a divide.
Teachers tend to be practitioners (Nassaji 2012). Theorists tend not to be. Theorists are often
engaged in university-based research, and they tend to publish academic texts that are not
readily available for teachers. These texts, often found in academic journals or monographs,
may be hidden behind a pay-wall and/or prohibitively expensive (Marsten and Kasprowicz
2017). Besides cost, teachers may not be aware of the existence of many academic books
and journals. The question remains however: how can materials writers bring research find-
ings, for example, on second language acquisition or corpora to their work? And is it even
desirable? The six issues listed above will be discussed in greater depth in the next two
sections.

Very early on in the commissioning process, the publisher and writer must agree on, develop,
and adhere to a set of principles and beliefs about language and language learning. For the
authors of this chapter, these principles include engaging content, natural language use,
personalised practice, and opportunities to use the language for a communicative purpose.
Also early on, the syllabus, i.e. the language points and topics, will be agreed on. If, as stated
in the previous section, these points and topics are similar to what has gone before in other
coursebooks, how can the materials writer avoid blandness and homogeneity?
One way is to focus on originality in the materials. Two coursebooks may appear the
same at first glance, but one may have a spark of creativity that makes it a joy to use while
the other is less so. There are, however, caveats to focusing on originality. Generally,
446
materials writers are unable to approach their books like artists, devising strikingly original
lessons with weird and wonderful tasks and exciting high-risk topics. This is partly because
of the aforementioned PARSNIP and partly because of teacher expectations. There is safety
in familiarity. Any radical departure from what has gone before requires the expensive and
time-consuming re-training of teachers in how to use the materials. This makes it less likely
that the materials will sell to an institution in the first place.
The other problem with innovative ideas is that global coursebooks are designed for
diverse markets. The students might be from a range of different backgrounds and age
groups. Class sizes and types may vary considerably depending on the sociocultural con-
texts and the qualifications, experience, and proficiency level of the teachers. For these
reasons, it is unsurprising that the markets demand courses that are easy to use and flexible.
In fact, it could be argued that the flexibility of global coursebooks, which gives them
commercial potential, stunts them creatively (Maley 2013). As all materials writers know,
the dynamic activity that worked in a class of 8 motivated students does not always work in
a class of 80 reluctant conscripts. This is why tried and trusted activities and methodology
usually evade the editor’s scythe, whilst more experimental activities are cut. The trick can
be to include some novel or surprising element or outcome within a fairly standard frame-
work or procedure. As Maley (2013:173) notes, ‘The truly creative materials writer may use
quite simple and minimal inputs to stimulate methodological creativity on the part of teach-
ers, or linguistic creativity on the part of learners.’ Similarly, creativity may also be achieved
when ‘well-tried activities are given a creative twist’ (Maley 2013:173).
In terms of topicality, as writers, we try to be well-informed about the key markets that
a book will sell into. As well as relying on our own teaching experience in various different
teaching contexts and countries, we will, where possible, go on research trips to talk to and
observe teachers, or attend local conferences in order to get a feel for the issues that teachers
in that context experience. During the writing process, the materials are also sent to teachers
in key markets who will comment on suitability during the feedback process (see Gok this
volume; cf. Hughes 2019).
Another issue identified earlier is authenticity. Irrespective of the level, a writer needs to
know when an authentic piece of material is suitable (Maley and Tomlinson 2017). This is a
complex issue which involves professional judgement, knowledge of copyright restrictions,
and tools such as corpora, which can guide writers in selecting and adapting authentic texts.
The following should also be taken into account in the text selection process. The learner
and the teacher should find the text relevant and engaging, and the material needs to trig-
ger some kind of emotional, personal, or linguistic response which can be exploited in the
language classroom (Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018).
The material must also be at the right level. It is demotivating for students to read or
listen to something and understand nothing. In spoken English, level is related to issues of
both content and delivery. Content issues include the topic (how obscure is it?), cultural
accessibility, type of speech event (is it a dynamic free-flowing conversation or a relatively
formulaic one like ordering a takeaway dinner?), and discourse structure (e.g. cause-and-
effect is easier to understand than situation-problem-response-evaluation because it has
fewer stages). Delivery issues with regard to listening texts include vocabulary used (spe-
cialised or general?), speed of speaker(s), number of speakers (the more, the more diffi-
cult), accent, length of recording, density (how much space, fillers, and repetition are there
between essential pieces of new information?), and sound quality (Field 2008; Goh 2000;
Renandya and Farrell 2011). With authentic written materials, some, but not all, of the same
criteria apply. Factors relating to content include the topic, cultural accessibility, genre, and
447
discourse structure. Factors relating to delivery include vocabulary (range and difficulty),
density, grammatical structures, length, and clarity.
Even if the material is suitable, there’s still the issue of whether it’s available. For copy-
right purposes, publishers need permission to use authentic materials, and this is not always
given. For many reasons, materials cannot always be licenced or they may be too expensive.
As well as working to ensure that texts in the material are authentic, or at least authentic-
sounding, writers also need to consider how a particular piece of material might usefully
lead to a pedagogic task. Pedagogic tasks provide a means of giving learners opportunities
for production (Swain 1985, Nunan 1991) and opportunities to draw attention to aspects
of form in the target language (Skehan 1998; Willis 1996). Guariento and Morley (2001)
identify four broad schools of thought regarding task authenticity. They consider whether a
task provides authenticity: through a genuine communicative purpose, through a real-world
target, through authentic classroom interaction, or through genuine engagement in the task
itself. So, as well as considering how accessible the text will be for the learner, we need to
look at whether it potentially offers opportunities for meaningful language use.
Another issue we looked at previously is measurability. In our experience, before the
writing begins, materials writers are presented with lists of standards – for example, ‘Can
Do’ statements or Pearson’s Global Scale of English. The materials need to cover the stand-
ards and items relevant to that level. An example: at intermediate or B1–B2 level, by the
end of a lesson a student can give opinions and agree/disagree. The writer has to interpret
the ‘Can Do’ statement and come up with exponents for it that are at the right level. There is
an increasing number of resources available to writers, such as corpora, and reference docu-
ments, for example, British Council: Equals. A Core Inventory for General English (North
et al. 2016), to help with this.
Another important issue to consider here is consistency in materials. A common problem
for authors working in large teams is that the project may lack coherence if authors are
working in silos. We believe the best materials have some kind of identifiable signature and
‘voice.’ Our own ‘voice,’ we believe, contains traces of humour and a light focus on easily
digestible areas of psychology. The humour can be found in some of our choices of video in
the Speakout series (the British comedies Gavin and Stacey and Miranda) as well as some
texts: one about absurd questions children ask their parents, for example. The psychology
angle is present in topics such as people-watching and the seven secrets of happiness.
Finally, in this section, we expand a little on the issue of uniting theory and practice
in materials writing (see Timmis this volume). The first stage of this process may involve
the writer researching the theory, perhaps through reading or attending a conference pres-
entation. Next, she has to decide, along with the publisher, whether the theory is worth
incorporating into the materials. The challenge then is to operationalise fruitful new theo-
retical perspectives in a way that is easily digestible for practitioners (Garton and Graves
2014; Medgyes 2017; Paran 2017). This means the theory is clearly present, but it does not
demand too much in the way of teacher (re)training. Among such theories we would include
the input hypothesis (Krashen 1977) and the interaction hypothesis (Long 1996; Schmidt
2002), which respectively posit that learners need input at a level slightly higher than their
current abilities and that learners develop language proficiency through interaction.
New theories can drive methodological innovation, but it is crucial to make these theo-
ries accessible to practitioners and students. Writers need an understanding of teachers’
current practice to be able to introduce incremental changes to the prevailing methodology.
Having adopted a fairly eclectic approach in our own teaching practice, we feel it is impor-
tant that materials offer flexibility rather than rigidity in approach. When a course does push
448
forward methodologically, then it is important for teachers to receive support (see S. Hughes
this volume). Authors and publishers are often involved in actively training teachers to use
the materials through workshops, webinars, or by writing articles.

The first challenge we identified in the previous section was how to make our work stand
out in the somewhat homogeneous field of global coursebooks (Tomlinson 2013). Liz Soars,
one of the authors of Headway, advises new writers to ‘listen to the world. Listen to peo-
ple’s stories’ (personal communication). Talking about why she thought Headway was so
successful, she said that she and her husband/co-author, John, were always on the lookout
for stories to use in their books. One time they were having lunch in a pub, when John over-
heard an interesting one and asked the nearby diners for permission to use it in one of their
coursebooks.
The writer constantly keeps her ears and eyes open for new ways of thinking about old
subjects, plus in our case new task types, and new developments in society on which to
base lessons. Reading is our greatest source of ideas. Between us, we read in five languages
and have sourced materials from Italian newspapers, Brazilian magazines, and Spanish fic-
tion. From texts we either get the germ of an idea or we borrow wholesale and use the text
as it stands to provide the engine of the lesson. We also check that the topic has not been
covered in the same way in other coursebooks, to ensure that our approach really is new, or
not overly familiar. One example is a speaking task in Speakout Advanced called ranting/
raving (p.111). The students choose topics from a list (a spectacular/ugly place you have
visited, an actor or film you love/hate, something you bought recently which was a success/
disaster, etc.). Then they use the functional expressions from the lesson (it drives me up the
wall, it was idyllic, it was a total waste of money, I couldn’t believe my eyes, etc.) to rant or
rave. This was an approach to teaching functional language and intonation that we hadn’t
seen before.
Besides reading, we source our ideas from conversations, conferences, cultural ‘happen-
ings’ in the community, or the media. At a festival, a slam poet initiates a call-and-response
with the audience, and we realise this is a new form of drilling. A Velázquez portrait in the
Prado Museum leads to a lesson on families; an exhibition in São Paulo inspires a text on
time capsules; a glimpse of Damien Hurst’s tiger shark preserved in formaldehyde ends up
as a lesson on outsider art. We primarily look for human interest stories: the underdog who
triumphs, the secret behind the facade, the invention that changes everything, the psychol-
ogy behind the action. One example is an article about professional violinists demanding
a higher salary than their colleagues who play other instruments because they play more
notes. We wrote a short text about this story and used it as a springboard for discussion about
which jobs should receive better pay. This process is typical of our own working method:
once we have the idea, if there is no suitable text available (perhaps it’s too long or difficult
or unavailable for copyright purposes), we write one. We may or may not include target
language (grammar and vocabulary) depending on the purpose of the text, whether it is used
for pure reading skills or as a carrier of target language. Once the text is written, we add
comprehension questions and some points to discuss.
Other things that tend to stand out are catchy titles and lists. Lists have always been a
staple of ELT publishing, and in the era of digital journalism readers seem to love reading
and sharing them. Lists are a great way of organising information, they are often suited to
449
light-hearted subject matter, and when illustrated with colourful pictures, they can make
information more accessible and easy to digest. One example is a list of seven things you
should never do in an airport (Speakout Intermediate 2nd ed). The unit topic was travel and
the function being taught was giving advice/warnings, so this list seemed appropriate.
One issue is that other materials writers are probably looking at exactly the same source
material. In fact, different books sometimes go on the market with the same ‘new angle’ on a
well-worn topic. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, speed-dating was all the rage. Suddenly,
and simultaneously, speed-dating appeared in several coursebooks, helped, no doubt, by the
fact that the topic has a ready-made, classroom-friendly task.
Another related challenge we identified was meeting the demand for authentic materials.
At the very lowest levels, writers may need to reconsider their definition of authentic. For
example, you can give actors a brief and let them improvise a conversation to elicit natural-
sounding language, as well as coaching them in between ‘takes’ so that they learn how to
grade their language for lower levels while still sounding natural. In addition, if the course-
book character is Spanish, we try to insist that the actor is actually a Spanish speaker. We
attend recording sessions whenever possible to help actors to work with only a semi-script,
or no script. Decisions about recordings, however, are increasingly made by the publishers
and audio producers, with no author involvement.
With regards to measurability, before any writing begins, authors may be handed a long
list of descriptors to include in the syllabus. One example is the descriptor Can make and
respond to polite requests. We designed a lesson in Speakout Intermediate (2nd edition)
called It’s Out of Order which looked at everyday problems such as computer viruses, burst
pipes, and machines being out of order. The students’ task was to make and respond to
requests for help in line with the stated learning outcomes.
Regarding coherence of the materials, the authors of this chapter have not personally
faced the challenge of writing small sections of a series. We have always either worked
alone or as a partnership. In our case, usually the person with an original idea for a lesson
ends up writing the lesson.
Once the editor has approved a text or topic, one of us writes a draft and the other edits it
and makes suggestions for changes. This process means we are both aware how each lesson is
progressing, can see the patterns and shape the book is taking and can thereby ensure coherence.
If one of us is writing unit 4 and the other is writing unit 5, we check that texts, grammar, vocabu-
lary, and pronunciation are progressively challenging over the two units.
Writing materials requires a variety of skills such as syllabus design, expertise in peda-
gogy, and creating engaging, natural-sounding texts. There needs to be ‘big picture’ thinking
which involves being able to stand back from the details and see how the whole book/syl-
labus is shaping up. For example, a book may start to become monotonous in its approach.
Maybe it lacks humour or there is insufficient balance: it focuses too much on one part of
the world or on a particular topic. Writers need detail-oriented thinking too: the ability and
desire to comb every activity, rubric, and sentence, to check that it is as clear and correct as
possible. We never forget that the book’s first editor is its writer. And the success or failure
of an activity can often depend on the smallest detail. A tiny tweak to a rubric or the stag-
ing of an activity can have a huge impact in the classroom. Materials writers also require a
strong visual sense, the ability to write art briefs, and an understanding of how design can
help learning, taking into account, for example, the size of pictures and the inclusion of
white space on the page (Prowse 2011).
Writing in tandem allows us to complement each other’s skills: one of us is more visually
oriented (and a practising artist), while the other is more literary; one is an avid proofreader
450
and the other is a ‘big picture’ person. We also believe in the usefulness of having a close
working relationship over many years. Other authors have made similar remarks: ‘Our writ-
ing partnership came about naturally, organically. We weren’t manufactured by a publisher.
Less Girls Aloud, more Arctic Monkeys!’ (Sue Kay reported in Prowse 2011:169).
Collaboration is key and highly recommended; there is often a kind of ‘synergy’ between
the participants – authors, editors, publishers, teachers – which can inspire writers and provide
them with a sense of purpose. As writers, we have learned so much from working on projects
in collaboration with other, often more experienced colleagues. Collaboration can also allow for
contributions from teachers and writers with knowledge of specific teaching contexts.
The final challenge we identified in the previous section concerned the uniting of theory
and practice. The materials writer can act as a kind of mediator between theory and practice.
With the lexical approach (Lewis 1993,1997), for example, a materials writer can focus on
collocations or include tasks on the use of dictionaries to raise learner awareness of lexi-
cal chunks, and feed them into the materials without demanding a wholesale revolution in
methodology (Timmis 2012). A similar type of mediation happened with regard to task-
based learning when it came to prominence in the late 1990s (Willis 1996). Coursebooks
began to offer carefully staged tasks as a core part of the materials, but eschewed the purest
form of TBL, which advocates the use of a bank of tasks as the core syllabus.
In our own materials, we have sought to incorporate elements of research-informed
practice including, for example, soft versions of the lexical approach, task-based learn-
ing, learner autonomy, and the use of authentic video. To give greater prominence to lexis
and learner autonomy in our coursebook series, Speakout, we included tips about vocabu-
lary record keeping, such as different ways to group multi-word verbs. In the same series,
task-based learning and video are represented through end-of-unit speaking tasks which are
based on a short video clip. Other areas ripe for further exploitation in materials develop-
ment are corpus linguistics (e.g. O’Keefe and McCarthy 2010), learning strategies (e.g.
Oxford 2017, 2018), and theories of motivation (e.g. Dornyei and Ushioda 2011).
Future directions
As we stated in the Introduction, coursebooks nowadays are much more likely to be con-
ceived and developed by the publisher, perhaps in collaboration with another digital/media
partner. Rather than looking to their authors to provide inspiration for new products, pub-
lishers are instead relying on business directives, market research, and data. Publishers
make decisions about the nature of the course, its components, and the user experience.
They then bring in large teams of authors and freelance editors to work on various compo-
nents, or elements of a component. Certainly, this enables publishers to retain more control
and complete ownership of the final product. Publishers claim that this will allow them to
respond more quickly to market demands. However, writers who are not involved in the
creative development of the material, who may never meet other members of the writing
team, and who need to write within very restrictive briefs or templates may not feel quite so
passionate about the work that they are doing. This may especially be the case when those
writers’ names don’t appear on the books or when the writers are not recompensed by the
product’s success because they are paid a fee rather than royalties. They may feel disenfran-
chised and less committed. Discussions with fellow writers suggest that this is increasingly
the case. We have yet to see how products produced in this way will fare in the marketplace,
but there is a concern that these materials may lack soul, and come across as lacklustre and
samey (Tomlinson and Masuhara 2018).
451
On the other hand, there are now ample opportunities for teachers and organisations to
develop their own materials rather than rely on global products (Garton and Graves 2014).
Many customers, perhaps dissatisfied with global products, want the ability to pick and
choose materials, and tailor content for their own needs. Often they will put together teams
of in-house writers and develop materials themselves to suit their own learners and require-
ments. There are issues regarding expertise and the quality of these materials, however,
and perhaps related to this, materials development training is now being offered by many
institutions and universities as part of a teacher’s continuous professional development (see
J. Hughes, and Spiro this volume).
Publishers are responding to this same demand by offering market-specific adaptations
with content tailored for particular markets and classrooms. As content moves increas-
ingly online, and relies less on print, this option is becoming easier, or less expensive to
achieve. Future materials will likely be linked or tagged according to learning objectives,
so that a teacher, a Ministry of Education, or an individual learner can select or omit
material in order to build a customised course specific to their particular needs. Writers
involved in this kind of writing may write discrete, online, interactive activities linked to
specific learning objectives, and be paid per item. These activities can then be linked to or
repurposed for a variety of different course offerings.
With publishers focusing on developing markets, we might also expect to see more focus
on teacher training. Many materials are now being used in classrooms around the world
where a communicative approach is still seen as a radical shift from the more traditional
grammar-translation method. Publishers are often expected to provide a training package
for local teachers as part of a materials adoption negotiation. The emphasis here may be
on helping the teachers to become expert adaptors, so that they can effectively exploit the
materials to suit their learners’ needs. In these cases, writers may also be actively involved
in the training element of the course, perhaps providing training, as we discussed earlier, or
perhaps being filmed either using the material, or discussing the approach (see S. Hughes
this volume).
Recently, there have been interesting debates around the issues of ‘native’ vs. ‘non-native
speaker’ teachers, and whose English and whose values we should be representing in learn-
ing materials. Critics of the communicative approach have questioned whether it is effec-
tive, relevant, and valid in today’s global contexts, and whether it caters for the many and
diverse contexts in which it is used (Bax 2003, Hutchinson and Klepač 1982). In the future,
we are likely to see many more L2 writers producing materials that are more closely aligned
with their local contexts.
Another area where we are likely to see significant change is in the increase in digital/
mobile materials and adaptive learning. New technologies will impact upon instructional
design and will also have implications for language content and curricula, as well as influ-
encing the changing roles for both writers (as content creators) and teachers (e.g. Kerr 2016
; see also Hockley and Dudeney this volume).
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are many factors which are changing the way writers write. The digitali-
sation of content has shaken the economic foundations of the publishing industry and had
huge implications for the engagement of writers by publishers. In this new digital world,
authors risk losing their voice and sense of authorship, because they are increasingly asked
452
to simply provide content, but are often not involved in the decisions about how that content
is best delivered or shaped.
The good news is that digital also offers huge opportunities for authors to publish their
work through new platforms, with new partners, or engage in self-publishing projects.
Aspiring writers have a platform for their work and social media networks provide them
with exposure and feedback. Such opportunities are potentially very exciting, with the
caveat that first-rate materials usually require extensive piloting and rigorous editing.
Digital is opening up whole new ways of learning and delivering material, and has the
power to be personal, mobile, social, and networked (Envedy 2014). Unfortunately, materi-
als being developed for many of these new digital platforms and apps often seem to rely on
outdated pedagogy. In future, it will be vital to involve teachers and materials writers in dis-
cussions around the pedagogical principles of materials development, perhaps even invit-
ing learners to comment upon use and design (see Choi and Nunan, and Gok this volume).
Ideally, some of these new ways of working might allow exciting collaborations between
writers in different parts of the world, perhaps working in partnership with media, educa-
tion, or technology companies, sharing their valuable skills and expertise to develop the
next generation of innovative and pedagogically sound materials.
Further reading
Prowse, P.. 2011. How writers write: Testimony from authors. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
development in language teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This chapter focuses on the process of materials writing from the writer’s perspective. It
includes personal accounts of the writing process based upon questionnaires and correspondence
with authors. It includes topics such as writing together, the creative process, and working with
publishers.
Hadfield, J., 2014. Chaosmos: Spontaneity and Order in the Materials Design Process. In Harwood,
Palgrave Macmillan.
In this chapter Hadfield explores her own materials writing process with regard to current literature
on materials development and other writers’ self-reports of the processes they go through.
Mishan, F. and Timmis, I. 2015. Materials development for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press. Chapter 9: Materials design: from Process to product.
This chapter explores mediated materials writing, that is, writing materials for contexts other than
your own. It outlines an idealised production sequence, which includes drafting and piloting, and the
production sequence in action, drawing on the accounts of authors. The second part of the chapter
focuses on the creative process.
Bell, J. and Gower, R., 2011. Writing course materials for the world: a great compromise In Tomlinson,
B., ed. Materials Development in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
This chapter reflects on the experience of writing a major coursebook series for a global publisher.
It explores the authors’ own teaching and learning principles and the compromises which had to be
made as a result of creating materials for a global audience rather than their own students.
Related topics
Why do we need coursebooks?, authenticity in language teaching materials, materials
as a tool for professional development: a perspective from publishing, training materials
writers.
453
References
Amrani. F., 2011. The process of evaluation: A publisher’s view. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
Bax, S., 2003. The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 53/3:278–287.
University Press.
Clandfield, L. 2010. C is for Coursebook [Online]. Retrieved on 26 June 2020 from: https://
scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/c-is-for-coursebook-by-lindsay-clandfield/.
Clare, A. and Marsh, A., 2020. The Creative Teacher’s Compendium. Shoreham-by-Sea: Pavilion ELT.
Clare, A. and Wilson, J.J., 2002. Language to Go. Upper-Intermediate Student’s Book. Harlow:
Pearson Longman.
Clare, A. and Wilson, J.J., 2006. Total English. Intermediate Student’s Book. Harlow: Pearson
Longman.
Clare, A. and Wilson, J.J., 2012. New Total English. Advanced Student’s Book. Harlow: Pearson
Longman.
Clare, A. and Wilson, J.J., 2015a. Speakout Intermediate. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson.
Clare, A. and Wilson, J.J., 2015b. Speakout Pre-Intermediate. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson.
Clare, A. and Wilson, J.J., 2016. Speakout Advanced. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson.
Clare, A. and Wilson, J.J., 2018. Speakout Intermediate Plus. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D., 2010. CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning.
Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E., 2011. Teaching and Researching Motivation. 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman.
Enyedy, N. 2014. Personalized Instruction: New Interest, Old Rhetoric, Limited Results, and the Need for
a New Direction for Computer-Mediated Learning. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
Retrieved on 17 July 2016 from: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/personalized-instruction.
Field, J. 2008. Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garton, S. and Graves, K., eds. 2014. International Perspectives on Materials in ELT. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Goh, C. 2000. A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening comprehension problems.
System 28/1:55–75.
Guariento, W. and Morley, J., 2001. Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal,
55/4:347–353.
Hughes, S.H., 2019. Coursebooks: Is there more than meets the eye? ELT Journal, 7/4:447–455.
Hutchinson, T. and Klepač, M., 1982. The communicative approach: A question of materials or
attitudes? System, 10/2:135–143.
Kerr, P., 2014. A Short Guide to Adaptive Learning in English Language Teaching. Retrieved on
19 June 2020 from: http://the-round.com/resource/a-short-guide-to-adaptive-learning-in-english
-language-teaching/.
Kerr, P., 2016. Adaptive learning. ELT Journal, 70/1:88–93.
Krashen, S., 1977. Some issues relating to the monitor model. In Brown, H.D., Yorio, C.A. and
Crymes, R.H., eds. Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research
and Practice. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Lewis, M., 1997. Implementing the Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Long, M., 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In
Maley, A., 2013. Creative Approaches to Writing Materials. In Tomlinson, B. ed. Developing Materials
for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London and New York: Continuum.
Maley, A. and Tomlinson, B., eds. 2017. Authenticity in Materials Development for Language
454
Marsden, E. and Kasprowicz, R., 2017. Foreign language educators’ exposure to research: Reported
experiences, exposure via citations, and a proposal for action. Modern Language Journal,
101/4:613–642.
Medgyes, P., 2017. The (ir)relevance of academic research for the language teacher. ELT Journal,
71/4:491–498.
Mishan, F., 2005. Designing Authenticity into Language Learning Materials. Bristol: Intellect.
Nassaji, H., 2012. The relationship between SLA research and language pedagogy: Teachers’
perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 16/3:337–365.
North, B., Ortega, A. and Sheehan, S. 2016. British Council: Equals. A Core Inventory for General
English. Retrieved on 26 June 2020 from: https://www.eaquals.org/resources/the-core-inventory
-for-general-english/.
Nunan, D., 1991. Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25/2:279–295.
O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. eds. 2010 The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Oxon:
Routledge.
Oxford, R. 2017. Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies: Self-regulation in context.
2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge.
Oxford, R.L., 2018. Language Learning Strategies and Individual Learner Characteristics: Situating
Strategy Use in Diverse Contexts. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Paran, A., 2017. ‘Only connect’: Researchers and teachers in dialogue. ELT Journal, 71/4:499–508.
Pennington. M. and Rogerson-Revell. P., 2019. English Pronunciation Teaching and Research:
Contemporary Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Prowse, P.. 2011. How writers write: Testimony from authors. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
Renandya, W.A.A. and Farrell, T.S.C.S., 2011. ‘Teacher, the tape is too fast!’ Extensive listening in
ELT. ELT Journal, 65/1:52–59.
Richards, J., 2006. Materials development and research: Making the connection. RELC Journal,
37/1:5–26.
Rogerson-Revell., P. 2011. English Phonology and Pronunciation Teaching. London: Bloomsbury.
Saraceni, C., 2013. Adapting coursebooks: A personal view. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing
Materials for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury.
Schmidt, R., 2002. Interaction hypothesis. In Richards, J. and Schmidt, R., eds. Longman Dictionary
of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. London and New York: Longman.
Seidlhofer, B., 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24:209–239.
Skehan, P., 1998. Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18:268–286.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible
output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C., eds. Input in Second Language Acquisition.
Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.
Thornbury, S., 2014. English language teaching textbooks: Content, consumption, production. ELT
Journal, 69/1:100–102.
Timmis, I., 2012. The lexical approach is dead: Long live the lexical dimension. Modern English
Teacher, 17/3:5–10.
Timmis, I., 2013. Corpora and materials: Towards a working relationship. In Tomlinson, B. ed.
Developing Materials for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London and New York: Continuum.
Tomlinson, B., ed. 2003. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum.
Tomlinson, B., ed. 2013. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London:Continuum.
Ur, P., 2019. Theory and practice in language teacher education. Language Teaching, 52/4:450–459.
Webb, S. and Nation, I.S.P. 2017. How Vocabulary is Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, J., 1996. A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow: Longman.
Wilson, JJ., 2008. How to Teach Listening. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
455
31
The editor’s role in developing
materials
Introduction
The invisible editors
In the growing academic literature on ELT materials development, there have been com-
paratively few specific references to the role of the editor in the process. There is some
discussion of the editor’s role in a chapter on the process of publishing coursebooks in
Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018) and one on market research by Amrani (2011). In Prowse
(2011), writers make references to relationships with editors as part of the working pro-
cess. Practical detail on the role of the editor from a publisher’s perspective is provided in
Aitchison (2013).
This virtual absence of any discussion of editors and their role in the literature contrasts
with the very significant role that editors have played – and continue to play – in the devel-
opment of published ELT materials. Editors are essential to the publishing process in all
their guises, but we can suggest various reasons for their near absence from the existing
materials development literature.
The background nature of the role of editor

Editors play a supportive and ‘behind-the-scenes’ role in the materials development process.
Nevertheless, publishing would quickly grind to a halt without them. They have an essen-
tial role in driving publishing projects and, as we shall see, the term ‘editor’ encompasses
a multi-faceted working life involving a wide range of skills and responsibilities where no
two days are the same.
Difficulties with defining the role and responsibilities of an editor

One major complicating factor is that there is no universal agreement in the industry on a
standard set of job titles and how these might correspond to actual responsibilities. Job titles
used in the major ELT publishing companies vary widely, so that a ‘senior editor,’ ‘com-
missioning editor,’ or ‘editorial director’ in one company will often have a quite different
456 DOI: 10.4324/b22783-39

The editor’s role in developing materials
range of different responsibilities from an editor holding the same title in another company.
The advent of digital publishing and new types of non-traditional publishing ventures have
added a further series of job titles into the mix, for example, head of product, head of learn-
ing, product owner, online publisher, web editor.
Demarcation between editors and authors

We use the term ‘author’ to describe all materials writers including those contracted to a
publisher, self-published authors, and those writing for a school or institution. It is important
for everyone involved in the publishing process that editors should not be seen as having the
same profile as authors. There are a number of reasons for this.
Authors might justifiably feel undermined by editors having too prominent a role in discus-
sions of the process of materials development and writing. Over-emphasising the importance
of the editor’s role could be seen as minimising the importance of the author. In reality, the
extent to which an editor is involved in the content development of published ELT materials
will vary, depending both on the nature of the project and on the level of experience (and abil-
ity) of the author and of the editor. It is, therefore, very difficult to make generalisations about
the editor’s role in relation to the author that will be consistently valid. Some publishers have
a policy that editors may not be named in books, even if authors wish to acknowledge them.
There are also commercial considerations to bear in mind. Authors have been important in
terms of marketing as the ‘public face’ of the materials they have written, and placing the spot-
light on editors might compromise this strategy. In fact, this author-centred marketing model is
changing rapidly (see ‘Critical Issues’), but it still has some significance at the time of writing.
Outline of editorial responsibilities

In the absence of standard descriptions that have specific relevance to ELT, we have
attempted to provide an outline framework of editorial responsibilities. We have done this
by separating the role into four key areas of responsibility (publishing strategy, project man-
agement, content development, and copy editing). For reasons outlined above, we have not
assigned particular job titles to these areas. For alternative descriptions of these roles, see
Aitchison (2013, section 8, ‘Editorial Job Titles and Main Responsibilities’).
Publishing strategy
In ELT, publishing strategy involves taking into account multiple factors, such as how well
materials meet the needs of a particular set of end users, fit in with a publisher’s exist-
ing lists, differ from and improve on competing materials already on the market, and have
the potential to be profitable. These strategic considerations can and should inform even
quite small decisions about timing, expenditure, and content. The recruitment of appropriate
authors should form part of early decision-making also. Editors involved in strategy need to
combine commercial sense and analytical business skills with market knowledge and a deep
and pragmatic understanding of the publishing process.
Content development
Content development ensures that materials are appropriate for the learning contexts for
which they have been written. Its purpose is to ensure that material meets the criteria
457
required for success in its intended markets. There is a useful summary of materials evalua-
tion criteria in Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018:53–54).
The early stages of content development entail the creation of a detailed brief (which
may contain a syllabus), templates, and a style sheet1 for the author which fulfils the publish-
ing strategy and may include the results of piloting of and other research on the material (but
see ‘Critical Issues’ and ‘Recommendations for Practice’ below). The next level of checking
involves the accuracy and workability of material. For further discussion of the content edi-
tor’s role, see White and Spiller (2016).
Content development input from an editor is important because authors will inevita-
bly miss problematic elements in their work. Content editors will either be able to solve
problems themselves or they will have access to relevant support, for example, from more
experienced colleagues, advisors in relevant markets, or from expert consultants. Editors
are also the linchpin between the materials writing and design processes, ensuring that the
material fits the page design. The best content development takes place as a partnership of
mutual respect and trust between author and editor in what is often a situation with a lot
of time pressure. Consequently, effective content editors need the ability to communicate
clearly, supportively, and diplomatically while at the same time recognising when authors
need to be challenged.
Project management
Project management is needed to ensure that projects are delivered on time, within budget,
and to an appropriate standard. Responsibilities include managing a project schedule, defin-
ing budgets for specific aspects of the book production process, and monitoring them.
Project management is important because the commercial success of materials ultimately
depends on it (Donovan 1998).
The three key imperatives of time, money, and quality often conflict with each other, and
sometimes compromises are necessary (Lock 2007). For example, if a course for schools
is ‘time critical,’ skills are needed such as knowing when and how to cut a schedule, how
to prioritise budget spending, and how to decide which aspects of quality are indispensable
and which are essential. The project manager is also often the best placed person to nego-
tiate necessary compromises, so another key aspect of successful project management is
what is often described as ‘team management.’ This involves supporting and guiding teams,
ensuring that teams collaborate successfully, and making it easier for teams to cope with the
demands of what is often highly pressurised work. Team management requires a significant
level of interpersonal skills on the part of the editor, and the ultimate success of a project
often hinges on how well it is done. More generally, editors involved in project management
need excellent time management and organisational skills, combined with the publishing
knowledge needed to adapt plans successfully as the need arises.
Copy editing
The copy editing stage includes not only work on the main text but also compilation and
cross-checking of artwork briefs, photo briefs, and audio- and video-scripts. Editors are also
normally present during audio- and video-recordings to ensure accuracy, consistency, and
level-appropriate pacing.
Copy editing ensures that materials are error-free, consistent, and clear, in order ‘to
remove any obstacles between the reader and what the author wants to convey and to find
458
and solve any problems’ (Butcher et al. 2006:1). At its most basic level, this means checking
text for mistakes in spelling, punctuation, and grammar (areas also checked at the very end
of the publishing process by proofreading). Copy editing also involves checking for consist-
ency of instructions, labelling, and terminology.
All the levels of copy editing described above are important. Material that contains mis-
takes will inevitably have its perceived authority weakened in the eyes of any end users who
notice those mistakes (Strutt 2019). This point is especially important for ELT, given that
so much of the face validity of teaching material depends on its being accurate. Even a few
mistakes slipping through might well lead to the suspicion that, ‘If they can get that wrong,
what else have they got wrong?’ Inconsistencies are normally less visible to readers, but
there is also sometimes a genuine risk of their causing confusion.
There are a number of reasons for having professional editors rather than expecting
authors to do this kind of checking themselves. These can be summarised as follows:
·· authors are primarily (and necessarily) focused on their own content, whereas spotting
errors and inconsistencies requires a completely different set of mental processes. Even
trained editors cannot do both copy and content editing at once – and are trained to
avoid doing both at once;
·· copy editing well requires training and practice, which authors generally do not have;
·· copy editing well requires time, which authors writing on more complex and time-
pressured projects generally do not have.
Good copy editors are able to focus on detail and care about achieving accuracy and consist-
ency whilst working to tight deadlines.
Why independent authors need editors

The ability for anyone with a computer to access sophisticated publishing programmes and
publish their own work is relatively recent, and it has given rise to another type of editorial
invisibility. A self-published author, whether publishing as a sole enterprise or developing
materials for the institution for which they work, may have no knowledge of the areas of
work outlined above and therefore never think that there is someone missing from their pro-
ject. Alternatively, they may assume that they can easily fulfil the roles of author and editor
simultaneously (Dodgson 2019).
Making the editor visible

While editors might need to, and many may wish to, remain largely behind the scenes, this
does not mean that they should be squeezed out of the discussion of the materials develop-
ment process altogether.
In this chapter, we address what we believe are some of the critical issues facing ELT
editors. We then go on to look at how these have changed over recent years and how these
trends are likely to affect the future role of the editor, and by extension of the author, whether
working for a publisher, self-publishing, or writing for a school or institution.
In the absence of a body of literature on the topic, we have based the content of this chap-
ter on our own extensive experience as editors, publishers, authors, and materials devel-
opers, as well as on a series of informal interviews with colleagues in the UK currently
459
working in all these fields. Our ten interviewees (see Appendix A) were experienced editors
working in a number of roles, both in-house and freelance and as heads of organisations
delivering publishing and editorial training. Some had experience as authors too. We con-
ducted informal online and face-to-face interviews using an interview protocol as the basis
for our conversations and took notes of each conversation (see Appendix B). In order for
responses to be as free as possible and also for ethical reasons, we agreed to maintain the
respondents’ anonymity.
Our main focus here is on materials written for traditional educational publishers, but we
also refer to the importance of editors and editing for self-published authors and materials
writers writing for their own school or institution.

The focus of our discussion of critical issues and topics will be based on our data and our
experience in the field. It will outline changes that have taken place in the ELT publishing
industry and their consequences for editors.
The ELT publishing environment has changed significantly over the past 30 years. In
the early part of this period, there were major changes to the way in which books were
produced. Computers arrived on editors’ desks, and desktop publishing (DTP) took over
from long-standing practices involving the checking of proof pages created by typesetters.
Other key developments during this period included demographic change in the major ELT
markets, changes in governmental policy concerning the purchasing of school materials,
and the requirement to invest in digital publishing while at the same time maintaining a base
in traditional print-based materials. These and other factors have led to publishers operat-
ing in a much more challenging environment than what we can now see, with the benefit
of hindsight, to have been the boom period of the 1980s and 1990s. The issues and topics
described below can all be seen to derive from these fundamental changes to the industry.
Restructuring of publishing companies

In reaction to the developments outlined above, the major ELT publishers have undergone
various rounds of strategic restructuring over the past 20 years, which have increasingly
involved the loss of significant numbers of in-house editors (as well as other employees).
Those with more seniority and experience have been particularly affected. Management
structures have also been ‘delayered,’ meaning that there are fewer editorial managers and
fewer levels of senior management than previously.
Greater pressures on time, project scope, and budget

Increased commercial pressures and market demand have created an imperative to publish
different levels and components of coursebook series simultaneously, rather than on a stag-
gered basis, as was often the case previously. This requirement for simultaneous publication
has existed for a number of years in certain markets, but it has recently become much more
pressing and more generally applied.
In parallel with this, there has been growing pressure to increase the scope of larger
projects. This takes the form of a growing demand for market-specific – and also language-
school specific – adaptations of coursebook series, as well as for different kinds of extra
460
components and materials (both printed and digital) to support them. All of this has resulted
in the need to publish a greater volume of materials in a shorter space of time.
Finally, the trend has been to set tighter budgets for publishing projects across the board.
This affects all areas of expenditure: in-house resourcing, freelance editorial, design, illus-
tration, photo research, production, and support materials.
Our interviews suggest that research into and piloting of new materials are still tak-
ing place, especially for flagship courses, but less time and funding can be allocated to
them than previously, and they are increasingly being limited to marketing departments.
Consequently, editors have fewer opportunities than previously for analysing competing
titles, visiting markets, talking to teachers, observing classes, and gaining a broad under-
standing of the different teaching contexts in which the materials they are working on will
be used.
Changes to the role of authors

There has been a highly significant change in the role and status of authors in mainstream
ELT publishing in recent years. This change has been triggered by a fundamental change in
the way in which authors are remunerated: a shift from royalties to fee payments.
Through the royalty-based payment system, a small number of authors enjoyed signifi-
cant financial success, while a number of others were able to maintain a steady income from
their writing. The prospect of achieving some degree of financial security was a powerful
motivating factor for authors, influencing their decision to commit to materials writing in
the first place and encouraging them to remain committed to working on complex projects
with demanding briefs and schedules over an extended period of time.
Now most authors are paid a one-off fee for their writing work. This change was primar-
ily driven by financial considerations, in that fees represent a one-off cost to the publisher,
whereas royalties were paid on an ongoing basis for the lifetime of a course. However, it
can also be seen as a result of the growing time pressures described above. For example, if
multiple levels of a coursebook series are to be published simultaneously, then it becomes
increasingly difficult for a single author (or pair of authors) to write all the student’s books
for a course within the time available. This kind of publishing instead requires larger teams
of authors working simultaneously, which makes the option of a correspondingly smaller
royalty share than was previously on offer a less attractive option for authors. The growth in
versioning of material both for new markets and for digital use has also made the payment
of royalties unattractive to publishers because of the complexity of payment arrangements
when material is re-purposed.
Changes to editorial training, roles, and responsibilities

There is a lack of commonly agreed forms of core training and accreditation for editing
in the forms that exist for other fields of publishing work, such as design, marketing, and
production.
Defined performance standards and formal training courses for proofreading and copy
editing already exist, the best-established ones being those delivered by the Publishing
Training Centre and the Society for Editors and Publishers. ELT editors have sometimes
been sent on such courses by their employers while freelance editors have enrolled in them
independently.
461
The increasing shift towards digital forms of editing, for example digital mark-up, the
increasing use of template-driven digital exercise builders, and the requirement to work
within design platforms such as InDesign all create a need for an immediate, targeted form
of training which has not existed previously.
The skills base of editors is also changing in other ways, and a number of trends were
identified by our interviewees. ELT teaching experience has become a less stringent require-
ment for new editors than it was in the past. Pressure of work, lack of in-house resources,
and tight schedules mean that new editors tend to start assigning basic editorial work to
freelancers without always receiving a solid grounding in the relevant skills themselves. The
amount of formal training in editorial skills (both those provided in-house and by external
training organisations) has reduced. Opportunities for informal ‘on-the-job’ training have
similarly diminished, as fewer experienced publishers remain in-house and as everyone is
under greater time pressure.
Our interviews suggest that specialist knowledge on the part of editors is still valued by
publishers and authors in some areas, including materials for young learners, ESP, interna-
tional examinations, and grammar. However, others report that the general trend is for ELT
editors to be required to work in many different areas of ELT depending on short-term project
needs rather than knowledge. Increasingly, editors are being required to edit ELT materials
in fields where they lack personal teaching or previous publishing experience and expertise.
Editors used to have the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that projects remain on time
and on budget. These responsibilities were always shared with other departments such as
production and design, but there has been an increasing shift towards giving other depart-
ments the ultimate responsibility for setting and controlling schedules. Accompanying this
trend has been a growing use of standardised project management tools and procedures
within publishing companies (which may not have been developed with ELT processes in
mind). Often these procedures and tools require editors to spend time on initial training in
using the various systems, and on the ongoing administration of those systems that previ-
ously would have been allocated to other editorial work.
Other changes identified by interviewees relate to the ways in which the role of the edi-
tor fits in with other roles in the publishing process. In the past, decisions related to content
were seen as being primarily the preserve of authors and editors, although other departments
– especially sales and marketing – had influence, as did other stakeholders such as educa-
tional advisors and local experts. The trend reported by our interviewees has been a more
complete shift in decision-making about content from writers and editors to local markets
and marketing departments.
Editors reported a change in the balance of what happens in- and out-of-house, with
experienced in-house editors often feeling disenfranchised by having to become processors
with no time to quality check material from freelancers, and inexperienced in-house editors
overwhelmed by having to deal with content without knowing what to do with it. More
frequent changes of job and more movement between in-house and out-of-house roles (both
voluntary and involuntary) are reported, leading to a lack of continuity during the develop-
ment of a project.
Changes in the delivery of materials

During the past 30 years, digital publishing has assumed a more central role, although it
has not had the effect of replacing or supplanting traditional print publishing in the way that
462
many experts predicted when it first started to appear. The pattern established in the early
days of digital publishing of giving away such components has become so ingrained that, in
most contexts, substantial payment for digital materials is not contemplated.
There has also been significant growth in ELT self-publishing. This has been driven by
two main factors. First, the technology for self-publishing has become more accessible and
cheaper in real terms, with social media offering increased opportunities for the sort of pro-
motion that previously could only be done by publishers’ marketing departments. Second,
financial constraints have led to mainstream publishers becoming increasingly conservative
in their commissioning policies. This has created gaps in the market for materials address-
ing specialist topic areas which self-published materials have become better placed to fill.

The interconnectedness of the trends described above becomes especially apparent when we
move on to consider their implications.
Restructuring of publishing companies

Our interviews suggest that company restructuring has increased the workload of all those
in-house editors who have remained in place. They have also had the effect of limiting the
promotion prospects of in-house editors, although some of our respondents believe that
promotion opportunities do still exist. Another significant consequence has been a grow-
ing shift towards the use of freelance editors and, more recently, of outsourcers – external
companies, many of which are offshore, contracted by a publisher to carry out the entire
publishing process for a specific project. Both freelancers and outsourcers are typically
undertaking a greater proportion of editorial work and assuming a broader range of edi-
torial responsibilities than was previously the case. Interviewees reported that there was
often a mismatch between the knowledge and expectations of outsourcers and publishing
companies. Outsourcers often tend to have unrealistic expectations of technical knowledge
on the part of freelance staff they employ. Meanwhile, publishing companies sometimes
experience problems related to a lack of knowledge of ELT content issues on the part of the
outsourcer.
Greater pressures on time, project scope, and budget

The requirements for simultaneous publishing of course levels and a greater number of
components have clear consequences, the most important of which has been an increase in
time pressure with ever-shorter publishing cycles and tighter schedules for individual com-
ponents becoming the norm (Amrani 2011). Four interviewees, working in freelance project
management or for outsourcing companies, reported a trend for the resourcing of projects,
including author and editor recruitment, to be handled by new departments in large publish-
ing companies which have no responsibility for project implementation. They expressed
concern for the lack of realism that such a process can engender, in that projects can start
with schedules which experienced people know are unworkable.
One consequence of tighter budgets, referred to by nine interviewees, has been the shift
from paying freelance editors on an hourly rate to offering them a fixed fee. This means that
freelance editors are sometimes having to ‘cut corners’ in cases where projects turn out to be
463
more complex than was originally envisaged. It can also mean that ‘cheaper’ editors with-
out appropriate experience can be preferred by companies for whom an immovable budget
takes precedence over payment for experience.
Changes to the author–editor relationship

From the author’s perspective, the transition from royalties to fee payment (see previous
section) embodies a fundamental shift in ELT publishing from primarily author-led and
editor-driven projects to more-or-less entirely publisher-led and market-driven projects
(Clandfield 2015; Robbins 2017).
Our interviewees reported that fee-based writing can lead to a fragmentation of respon-
sibility, with work previously the responsibility of authors, for example, the preparation of
detailed syllabuses, being expected of editors instead. This has implications for the editor’s
overall workload and therefore for the quality of their work.
The shift from the old model of a single author or pair of authors to multi-author teams
has other consequences. Larger teams of authors require more editorial management and
support than individual authors or pairs of authors. Team management has normally required
the skills of experienced editors, but there are now fewer of these in-house. Interviewees
told us that it is becoming increasingly common for inexperienced in-house team managers
to seek the support of their more experienced freelancers to manage projects. Meanwhile,
these freelancers’ fees do not reflect this increased level of responsibility.
Because editors are moving jobs more frequently, the stable and consistent relationships
which authors find crucial to their success become harder to create and sustain. This could
have a negative effect on the viability and ultimate success of ELT projects.
Since authors and editors increasingly no longer share a common core of ELT teaching
experience (particularly relating to a specific field of ELT), the risk of materials becoming
less effective and more distant from classroom realities increases. We must be concerned
about this if we accept that this shared expertise is a prerequisite for the creation of effective
materials. However, more than one interviewee reported that some publishers see relevant
specialist knowledge as an unnecessary luxury and, consequently, are assigning work on a
‘taxi-rank’ basis rather than to editors who have the required knowledge.
Authors of global materials, or of materials intended for specific markets or contexts for
which they lack direct personal experience, have often relied on editors to plug gaps in their
knowledge and ensure that their material is appropriate for a range of different teaching
contexts. Often this editorial advice is based on input from a range of markets, advisors,
and other kinds of research. Moreover, it is not simply a question of editors directly passing
on this advice. They need to be able filter it and present it to the authors in a form that will
be useful to them. Interviewees gave conflicting reports, both positive and negative, as to
whether or not such advice was still being transmitted.
Changes to editorial training, skills, and responsibilities

In some cases, specific editorial skills have become obsolete and have been replaced by new
ones. One obvious example is that new editors no longer need to learn and use proofread-
ing symbols, but they do need to be able to carry out digital mark-up. As well as having
to learn and keep up to date with the tools of digital publishing, editors also have to work
within increasingly complex in-house digital project management systems. All interviewees
464
indicated that access to training for systems is currently only patchily available and that
more provision is needed in the future. Freelancers reported an awareness of the need to
access training for themselves.
Turning to the issue of editorial expertise in specific areas of ELT, in general, the greater
requirement for both in-house and freelance editors to broaden the range of fields that they
work in seems to be a positive development, in that it will ultimately benefit editors by
widening their experience, providing them with a more varied range of work, and help-
ing to prevent them from being ‘typecast’ as a grammar guru, exams expert, and so on.
However, any move away from specialisation does pose some questions. Are there specific
fields within ELT that require genuine expertise on the part of content editors? If editors do
not have this expertise themselves, do they have the means to acquire it or access it?
Changes in the delivery of materials

Interviewees felt generally positive about the way in which both authors and editors had
risen to the challenge of digital publishing, becoming resilient and knowledgeable in the
face of rapid change. It was in the area of behind-the-scenes technology, for example in
content management systems and ever-developing software for correction, collation, and
implementation, that editors felt the chances for training and learning were not keeping pace
with development.

For reasons of space, this list of recommendations is necessarily selective. We focus here on
two themes that emerged as particularly significant during our interviews.
Editorial training
One obvious response to a greater movement between jobs, and into freelance work, and
to the wider range of responsibilities falling to editors, is to create a common set of defined
skills, standards, and qualifications for editors, especially those in the earlier stages of their
career. Our interviews have suggested that in-house editors are less and less involved in the
kinds of editorial work for which structured courses have been available for many years.
However, there is a strong argument – to which we subscribe – that editors still need to
know how to do proofreading and copy editing in order to be able to manage effectively the
work of others. More generally, the more people involved in a large project that have these
basic proofreading and copy-editing skills, the more chance there is that errors and problems
will be identified and corrected.
A more recent development is the availability of university degrees in publishing.
Several of our interviewees have commented positively on these, both from the perspective
of employer and student. However, we do not believe that this should be the sole route into
ELT editing, since the primary focus of these courses lies with other areas of publishing,
especially its commercial aspects. Conversely, other skills are highly relevant for ELT pub-
lishing, especially relevant teaching experience.
In most cases, broader in-house editorial training has often been primarily informal and
has been based principally on mentoring and observation. In practice, this has meant giv-
ing inexperienced editors opportunities to observe these editorial skills being applied on
465
particular projects and are then asking them to deploy those skills, first with supervision
and then independently. Typically, this has been done by giving trainee editors opportunities
to ‘follow through’ the different stages of a complete project. Trainee editors are also often
asked to take personal responsibility for a minor component of a larger course, for example
a workbook or teacher’s book. There is evidence from our interviews that both these prac-
tices are in decline owing to increasing pressure of work and a reduction in the number of
experienced editors working in-house. If this is the case, and we accept that such training is
necessary, it raises the question as to where will it come from.
One solution might be for external training organisations to offer more ELT-specific (or,
at least, educational publishing-specific) training, and our interviews have indicated that
plans are underway for this. Another solution would be for mutual training and mentoring
programmes and networks to be set up within freelancer organisations and, again, our inter-
views have revealed that consideration is currently being given to this.
Whether such initiatives could, on their own, successfully plug the gap created by a
decline in formal and informal training and mentoring within publishing companies is, in
our opinion, open to question. What both options will necessarily lack is the kind of sus-
tained training and support that remain in place throughout a complex project and that only
an experienced in-house editor can provide. Consequently, we believe that publishers need
to give increasing thought to how best to make use of the accumulated skills and knowledge
of their more experienced staff.
The points covered above all concern in-house editors, but a parallel change in freelanc-
ers’ attitudes to training is also under way. One trend mentioned by several interviewees
is for freelance editors to take on more responsibility for their own professional develop-
ment through training which, in most cases, they fund themselves. This requirement for
ongoing training is especially important for technical areas, such as learning new software
programmes. There is now evidence of traditional publishing companies realising that it
is beneficial for them to take responsibility for the training of freelancers and outsourcers
working on specific projects as well as the in-house staff.
Editorial involvement in research

As budgets tighten and schedules shorten, editorial involvement in research is often ‘squeezed’
in publishing companies (Bell and Gower 2011). In our view, this is usually a strategic error.
Editors, like the authors they support, need to have their finger on the pulse of the teachers
and students they are writing for and should not rely entirely on research provided by others.
Involvement in research in all its different forms (for example, monitoring new devel-
opments in education and pedagogy, piloting of new material, school visits and classroom
observation in target markets, attendance at teachers’ conferences) ensures that editors
maintain a clear and up-to-date view of the needs and priorities of the end users of the
materials they are working on (Harwood 2014). This is always important, but it becomes
especially necessary in cases where the author lacks direct experience of a specific market.
One interviewee reported as a positive development the setting-up of a dedicated in-house
language and pedagogy research team, but this was not a common trend.
Future directions
In the short to medium term, our research points towards the continued growth of the out-
sourcing sector in editorial, as ongoing publishing company reorganisations show no sign
466
of coming to an end. There is also a strong possibility of the further growth of smaller
‘niche’ ELT publishers, of more materials writing taking place within schools, universities,
and training companies, and of more self-publishing. Why might this happen? Three inter-
viewees mentioned a trend for the big ELT publishers to adopt an increasingly conserva-
tive commissioning strategy, focusing primarily on large, complex, best-selling coursebook
series and downgrading or even abandoning their more specialist, niche lists, such as ESP
and EAP. This trend creates opportunities for smaller-scale publishers and self-published
authors. It is reinforced by other developments referred to elsewhere in this chapter, for
example technological developments which make it far easier to create content more easily
and cheaply than was previously possible, and the declining requirement for named authors
who promote their own writing in the markets.
Meanwhile, the shift from royalties to fees will make it harder for authors to treat materi-
als writing as a career, and there might instead be a reversion to the older model of authors
writing part time or even to a diminution in the quality and range of the pool of active ELT
authors. This, in turn, might well have the effect of increasing the workload of editors.
However, there was some indication that a reassessment of the abolition of royalty-payable
authoring might be starting, as the financial implications of having to pay for work like
syllabus creation, research, and promotion, previously undertaken by authors, are realised.
The big publishers will probably continue to have a central role for the foreseeable future,
but they face growing challenges. As more and more experienced editors leave following
reorganisations, there is the risk of an editorial skills gap within large companies. In the
short term, this gap can be at least largely plugged by freelancers, but this will not always be
the case as the pool of experienced editors shrinks over time.
Innovation
Innovation in ELT publishing has always tended to be incremental rather than dramatic in
scope, but it is still necessary to prevent stagnation (Amrani 2011). Successful innovation in
content depends on changes to the existing model being pedagogically principled and work-
able, meeting specific teacher and learner needs, and appropriate for markets and teaching
contexts in which the material is to be used (see Tomlinson this volume). In practice, authors
need the support of editors to meet these criteria in a successful way.
Quality
Quality is more difficult to define than innovation, as perceptions of quality can often be
highly subjective. We believe that it is most useful to define quality in similar terms to those
typically used in commercial contexts, for example ‘the degree to which the product or ser-
vice meets the customer’s expectations and needs.’
When discussing quality, it is helpful to think of the process of writing and publishing
ELT materials in terms of the ‘iron triangle’ model of money, time, and scope operating in
relation to – and in tension with – each other (Lock 2007:21).
When there is a need for shorter schedules or more components, the effects of this can be
at least partly mitigated by greater investment (for example, by having more people work
on the project). Similarly, where projects are less time critical, having a longer schedule can
reduce costs. However, the current scenario in ELT publishing is one where there is pressure
on all three points of the triangle. Consequently, as schedules get shorter (‘time’), budgets
467
Money Scope
Quality
Time
Figure 31.1 The iron triangle (based on Lock 2007:21).
get tighter (‘money’), and more and more components are required (‘scope’), the cumula-
tive effect is for these three elements to ‘push down on’ or reduce the ability of writers and
editors to maintain quality.
If we accept the validity of this correlation, then this gives rise to a further question. If
commercial pressures do indeed bring about a diminution in quality, to what extent does this
matter? At what point will end users start noticing it? Does the success or failure of publish-
ers and of specific materials depend significantly on quality, or are other factors equally or
more important?
What these questions seem to point to is the need for better post-publication monitoring
and analysis of new materials. How are newly published materials being received and used?
How workable and attractive to end users are they proving to be? One difficulty in carrying
out any such assessment is the need to differentiate between flaws in the material itself and
problems created by a specific teaching content or by teachers and students using materi-
als in ways that were not originally intended or anticipated. (The latter stage – anticipating
potential problems – is an especially important part of the editor’s role and is typically one
of the things that is often done best by a ‘second pair of eyes’ and not necessarily by authors
themselves.) On a related point, we know that there is great scope for the same material to be
used in very different ways in different teaching contexts. The results of academic research
on this variability have the potential to be of great use to authors and editors.
Conclusion
When writing at a time of change, there is always a temptation to resort to simplistic nos-
talgia. However, the temptation to look back with rose-tinted glasses is one that we believe
must be firmly resisted.
In the face of commercial pressures, technological developments, and other factors, the
role of editor has to evolve. Not all change is bad: some is clearly necessary and beneficial.
However, our reflections and conversation on the role of the editor have left us with one
strong conviction still in place. Even if job titles, specific responsibilities, and general atti-
tudes towards the role of editor change over time, editors will nevertheless still have a key
part to play in the process. We base this assertion on the assumption that, for the foreseeable
future, materials will need to appear on time and within budget, be workable, and be broadly
468
appropriate for the context in which they are to be used. We also assume that these projects
will involve authors whose work will still need to be checked for accuracy, consistency, and
workability, and who will need to be managed, encouraged, supported, and – when appro-
priate – challenged. If these assumptions are correct, then the core editorial responsibilities
and the skills and personal qualities required to carry them out will still need to be assumed,
even if they are shared and carried out in different ways in the future.
Note
1 There is a distinction between the term ‘style sheet’ as it is used in desktop publishing (a file
or form that is used to define the layout style of a document) and its broader use (a list of deci-
sions about spellings, punctuation, rubric wording, especially focusing on points that risk being
inconsistent).
Further reading
Aitchison, J., 2013. How ELT publishing works, [Online]. ELT Teacher 2 Writer. Retrieved on 20 April
2020 from: www.eltteacher2writer.co.uk.
This is a very useful introductory guide to the ELT writing and publishing process. It was written
primarily for newcomers to the field and specifically for ELT teachers considering a move into
professional materials writing.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H. 2018. The Complete Guide to the Theory and Practice of Materials
Development for Language Learning. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
This book provides a comprehensive account of the theory and practice of materials development
for language learning. It assumes some basic knowledge of the field. The first six chapters are
especially relevant for the topics covered in our chapter.
Tomlinson, B., ed. 2011 Materials development in language teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
This book is a collection of 17 chapters on different aspects of ELT materials development written
by a number of expert authors. Chapters 7, 11, and 12 cover topics that are addressed in our chapter.
Related topics
Writing materials for Spanish teenagers, how do writers write?
References
Aitchison, J., 2013. How ELT publishing works [Online]. ELT Teacher 2 Writer. Retrieved on 20 April
2020 from: www.eltteacher2writer.co.uk.
Bell, J. and Gower., R. 2011. Writing course materials for the world: A great compromise. In
University Press.
Butcher, J., Drake, C. and Leach, M., 2006. Butcher’s Copy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook for
Editors, Copy-editors and Proofreaders. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clandfield, L., 2015. How can I get paid for writing materials? In No Nonsense Guide to Writing. ELT
Writers Connected. Retrieved on 20 April 2020 from: http://eltwriters.dudeney.com/thebook.html.
Dodgson, D. 2019. 6 Reasons for using coursebooks (from a teacher who doesn’t usually like them)
[Online]. Retrieved on 20 April 2020 from: https://www.modernenglishteacher.com/2019/6
-reasons-for-using-coursebooks-from-a-teacher-who-doesn-t-usually-like-them.
469
Donovan, P., 1998. Piloting: A publisher’s view. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials Development in
Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harwood, N., 2014. Content, Consumption, and Production: Three Levels of Textbook Research.
Lock, D., 2007. Project Management. 9th ed. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Limited.
Prowse, P., 2011. How writers write: Testimony from authors. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
Robbins, K., ed. 2017. The History of Oxford University Press, Volume IV 1970–2004. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Strutt, L., 2019. A day in the life of an ELT Editor. Humanising Language Teaching, [Online].
Retrieved on 17 November, 2021 from: https://www.hltmag.co.uk/apr19/day-in-the-life.
Development for Language Learning. Oxford: Wiley.
White, K. and Spiller, K., 2016. The role of the editor in ELT materials development. Modern English
Teacher, 25/3:15–17.
Appendix A
Table 31.1 Profile of participants
Interviewees Employment Number of years’ Present role Areas of expertise

status publishing experience
1 In-house 25 years in-house Publisher ESP, academic; print and

digital
2 Freelance 13 years in-house Consultant/project Editorial; project
editorial; 10 years manager/digital management; ELT and
freelance development UK education; print and
specialist digital
3 In-house 3 years freelance; 12 Publisher Editorial; primary and skills
years in-house
4 In-house 20+ years in-house Production director Publishing management;
global and local
publishing
5 Freelance 2 years in-house; 20+ Project management Print and digital; recruitment;
years freelance for outsourcing budgeting; resourcing;
companies training
6 Freelance 20+ years in-house; 6 Author; editor Print and digital; general
years freelance ELT editorial; project
management
7 Freelance 15 years in-house; 5 Series editor; author General ELT
years freelance
8 Freelance 5+ years in-house; Author Primary; secondary
20+ years
freelance
9 In-house 15 years in-house Publishing training; Editorial; sales; project
ELT management; consultancy
10 In-house More than 30 years Publishing training; all Academic publishing
in-house market sectors
470
Appendix B
This is an abridged version of the interview schedule that was used.
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
ABOUT YOUR WORK
1. Do you have any specific areas of expertise within ELT (e.g. primary, exams)?
2. Are you expected to work on other projects in areas you are less familiar with?
YOUR WORK RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Which of these areas are you currently involved in?
•• Copy editing
•• Content editing
•• Digital publishing (editing and/or commissioning)
•• Managing and supervising editors (in-house and freelance)
•• Training newer editors (formally or informally)
•• Project management (setting and monitoring schedules, production costs, etc.)
•• Identifying and commissioning authors
•• Working with and managing authors
•• Market research (piloting materials, school observations and interviews, etc.)
•• Meetings with internal departments (marketing, sales, design, production)
•• Preparing cost estimates for project approval
•• Identifying and commissioning new projects
•• List management/publishing strategy (e.g. analysis of competitors’ materials and
of specific markets; positioning materials within your own publisher’s ELT list)
2. Which of the above areas take up most of your time?
3. Are there any other areas you would like or need to be involved in?
4. In general, do you think the level of responsibility of an editor matches their level of
experience?
ABOUT TRAINING
1. How much training have you been involved in (as trainer or trainee) during the past
year? What form does this take (informal sessions and conversation and/or formal
courses)?
2. What proportion of training relates to a) internal systems and b) editorial and profes-
sional skills?
3. Do you think enough training is taking place in your company? Have you noticed any
skills gaps?
CHANGES TO YOUR JOB AND TO ELT EDITORIAL

1. How has your job changed since the start of your career?
2. How has the role of ELT editorial in general changed?
3. What are your personal predictions for the future role of editors in ELT publishing?
471
Part 9
Professional development and
materials writing

32
Making the materials writing leap
Scaffolding the journey from teacher to
teacher-writer
Jane Spiro
Introduction
My first home-made material was a page laid out with blank squares for learners to cre-
ate ideas for newspaper content. It was a rebellion against the fictional characters in the
coursebook, whose grey suburban routines failed spectacularly to engage my large class
of Spanish teenagers. I decided to transform the class into an editorial team to create an
English language newspaper they could produce and sell to the rest of the school. It was
a risky leap, when my supervisors expected grammar-focused lessons, but for this class, it
made the English language spring into life. They were surprised and delighted to find that
language learning was not about odd responses to even odder fictional situations, but about
lived and living experiences.
This first home-made resource was a response to published materials that could not meet
the precise needs of my learners, nor match my own belief in creative learning. Many teach-
ers may remember a similar moment when, driven by sensitivity to their specific learners
and by personal values about teaching, they became materials writers of their own classes
for the first time.
But this is just the first step in a torturous route towards professionalisation as a materials
writer. The published materials writer is required to ‘graduate’ from her own classroom and
write for an audience less known, more generic, and defined as much by the marketing team
as by the language teaching team. Whilst something is gained, in terms of impact on a wider
range of learners and teachers, much too might be compromised. Bell and Gower (2011),
Hadfield (2014), and Timmis (2014) are materials writers who describe this compromise,
navigating between the values of the principled teacher-turned-writer, and those of the pub-
lishing industry. The leap from effective classroom lesson to the published resource entails
compromise for everyone: the publisher who needs to balance ‘innovation and conserva-
tism’ (Bell and Gower 2011:140), the author who will ‘find themselves compromising and
having compromise forced upon them’ (ibid:141), and the teacher who knows a published
resource can never fully meet their needs. Given all these compromises, how can the mate-
rials writer retain that inspiration the teacher had, when developing lesson resources for a
group of known learners? For those first teaching-inspired materials to be usable by others,
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-41 475

Jane Spiro
their purpose must be clear, and their methods and instructions transparent, self-contained,
and not reliant on anything else assumed to exist in the classroom. That might mean strip-
ping out much that is unique to a specific setting, and making clear much which was obvious
when it sprang out of the last lesson.
This chapter attempts to explore what it is to make this journey from teacher to materials
writer, by developing an informed preparedness for its many challenges. The chapter tracks
the route from teacher to professional writer through real-world case studies, exploring the
challenges faced and compromises made by materials writers as they navigate different
roles and values as teacher, writer, and team player.
We start, in the section below, with a journey through decades of change in approach to
materials and materials writers.

Dependency on coursebooks
In the 1980s, for many teachers, the life of the classroom and the textbook were one and
the same. Tyson and Woodward (1989, cited in Harwood 2014:1) estimated that ‘textbooks
structure up to 90% of what teachers do in the classroom.’ Schools committed to a course-
book for five or more years, and in many cases were bound to it for years after it continued to
suit their needs. Not only was the syllabus taught and made visible through the coursebook;
in addition so was pedagogy and methodology. The teacher’s development was critically
shaped by what happened in the coursebook. Through it, the teacher met new pedagogic
fashions: communicative teaching, task-based learning, the lexical syllabus, text-driven
teaching. Materials writers were the unchallenged gods of the classroom, the ELT ‘rock
stars,’ and individual teachers had them to thank or bemoan for the life and success of their
language classes. This made for a troubled relationship between teachers and their materials
Sheldon, in 1988, describes published materials like a bad marriage, as something teach-
ers ‘both hate to love and love to hate’ (Sheldon 1988:237). Tomlinson goes so far as to
say ‘ELT materials currently make a significant contribution to the failure of many learners
of English’ (Tomlinson 2008:3). However, whilst teachers were often not able to change
their coursebook, at least resources such as Cunningsworth (1995) were emerging, which
gave teachers opportunities to choose and evaluate them. Cunningsworth (1995) introduced
frameworks for evaluation which were meaningful and practical for the teacher, and gave
them at least some measure of choice. Mukundan and Ahour’s retrospective of textbook
evaluation (2010) shows that, between 1970 and 2007, teachers were given increasingly
sophisticated strategies for critiquing their coursebooks and identifying matches and mis-
matches with the needs of their learners.
Social and political critiquing of materials

Not only teachers were critiquing the role of coursebooks in the real life of the classroom.
Unsettling questions began to be asked by sociologists of language and critical discourse
analysts such as Alptekin (2002) and Pennycook (2000). They raised new questions such as:
isn’t it unrealistic to expect learners all over the world to use the same materials and respond
to them in the same way? What assumptions are global publishers making about which lan-
guage and culture are to be taught? Pennycook (2006) suggested western-based publishers
were imposing their views of language learning on cultures with entirely different views
476
about learning, power, gender relationships, and education. Holliday (2005) identified the
very different ELT worlds, not only internationally, but intra-nationally within state and
private sectors, and asked challenging new questions such as: how can the teacher with
50 children in a state school, preparing for a grammar-translation school-leaving exam, be
expected to use the same materials with the same results as a teacher of 12 adults learning
general English at a British Council evening school in Madrid? The supremacy of the global
textbook, published in the western world for the rest of the world, was compared by Hadley
(2014) to mass production, and the rule of global ‘brands’ over the local and home-grown.
It was clear teachers were not content any longer with their classroom lives being shaped
by a materials writer in another continent. Kumaravadivelu (2006) suggested teachers were
in a ‘post-methods’ world, becoming more conscious of and critical of orthodoxies handed
down by others, choosing, selecting, and adapting to suit their own unique setting and learn-
ers. It was for both publishers and materials writers to respond to this challenge, to see how
they might ethically fit in and continue to make a contribution.
One practical response to this dilemma emerged in the 1990s, with an era of funded
professional development. Organisations such as the British Council, Official Development
Assistance (ODA), funding bodies such as Soros, and local ministries of education spon-
sored projects in which materials were jointly written by publishing teams alongside local
teachers. The process was developmental for all: teachers developed expertise along-
side experienced materials writers who in turn were learning about local learning needs.
Examples of in-house materials written jointly in this way include materials developed at
the Language Centre at Sultan Qaboos University, Oman (see Al-Busaidi and Tindle 2010),
the Romanian textbook project (see Popovici and Bolitho 2003), and the Namibian textbook
project (see Tomlinson 1995). These coursebooks included the home language of the learner
judiciously blended with the target language, and material that was culturally sensitive,
abiding by religious taboos and values, and including settings which were familiar. Where
there were characters in texts, they were represented in ways which were culturally familiar
to the learners (e.g., names). The pedagogy was adapted to work in the target classrooms –
such as large classes, fixed furniture, girls taught separately from boys, and other potential
factors in planning classroom activities. Whether learners really preferred this mirror of
themselves, or in fact saw language learning as an opportunity to join a larger world and
enter other shoes, remains a question to ask of each learning context.
The materials writer as co-creator

The projects described above were innovative, but they could still be critiqued on the same
grounds: that the global publisher and the experienced materials writer dominated deci-
sions and outcomes. A new movement suggested something more radical. Meddings and
Thornbury (2009) proposed an approach in which published materials were replaced by
materials brought or made by the students and teacher, or found in the classroom. In observ-
ing the teachers, they noticed they were more motivated, creative, and engaged using their
own materials (Meddings and Thornbury 2009:3). This led to an approach he called Dogme,
of which the first commandment was the following: ‘Teaching should be done using only
the resources that teachers and students bring to the classroom – i.e. themselves – and what-
ever happens to be in the classroom’ (Meddings and Thornbury 2009:3).
This was a call inviting teachers to take their place alongside materials writers as co-cre-
ators. The dogme call to teacher creativity generated a culture of sharing resources emerging
authentically from the classroom. Here teachers could take ownership of their materials,
477
Jane Spiro
and where these materials fell short of their needs, become writers themselves, with many
platforms where they might contribute – see, for example, the Teach Hub (n.d.).
The digital revolution makes such sharing all the more available. It also, potentially,
makes the materials writer role more precarious or even endangered (Masuhara 2011). The
21st-century generation of learners are often skilled ‘digital natives’ (Prensky 2010) familiar
with accessing information instantly through online search engines, translation and diction-
ary apps, digital translations, voice recognition tools, downloadable English song lyrics, or
lesson plans with answer keys. What can the materials writer contribute, which the learner
cannot find for themselves, or the teacher create for themselves?
There is a clear answer to this question for the 21st-century digitally aware materials
writer. Abundance of learning opportunities does not necessarily lead to effective learning,
and can even result in overload and passivity. The opportunities of the online world still
need to be paced, managed, and harnessed for learning (Salmon 2002). Day and Sharma
(2014) point out that printed materials are linear and offer clear directions to learners, whilst
digital learning is non-linear and the learner can wander in many directions. An experienced
materials writer might turn this freedom into a meaningful and structured resource for learn-
ing. Here, then, is another co-creation, between the teacher maximising learning opportu-
nities (as suggested by Allen 2015), the learner freely wandering in a cyberworld, and the
materials writer turning these opportunities into effective learning.
These historical landmarks suggest that materials writers need to be in a close relation-
ship with teachers, their users, and make bridges between classrooms, publishers, and the
world of readily available information.

Materials through many lenses
Mukundan and Ahour’s study of textbook evaluation (2010) shows that teachers have asked
similar questions about materials for four decades (1970–2007): do they meet the needs of
learners, are they engaging, are they relevant in terms of content, language, and skills devel-
opment, do they meet meaningful and appropriate learning goals, are they ‘teachable’? If
the teacher answers in the negative to any of these questions, she can make adaptations in
the privacy of her own classroom.
However, for the publisher, shortcomings are far less easily resolved. ‘If any shortcom-
ings are apparent, the materials are in circulation to an audience of literally hundreds of
thousands of students and teachers’ (Amrani 2011:271). If something goes wrong, there
might be ‘significant loss of revenue and potentially, jobs’ (ibid). Whilst the teacher is alone
in her classroom making changes and decisions, the publisher needs to gather a wide range
of opinions from multiple stakeholders including, potentially, the marketing team, Ministry
of Education, funding bodies, teachers and parents, series advisers, and design and pro-
duction teams (see Timmis’s list in 2014:242). So, in evaluating materials, the publisher’s
questions are likely to be very different to the ones asked above by the teacher. How innova-
tive can the materials dare to be? Where is the balance between what teachers – or users of
materials – already know and like, and what will be exciting and new? Where is that perfect
‘biting point’ between the two which will entice teachers to buy the new resources?
Clandfield (2013) describes the three kinds of editor a materials writer is likely to encoun-
ter once the materials are in progress. The first is the commissioning editor who communi-
cates the ‘big vision’ of the book, selecting the authors most likely to internalise, represent,
478
and deliver this. The content editor scrutinises the material, once it is commissioned, for
match with this vision. The copy editor helps with all the multiple adjustments to make this
vision accurate, presentable, consistent, and polished.
Unlike the teacher making decisions in the privacy of a classroom, the materials writer
is part of a team, and there are other leaders and decision-makers in this team who all need
to work together. The questions may work at the most detailed level. Are instruction verbs
used consistently so readers/users are not distracted by rubric? Is all the material for each
unit complete and self-contained – such as easy access to audio-tapes and answer keys. Is
it clear which activity is designed for class interaction and which for individual study? Do
your activities match the big vision or are they too ambitious? Too wide-ranging? Not really
targeting the level or age group of the audience? Not culturally appropriate? These questions
entail constant negotiation and self-reflection on the part of the materials writer. The materi-
als writer may well feel their creativity to be diminished and attenuated by decisions which
are not their own (Timmis 2014). It is a skilled juggling act, remembering what it is to be a
teacher, being compliant with the publisher’s concept, and creating new material, all at the
same time. Given these many challenges, how can the materials writer prepare for these and
what are the stepping stones on the materials writer’s journey?
The spark of an idea

We mentioned, in the opening section, that for the teacher the starting point is often a per-
ceived need, and a gap in resources that meet this need. For the publisher, however, Amrani
(2011) reminded us that the stakes are very much higher. To commit to an innovation is
to involve potentially thousands (even millions) of teachers in accepting something new.
Materials are powerful agents of change. Swales and Feak (2012) introduced to univer-
sity students a genre-based approach to teaching academic skills in Academic Writing for
Graduate Students (Swales and Feak 2012). Thornbury introduced an approach to teaching
language based on the word as the organising unit, rather than grammar in Natural Grammar
(2004). Clandfield and Benne (e.g. 2011) pioneered the coursebook series, Global, which
includes content on aspects of Global English.
Where do the incentives for these changes come from? The teacher is an important
starting point: making discoveries in their classroom or telling publishers what they
need. For example, Global (Clandfield and Benne 2011) was developed in response to
teacher comments, such as ‘if you are going to write another English coursebook for
the English language, please try to do something a bit different’ (2011:ii). Their unique
selling point is a focus on English as an international language with a regular feature
by David Crystal about the history, etymology, and story of language. New data from
the linguist/researcher is another starting point, for example, Collins COBUILD English
Course (Willis and Willis 1988) came from the huge corpus of everyday spoken English
developed by the publisher Collins, and the question: how can we use this corpus to
teach language? The big idea must do many things: it must work well beyond your own
classroom, it must be supported by research, it must fill a perceived gap in the market,
it must have the capacity to be generative – in other words, to produce not just one les-
son plan or resource book, but many and over many years (as has been the case with the
corpus, and with genre approaches). For it to go further than the classroom, most of all
a commissioning publisher must be convinced and take ownership of the big idea: and
it could be at this point it will start to be pulled back and forwards by the publisher’s
search for the ‘biting point’ between innovation and conservatism suggested above.
479
Jane Spiro
So can the individual make a difference? Teacher insights into what is needed may trigger
the next innovation, but they cannot do so alone. To make the leap from teacher to materi-
als writer involves not only the honing of skills in many of the ways suggested above (and
to be developed in the next sections), but also knowing what is cutting edge in research,
understanding what teachers and learners really need, and spotting a gap in what is already
available. All these take the teacher outside their own classroom so they can become a drop
in the ocean that joins with many others to direct the flow.
Inner and outer editors: owning materials

Wherever the initial spark of an idea comes from, the materials writer needs to internalise
its values and concepts and translate it into a reality that will work for teachers well beyond
their own specific context.
For the teacher, the testing of materials comes from the classroom. The reflective teacher
asks ‘How effective was my lesson? How did my learners respond?’ Most teachers will
be familiar with asking themselves these questions, and evaluating themselves on a daily
basis according to their own values and criteria. In contrast, the materials writer within a
team may receive feedback from multiple sources that do not have quite the same values.
The publisher may be thinking of impact and mass sales; the editor of maximum usability
by the users of the materials. There may also be feedback from school leaders who wish to
sell their courses, parents who want their children to fit in rather than stand out, Ministry
representatives who want the book to reflect national principles and values. What if all these
different ‘editors’ have principles in conflict with one another and with the materials writer?
How does the materials writer negotiate them all?
Tomlinson makes an interesting distinction between principles and procedures. He warns
that ‘closed principles can lead to inflexible procedures which cater for a minority of learn-
ers only’ (2011:148). For example, if you believe that listening is the first learnt skill, does
that mean beginners should not have sight at all of written texts? If a reviewer critiques
materials written on this basis, could it be that they are uncovering a certain inflexibility
which indeed needs to be addressed? Here is Tomlinson’s answer, with my own highlighted
phrases: ‘I think it lies in the overt establishment of agreed and justifiable principles
followed by procedural compromises which cater for differing preferences’ (Tomlinson
2011:148). What this means in practice is that it is possible for the materials writer to adapt
activities and tasks so they work for the audience and publisher, without compromising their
core underlying beliefs. Yet this may not always be quite so easy. Timmis (2014) offers the
example of a text-driven project for Asia. On several occasions, the texts he chose were
challenged by the publisher: they were not sufficiently Asian, or they touched on topics
culturally inappropriate for Asian learners. Publisher and materials writer were in agreement
that the coursebook should be text-driven: but what texts would be acceptable? Timmis
navigated his way through these differences to arrive at texts acceptable both to himself and
to the publisher.
These outer editors check for a match between publisher specifications and the materials
themselves, but it is only the inner editor that can determine whether the compromises feel
worthwhile, or if they are a step too far. Four successful coursebook authors were asked by
Prowse (2011) about the factors which made a writing project worthwhile. They mentioned
feeling a project was ‘fun’ and allowed them to be creative, to follow their inspiration,
and to be absorbed (Prowse 2011:136). When these ingredients were in place, they felt the
480
compromises to be worthwhile, and conversely, abandoned projects which lacked these

ingredients. Mares (2003) describes his reasons for writing a coursebook as ‘the desire to
produce more effective materials that truly engage learners, are pedagogically sound and
have a general appeal beyond the tastes of one individual in his/her own teaching environ-
ment’ (Mares 2003:131). This perfectly illustrates the imperative for the materials writer to
write in a way that is congruent with beliefs about teaching, and core values which make a
task worthwhile. Only the inner editor can determine if this is so.

It is timely to return to our starting point: that materials writing begins in the classroom,
to meet the needs of learners. This section recommends a sequence of thinking points for
the materials writer: from first response to learner needs through to gathering feedback
on finished resources. The recommendations are applied to real-world stories of situations
encountered by the author of this chapter while running workshops for novice and develop-
ing materials writers, in Romania, India, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Mexico, Poland, Hungary, and
Oxford (1993–2020), and also while working as a materials writer myself between 2001 and
2020 with publishers in Germany, Italy, Scotland, and England.
Recommendation 1: define your audience

A first recommendation is to identify as precisely as possible the potential gap you might
wish to fill as a materials writer. This will entail a leap from ‘my classroom’ to the generic
characteristics of the learners in that classroom: their age, level, context, learning needs. It
will entail the key question: how far are these specific needs likely to be replicated in other
classrooms and contexts too? For example, Damion, working in an international school,
noticed there were insufficient materials to help teachers plan their induction week, and the
activities set up did not specifically help the children who had a second language or second
culture. However, as he began to develop his materials to meet this gap he realised that:
·· many schools did not have a dedicated induction week, so materials exclusively
designed for such a week would have limited value;
·· teachers were more concerned when a child arrived after the start of term, missing the
usual acclimatising stages.
This meant the resources would have much wider value if they were designed for use
throughout the school year. It also meant the materials were unlikely to be for class use,
mediated by a teacher, but rather for one-to-one use between learner and teaching assistant,
and perhaps also parents and peers. This example demonstrates the caution not to generalise
too easily from your own classroom to others, but to research the idea, the audience, and the
market before making the materials writing leap.
Recommendation 2: understand the distinctiveness of your materials

A next step is for the future materials writer to be fully appraised of what materials are
already available that claim to fill, or come near to, the identified gap. A market research
trawl of current publications is a critical part of the journey towards materials writing
481
Jane Spiro
mastery, and having found these potential rivals or companions, analysing them for
insights into their success or otherwise. The potential author aiming for a principled
understanding of how his/her materials are to be unique might review publisher and mate-
rials websites, publisher catalogues, bookshop and library resources, and collections and
resources in their own school, to be sure they are not reinventing a wheel successfully
invented already.
Annette’s scenario is an example of an idea which needed to change radically as an
example of publisher caution and duplication of her idea elsewhere.
Annette used TED talks freely available online as a starting point for learners to debate
real-world issues. She wanted to develop her lesson notes to scaffold discussion of issues
such as climate change, colonisation, drought; refugee crises; and unemployment and casu-
alised labour.
The editor, however, required the teacher to tone down the focus on issues in dealing
with the talks, and instead use them in a conventional way to practice features of spoken
language. In addition, the publisher pointed out that the TED talks were already available
online, with transcripts and teaching materials, and that Annette’s materials needed to do
something new. Annette changed her concept instead to structure the way a learner might
develop the TED topic by using and navigating search engines in a principled way. The
focus shifted from the topics themselves to search skills for researching a topic, and in so
doing became something new.
Recommendation 3: research the terrain

To make an original contribution, materials writers need to know where their ideas sit
amongst current and cutting-edge debates. For example, if you are using natural everyday
language for listening practice, it is helpful to be aware of the spoken corpus as a teaching
resource, or the analysis of spoken grammar as a distinctive form of the language (for exam-
ple, Cullen and Kuo 2007). If you are writing materials for the induction of international stu-
dents, it is helpful to consider links between language, identity, and wellbeing (for example,
Lantolf 2011). A popular myth is that the materials writer is atheoretical (Samuda 2005); yet
every decision about materials can be explained, supported, or contribute to questions and
theories about learning and teaching.
Flora’s scenario below is an example of a teacher who had a good idea that was radically
changed as a result of research.
Flora noticed that all the spoken language examples in her coursebook were artificial.
She decided to create her own listening materials by recording fluent English speakers (not
necessarily L1 English speakers) freely discussing topics allocated by her. She wanted to
develop this idea into a bank of authentic listening material to be published with supporting
guidelines for teachers.
Flora’s big idea was to use these recordings in order to highlight multiple aspects of
natural spoken language. She also felt that fluent, natural language input is more engaging
than language controlled for level and learning goals.
·· through the lens of the teacher, this listening material was not sufficiently fine-tuned to
the level of their learners, making the material unteachable;
·· through the lens of the publisher, the dialogues would not work on their own without
full support for the teacher as to how they might be used. As free-standing materials
482
for learners, ‘distracting’ elements such as fillers and social language would need to be
stripped out so listeners could concentrate on meaning.
This feedback told Flora that the notion of authenticity needed a great deal more work. The
big idea might be all very well, but if teachers were not able to work with it, or learners learn
from it, it would need rethinking. She changed her activities to focus on the very features
which the publishers thought would be distracting, such as fillers, phatic/social language,
and turn-taking, so that the difficulties of authentic language were acknowledged and turned
into teaching aims.
Recommendation 4: learn from others

The materials writer needs, not only to work within a community, but actively to learn from
it. There are several ways of gathering information which may help to refine and shape
materials for their use in the real world.
·· piloting or talking through with an experienced materials writer;

·· piloting or talking through with peers;
·· focus groups: talking to teachers before using your materials about their needs;
·· focus groups: talking to teachers after using your materials to share their responses;
·· one-to-one, semi-structured interviews with teachers who used your materials;
·· observing your materials being used in class;
·· questionnaires to all the learners who used your materials in class.
Ranjit’s situation, below, shows how materials changed radically as a result of communica-
tion with teachers and publishers.
Ranjit changed his coursebook materials so the fictional names of characters were
replaced by names culturally familiar to the learners. The settings were changed from cities
(like Washington DC) which were completely alien to the learners, to the rural area of Sri
Lanka where the learners live. He wanted to publish his materials so they could be used by
other teachers like himself in rural Sri Lanka.
These changes reflected Ranjit’s principles as a teacher: that learning should be personal-
ised and meaningful, and that learning situations should reflect the learners themselves and
their own lives. However, these changes meant something different through the eyes of the
students and his potential publisher.
·· through the lens of the publisher, these local changes made it less publishable because
the local references might alienate those not teaching in those regions;
·· the learners were disappointed that the materials were not ‘transporting’ them to dif-
ferent places. They reported that they liked ‘meeting’ characters from other parts of
the world. Ranjit realised the language lesson for them was a place of imagined travel.
Ranjit’s solution was to seek sponsorship for materials development training and to cascade
these skills among the rural communities so teachers could adapt materials for themselves,
customising them for their own classrooms.
Writers may see themselves as individuals driven by inspiration, but professional materi-
als writers need to remember they are always part of a community, and can only function
483
Jane Spiro
successfully inside it. For example, they may need to write something that has been defined
and specified by someone else, rather than being guided by their own ideas. They may be
accustomed to responding to their own classes as a teacher, but as a materials writer they
must come to collective decisions and compromises.
Recommendation 5: be prepared for revision and compromise

Most of all, developing as a materials writer is a continuing process; the trialling leads to
reflection, and the reflection to revision. Entering the professional materials writing world
will add many further layers. The compromises become greater, not less, as one moves from
teacher to professional. The practical writing apprenticeship is only one part of a bigger
process which involves coming to know which compromises are worth making and why,
and with what costs and gains. Below are some examples of teacher-writers interacting with
publishing advice.
Compromise 1: task goals

The teacher had set up a diary free writing activity in which learners could write freely about
a dream or memory without worrying about language choice. Only once the free writing had
been done did the teacher then focus on verb choices to describe past and future activities, so
learners could then edit and expand their diaries. The teacher submitted this idea to an edited
collection of lessons by a publishing company to reflect local teacher ideas.
The content editor, however, insisted that the learning goals be made clear from the start,
so learners are guided to write their memories using the simple past, ‘I remember’ or ‘used
to’ sentence frames. She says the free writing would be too difficult in the classrooms of
many teachers who may be using this book.
Compromise 2: language
The teacher has written a story in which she uses the metaphor, ‘The rain sounded like
horses galloping on the roof.’
The editor insists that figurative language is too advanced for this level of learner and
changes it to: ‘It was raining hard.’ Every similar example of colourful or figurative lan-
guage is changed in the same way.
Compromise 3: culture
The teacher has prepared a short dialogue in which young people talk about their ambitions
for the future. In one dialogue a young woman is talking about her wish to be a doctor.
The editor changes the dialogue so the young woman’s goal is to be a nurse, rather than
a doctor. She explains this role would be more culturally appropriate for girls amongst the
coursebook users.
Compromise 4: critical thinking

The materials writer has written a short story in which the main character thinks he can fly.
The story ends with the reader not quite knowing if the character is dreaming, hallucinating,
484
or misremembering a childhood incident. The aim is to encourage discussion about the dif-
ferent options.
The editor says the ambiguity will be confusing for readers. They may think they have
misunderstood the text, and will expect a clear ending. She insists the writer chooses one of
the endings and makes this absolutely clear.
These examples show how differently materials might be seen through the lens of the materi-
als writer, and through the lens of the publisher. We see the juggling acts between the big idea
and practice, and between practice and the wider picture. Teachers know what works well for
their own learners, but publishers want something both new and exciting, and also widely
usable by discerning teachers well beyond a specific place or time. This is the dynamic nature
of materials writing, and why the task of the materials writer is a continuous balancing act.
Future directions
We opened this chapter by suggesting that achieving mastery as a materials writer entails devel-
oping an informed preparedness for its many challenges. What does this mean for the future?
It means that materials writers need to be clear about their distinctive contribution. They
are practitioners interrogating research for practical relevance, and writers interrogating the
classroom for relatability to a wider context. They are also learning technologists, critical
of the difference between a genuine learning opportunity and simply access to information.
The best materials writer of the future may look very like the best materials writer of
the past: informed, critical, bridging the classroom and the publishing industry, harnessing
changes in the world of information to best purpose for learning, and open to feedback from
all the different stakeholders who publish, use, learn, and teach from materials, holding val-
ues not as unexamined rituals, but as informed principles. In an ideal future, every training
course for ELT teachers will give them an opportunity to develop this expertise, to take the
leap from their own classrooms towards materials writing mastery.
Conclusion
Amongst the key overarching messages of this chapter is that the materials writer needs to
be up to date with developments around them: developments in research, learning, teaching,
resources, and technologies. The materials writer role is not a fixed one and entails constant
sensitivity to this changing world. Yet amidst this constant change, there are indeed some
fixed points. One of these is the importance of ‘informed preparedness’ as the best ally for
the teacher making a journey towards materials writing. Another is the writer’s sense of
worth: the materials writer’s belief that the compromises are worthwhile, and that some-
thing as a result has changed for the better.
Further reading
Bell, J. and Gower, R., 2011. Writing course materials for the world: a great compromise. In Tomlinson,
B., ed. Materials Development in Language Teaching, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bell and Gower accept the position that materials writing is always a compromise and will never
quite meet the needs of the target audience. They ask the question: what can be done then by the
materials writer, so at least they are meeting the needs of some of the learners some of the time.
485
Jane Spiro
Forman, S., 2004. Textbook Publishing: An Ecological View. The Journal of American History, 91/4.
This article maps the large number of stakeholders involved in the writing of textbooks. It discusses
not only the large number of people involved in the conceiving and writing of a coursebook, but the
impact it then has widely both on what learners know and how they learn about it.
Hadfield. J., 2014. Chaosmos: Spontaneity and Order in Materials Design Process. In Harwood, N.,
ed. English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hadfield tracks her own process as she distils the findings of research into practical and publishable
teacher development activities. Her starting point is to make research meaningful to teachers and
demonstrate its impact on their practice. She illustrates the adaptations, compromises, and revisions
made en route towards a finished product. In so doing, she compares her own experience with other
materials writers, to find that what they have in common is an interweaving of spontaneous and
disorderly thinking with planning and precision of purpose.
Writing in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
In contrast to Hadfield’s article, Bolitho and Tomlinson describe materials writing as an aspect
of preparing a lesson for a specific group of learners. In contrast to the articles above, it assumes the
materials writing process is a direct relationship between teacher and learner, rather than between
materials writer and notional audience/publisher. The article, therefore, puts the teacher back into the
materials writing process and suggests a cycle which is akin to action research.
Related topics
How do writers write?, materials as a tool for professional development: a perspective from
publishing, training materials writers.
References
Al-Busaidi, S. and Tindle, R., 2010. Evaluating the impact of in-house materials on language learning.
Allen, C., 2015. Marriages of convenience? Teachers and coursebooks in the digital age. ELT Journal,
69/3:249–263.
Alptekin, C. 2002. Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal,
56/1:57–64.
University Press.
Clandfield, L., 2013. How to Plan a Book. Retrieved on 2 July, 2020 from: https://eltteacher2writer
.co.uk/.
Clandfield, L. and Benne, R.R., 2011. Global English Intermediate. Oxford: Macmillan.
Cullen, R. and Kuo L-C., 2007. Spoken grammar and ELT course materials: A missing link. TESOL
Quarterly, 41/2:361–386.
Cunningsworth, A. 1995. Choosing Your Coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.
Day, J. and Sharma, P., 2014. How to Write for Digital Media. Retrieved on 2 July 2020 from: https://
eltteacher2writer.co.uk/.
Hadfield, J., 2014. Chaosmos: Spontaneity and order in materials design process. In Harwood, N., ed.
English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
486
Hadley, G., 2014. Global textbooks in local contexts: A study in effectiveness. In Harwood, N., ed.
English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Holliday, A., 2005. The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jolly, D. and Bolitho, R., 2011. A framework for materials writing. In Tomlinson, B. ed., Materials
Writing in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 2006. TESOL Methods, changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly,
40/1:59–81.
Lantolf, J.P., 2011. The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition: Sociocultural theory,
second language acquisition, and artificial L2 development. In Atkinson, D., ed. Alternative
Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Teaching. London and New York: Continuum.
Meddings, L. and Thornbury, S., 2009. Teaching Unplugged. Surrey: Delta Publishing.
Mukundan, J. and Ahour, T., 2010. A review of textbook evaluation checklists across four decades
(1970–2007). In Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H., eds. Research in Materials Development for
Language Learning: Evidence for Best Practice. London: Continuum.
Pennycook, A., 2000. The social politics and the cultural politics of the language classroom. In
Hall, J.K. and Egginton, W.A., eds. The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching. Clevedon:
Popovici, R. and Bolitho, R., 2003. Personal and professional development through writing: The
Romanian Textbook Project. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing Materials for Language Learning.
London: Continuum.
Prensky, M., 2010. Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Prowse, P., 2011. How writers write: Testimony from authors. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
Salmon, G., 2002. E-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sheldon, L.E., 1988. Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42/4:237–246.
Swales, J. and Feak, C., 2012 Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Teach Hub., n.d. Retrieved on 29 November 2018 from: http://www.teachhub.com/learning-their-way
-dogme-elt-one-teachers-viewpoint.
Thornbury, S., 2004. Natural Grammar: The Key Words in English and How They Work. Oxford:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Tomlinson, B., 1995. Work in progress: Textbook projects. Folio, 2/2:26–31.
Tomlinson, B., 2008. English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review. London: Continuum.
Tyson, H. and Woodward, T., 1989. Why students aren’t learning very much from textbooks.
Educational Leadership, 47:14–17.
Willis, J. and Willis, D., 1988. Collins Cobuild English Course. London: Harper Collins Publishers.
487
33
Coursebook materials as a tool for
professional development
A perspective from publishing
Stacey H. Hughes
Introduction
The issue raised in this chapter is whether coursebooks and related course materials can be
used by practising teachers for professional development (PD). The idea that teachers might
use published course materials to further their PD is one not addressed to any great extent
in the literature. In order to explore this issue, a small-scale survey was designed for teach-
ers and trainers to find out if the use of learning materials is considered to offer potential
PD opportunities. This chapter first investigates the what, how, and why of professional
development and then relates this to the teacher’s use of coursebooks. The chapter then goes
on to report the results of the small-scale survey, taking into account the implications and
challenges for materials development. The case is made for holding publishers responsible
for providing support and training in the use of course materials, and recommendations are
made regarding how they can facilitate teacher development more effectively in the future.
Professional development
There is a need to understand what PD is and how teachers pursue it. Mann (2005) distin-
guishes between pre-service training and development, with the former aimed at guidance
about teaching strategies, different language learning methods, course design, and the use
of coursebook materials, and the latter more related to self-directed personal and profes-
sional growth. Teacher development may also include improving language proficiency
(Zein 2017), strategies, and use of methods. Medgyes’ (2015) repertory of the conference
presentations delivered at IATEFL Hungary over a period of 25 years revealed that the
majority were practice-oriented (see also Medgyes 2017). This suggests that many teachers
in the Hungarian branch of this organisation actively seek out and share experience related
to teaching strategies and methods.
We might also distinguish between teacher development, which is ‘more inclusive
of personal and moral dimensions’ (Mann 2005:104); professional development, which
is ‘career-orientated and has a narrower, more instrumental and utilitarian remit’ (Mann
2005:104); and continuing professional development, similar to PD but a more commonly
488 DOI: 10.4324/b22783-42

Coursebook materials as a tool for PD
used term where the development is institutionally instigated in a top-down direction (Mann
2005). For the purpose of this chapter, PD will encompass the idea of a teacher’s person-
ally instigated desire to develop their professionalism both for personal growth and job
advancement, even if the institution provides opportunities for (or requires) teachers to
attend in-service training.
A teacher’s pursuit of PD can take many forms. Roberts (1998, cited in Mann 2005:106)
says that development may arise from practical experience, reflection, and collaboration,
and McGrath points out that reflective practice is ‘a defining characteristic of teacher pro-
fessionalism’ (2013:77). Teachers may also undertake more formal action research aimed at
deliberately changing, modifying, and improving practices (Burns 2005:60). These types of
PD are borne out of the necessity to cope with challenges faced in the classroom and grow
in response to them, so naturally course materials will play a part in that development.
Zein (2017) reports on a study aiming to find out the professional development needs
of primary EFL teachers in Indonesia. Teachers in the study reported not feeling confident
using or adapting coursebooks. Major publishers are often at the forefront in offering profes-
sional development orientation training or induction training to support the institution and
teachers as they make the transition from their former coursebook to the newly purchased
one. Induction training provides practical guidance related to strategies for using and adapt-
ing course material, techniques, and ideas for activities as well as introducing teachers to
how the coursebook handles so-called ‘new’ concepts (for example, critical thinking, 21st-
century/ global skills, personalisation, bottom-up processing). In addition, it may serve as a
reminder of ‘old’ concepts (scaffolding, the importance of schema, top-down processing).
For some teachers, the sessions are a rare opportunity to interact with others in English and
improve their language skills. More importantly for development, it gives teachers the space
and time to discuss classroom practice, consider how the materials can be used and adapted
for their particular classes, and collaborate in planning lessons around course materials. This
type of induction training falls under many institutions’ criteria for PD.

Having defined PD and its relationship to induction training, this section aims to outline
the array of published course materials available to teachers, and notes the pros and cons of
such a range of options. It then takes a look at some of the historical and modern functions
of a teacher’s book (TB), and finally gives an overview of teachers’ use of CBs.
Course materials
The course materials provision that accompanies modern global coursebooks (CBs) includes
a number of print and digital components. For the purposes of this chapter, course materials
will refer to all materials for students and teachers associated with a particular CB. Course
materials may include any or all of the following elements:
Components for students

(to help students learn)
·· student’s book (print or e-book)

·· workbook (online or e-book)
489
Stacey H. Hughes
·· audio CD/online audio

·· video
·· online materials for extra practice or self-access. May be linked or separate from
CB content
·· student’s e-book
·· student’s apps linked to the course (e.g. pronunciation, vocabulary, dictionary apps)
·· graded readers correlated to CB unit topics
Components for teachers

(to help teach, assess, manage the class)
·· teacher’s book (including answer keys, tapescripts/video scripts, suggestions for

adapting lessons to different levels/classes, etc.)
·· teacher’s resources online
·· support videos for guidance or rationale
·· essays on ‘new’ or trending ELT concepts such as mixed-ability teaching, 21st-
century skills, or inquiry-based learning
·· tests (e.g. unit, end of term, end of year)
·· classroom presentation software which includes extra materials or links to addi-
tional resources
·· photocopiable materials
·· online ability to keep track of student task completion or progress (e.g. a learning
management system as part of on online course component)
Such a range of materials brings new challenges for teachers in terms of materials selection
and teacher roles. This abundance can be demanding (McGrath 2007). Perhaps this justifies
the need for the publisher-led orientation courses upon an institution’s adoption of a new
course package.
Teacher’s books
A review of the selection of course materials dating back to the early 1900s at the ELT
Archive at the University of Warwick illustrates that from the early days of English lan-
guage teaching, course authors attempted to guide teachers towards the best way to approach
teaching, and explained underlying beliefs about the nature of learning. These early guides
feel more like teacher training rather than development, and were written with the assump-
tion that the teacher had no teaching experience. (See Eckersley, n.d, and Grieve 1954.)
Modern guides are less prescriptive. The introduction to Life Advanced Teacher’s Book
(Sayer 2019) dedicates a significant portion of its 20-page introduction to explaining the
rationale behind the CB structure and the ethos of National Geographic itself. With this type
of introduction to the course, there is an element of teacher education and also of teacher
buy-in, but without the implication that the teacher has not undergone training.
Cunningsworth and Kusel (1991:129) outline five functions of TBs, or teachers’ guides:
(1) providing information about the purpose of the teaching material and rationale;
(2) encouraging the development of teaching skills;
(3) creating an awareness of the course material structure and how lessons or units contrib-
ute to the overall course;
490
(4) offering support in how to use the material; and

(5) giving necessary linguistic and cultural information so that the material can be used
effectively.
In the 27 years since their publication, the basic functions of a TB appear to have remained
largely the same.
Teachers’ use of coursebooks

Most discussions in the literature are centred on CBs rather than wider course materials.
Sheldon (1988:237) calls CBs the ‘visible heart of any ELT programme.’ CBs may be sup-
plemented with other materials, or provide a framework that can be ‘extended and aug-
mented with digital resources’ (Allen 2015:260). Harmer (1998:112) argues that the creative
use of CBs is ‘one of the premier teaching skills,’ and Richards (2001:251, cited in McGrath
2013:ix) recognises that in the case of novice teachers, course materials ‘may also serve as
a form of teacher training.’ Shawer (2010) makes a distinction between the ways in which
teachers use a CB: ‘curriculum makers’ (teachers who do not use the CB or rarely use
it), ‘curriculum developers’ (those who adapt the CB freely), and ‘curriculum transmitters’
(those who adhere strictly to the CB). We will see these categories emerge from the survey
results later in this chapter.
Teacher attitudes towards CBs vary. Allen’s (2015) study found that Swedish EFL teach-
ers’ attitudes towards using CBs largely depended on their level of experience. He found
that in-service teachers used more negative metaphors to describe them: ‘the coursebook
was seen as a “straightjacket”, that is, as restrictive, controlling, and creativity-blunting’
(2015:255), whilst pre-service teachers were more positive about their use as a ‘facilitator,
guide and plan’ (2015:255).
CBs are widely used both in EFL and ESL contexts, for primary, secondary, and tertiary
education, and by teachers who have varying degrees of ease about their English language
level. Teachers may have little control over which CBs they use (McDonough, Shaw, and
Masuhara 2013) as they are often chosen by the institution, the school system, or the gov-
ernment. Often CBs – especially those that have been developed for a global market – are
not entirely appropriate for the needs of the local context (Sheldon 1988). Though Meddings
and Thornbury (2009:86) are critical of CBs for their inability to be applicable to the ‘huge
range of variables in any one learning situation,’ they recognise that teachers often have lit-
tle choice and advise selective exploitation of activities as relevant to the learners.
There is value to a teacher in using a CB. They provide a ‘coherent syllabus and structure
to the teaching and learning process, where teachers might lack adequate training, the time/
resources to develop materials of their own, or in some cases, an acceptable level of profi-
ciency in the language they are teaching’ (Allen 2015:250).

In order to address the question of whether coursebooks and related course materials are
valuable to teachers for professional development, two surveys were constructed aimed at
teachers and teacher trainers to address the following research question: do teachers and
teacher trainers believe that course materials offer opportunities for professional develop-
ment? (See Appendix 1 for a copy of the surveys.)
491
Stacey H. Hughes
The following section reports on the methodology and findings from the surveys. The
surveys were developed based on my experience as a teacher, teacher trainer, and teacher
developer. It used a convenience sampling approach: the survey was shared via social
media channels, and trainers also invited teachers from their training workshops to respond.
Respondents included teacher and trainer contacts from LinkedIn and a closed Facebook
teacher/teacher trainer group connected to my role as an Oxford Teacher’s Academy trainer.
In this way, teachers from a range of countries, sectors (primary, secondary, tertiary), and
levels of experience were reached.
A total of 60 respondents completed the surveys: 37 teachers, 16 teachers who were also
teacher trainers (and completed both surveys), and 7 teacher trainers who were not teachers
or not currently teaching. Though data about teacher nationality was not collected, teachers
in the Facebook group were from countries within Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and South
America, and trainers reported having trained in 20 different countries in those regions. The
surveys were anonymous, though an option to leave contact details for the purpose of shar-
ing survey results was provided.
Questions were primarily multiple choice with many questions offering a multiple
response option and an ‘other’ category where respondents could add additional informa-
tion. Two open comment questions were also included.
There were separate sets of questions for teachers and trainers, and teacher trainers also
had the option to complete the teacher part of the survey. Questions for teachers were aimed
at finding out about their experience using published course materials and whether or not
they felt these materials can or do contribute to their PD.
Of the 53 teachers who responded to the teacher’s survey, 36 had more than 10 years’
teaching experience, 9 had between 6 and 10 years’ experience, 5 had between 3 and 5, and
3 were novice teachers with up to 2 years’ experience. Forty-six of the teachers reported
having used more than five CBs throughout their career, with seven having used two to five,
and one having used only one.
Questions for trainers focused on issues around CB induction training and teacher reac-
tions to the use of a new coursebook with a question about how useful they feel induction
training is to a teacher’s PD, and an invitation to comment on how they have seen teachers
use CBs and course materials to further their PD.
The next section will present the findings of the two surveys. It is hoped that this small
study will prompt further research into how teachers use published course materials, and
whether more can be done to ensure that these resources offer opportunities for PD.
Findings: teacher trainers

Trainers reported that the aim of CB induction was primarily to introduce teachers to
the structure and/or components of the CB and to support them in adopting the meth-
odology inherent in the CB. About half found that teachers were resistant to new CBs
or CB components because they had ambiguous feelings about the methodology or
approach of the book itself or were at odds with the school management over the choice
of book or timing of the training. These two sources of resistance called for greater
scrutiny. Resistance to the CB appeared to stem from its newness, both in terms of how
it fit into the new curriculum and in terms of requiring a shift in the way teachers were
accustomed to or comfortable with teaching. In my own training experience, induc-
tion training has tended to occur too close to the beginning of term, and with too little
492
planning time, resulting in resistance even with teachers who are in favour of the new
CB. There can also be the strong feeling amongst some trainers that teachers are at odds
with management over how they are teaching. This could be because the institution has
decided that teachers using a ‘traditional’ approach should adopt a more communicative
approach (as has been the case in my experience). It is sometimes the case, however,
that the methodology the institution wants to implement is at odds with the way students
are assessed. One trainer who trains in Saudi Arabia and Peru summed up these two
issues nicely:
Teachers get comfortable with a book and often resent that they have to change. It will
mean they have to plan all their lessons again; get to know a book; build confidence to
be able to teach with something totally new. There is also a feeling that the decision has
been thrust upon them without sufficient consultation, yet they are the ones who have
to deal with the fallout.
Hutchinson and Torres (1994:322) highlight the CB’s potential to promote change that leads
to a teacher’s growth and development. They argue that CBs are crucial because they pro-
vide a secure base or framework from which to initiate change which they see as ‘disruptive’
and ‘threatening.’ In the survey, trainers were asked two questions related to how course
components could promote a teacher’s PD (see Appendix 1). Responses indicated that CBs
and course components may be valuable sources of professional development in three areas:
experimentation and change, widening of knowledge and understanding, and reminders and
refreshers. Each area is dealt with in turn below.
1. Experimentation and change

The most common theme emerging from the data is how teachers might use CBs and
course materials to further their development through experimentation and change. It
was felt that teachers could not only try out new activities, approaches, or procedures
and adapt materials, but that they could also make more fundamental changes, such as
a change in attitude/view or a move from a grammar-based approach to a skills-based
approach or vice-versa. One trainer emphasised the importance of adopting a critical
approach when evaluating course materials which suggests how a teacher might engage
in PD through a critical reflection on materials, especially in the case of making the
content work in their context.
2. Widening of knowledge/understanding
A second area was that of widening of knowledge or understanding through the use
of course materials. Themes included using materials as a means of learning a new
skill or new technique, broadening their understanding of English language teaching
in general, learning to use course materials, keeping up-to-date (especially in terms of
English for specific purposes), and learning through the methodological tips provided
by the materials. One trainer also pointed out how useful course materials could be in
providing ideas on how to create their own materials.
3. Reminders/refreshers
Though only one comment related to the importance of course materials in refresh-
ing ‘the procedures and principles already known by teachers,’ it is worth mentioning.
This was common in my own training experience where teachers were reminded of a
technique or activity they had forgotten they used to do or something that they used to
know.
493
Stacey H. Hughes
Findings: teachers
Forty-three out of fifty-three teachers (included in the survey) reported currently using a
coursebook from a major publisher. The survey respondents identified multiple challenges
when starting to use a new CB, including navigating the new material and the deeper chal-
lenge of how to organise lessons or use the book within the context of the school. It is clear
from these results that each time a CB is chosen, teachers have to make a range of proce-
dural and methodological changes and decisions and are not simply following the book
exercise-by-exercise. While getting over the challenges of a new coursebook is not PD in
itself, it could lead to PD if teachers also engage in reflective practice and action research.
The survey sought to explore both teachers’ use of CBs and their attitude towards them.
Survey question 8 illustrates that both less experienced and more experienced teachers
make active choices around CB use, with 40 saying that they skip activities they know
will not work, 28 claiming that they arrange the contents to suit their needs, and 39 report-
ing using the CB as a springboard. Twenty-four respondents reported trying activities in
the CB that they had not tried before. For 16 respondents, the CB ‘tells [them] what to
teach and how.’ These responses provide evidence of how CBs can inform classroom
practice. Teachers’ attitudes towards CBs were largely positive. They saw CBs as time-
saving, helpful in structuring a lesson effectively, sources of new ideas, and instructive
in identifying language and skills that are important to teach at each level. Twenty-four
teachers reported that they had learned what works and what does not work in the class-
room through using CBs.
That many teachers adapt a coursebook is widely acknowledged. When adapting, teach-
ers make choices about what, when, why, and how to adapt in order to suit the needs of
their students and context (McGrath 2013). It could be argued that CB adaptation is a form
of teacher development as it requires an active choice in applying materials to a specific
context (see Masuhara this volume). Reflection on what worked, what did not work, and
why would add to the development. This is the sort of reflective practice that could lead to
long-term change (Roberts 1998, cited in Mann 2005:108).
The usefulness of course materials is recognised by others in the literature. Clandfield
(2010), McGrath (2013), and Hutchinson and Torres (1994) all list benefits of CBs which
are echoed in the teacher survey. Like the responses from the trainer survey, the teacher
responses suggest that teachers are using CBs for experimentation and change, widening of
knowledge and understanding, and as reminders or refreshers.
In spite of these benefits, 15 teachers felt that coursebooks could also be constraining
or irrelevant for their students. This is understandable given the restrictions imposed in
some schools in relation to CB use and the fact that the CB may not be right for the par-
ticular context. As one teacher pointed out, ’Sometimes [they are] inappropriate to culture.’
Another issue raised relates to the student’s attitude towards the CB: ‘The fact that there
is a CB and that students have paid for it constrains the [teacher]/you cannot play around
with the content as much as you would like to (students expect to see they are getting ‘value
for money’)’. Six respondents reported little choice in what to use from the CB or how
to use it (they are told ‘what to use and when’ with ‘set pacing’; ‘hardly any choice’) and
two reported not adapting the CB, though whether that was due to choice or imposition
of the school is unknown. Although it would seem that the restriction on creative use of a
coursebook could hinder a teacher’s professional development, the teachers who reported
restricted use or that they felt CBs to be constraining or irrelevant also reported that they had
gained something from using them beyond just the saving of time.
494
Coursebook components
In an effort to look beyond just the teachers’ use of a coursebook, data was collected on how
teachers use coursebook components. The first question in this section aimed to find out
what components are available (Appendix 1: Section 4). It shows a wide range of materials
is available for teachers, though it is not assumed that all coursebooks are accompanied by
all the components listed in the survey.
The second question asked teachers to evaluate coursebook components. In terms of use-
fulness, coursebook components rated higher than coursebooks in almost all areas except in
structuring a lesson (see Figure 33.1).
The data on how teachers are using CB and CB components shows interesting results.
Firstly, it shows that published materials are instructive to teachers in terms of lesson struc-
ture, techniques, ideas, and language and skill level appropriacy. On the surface, this might
indicate that to some degree, teachers are simply putting their faith in the materials; how-
ever, the data also shows that teachers are taking a critical approach – they are trying out
new activities and learning what works or what does not work within their own context.
Two other interesting findings show that teachers appear to gain more ideas and insights
from CB components than from CB themselves and that CB components more than the CB
itself help teachers generate their own materials. This could be due to components such as
photocopiables which are by nature activities (for example for further skills or language
practice) as opposed to a series of activities found in CBs, though more research into this
topic is needed for clarification.
One teacher reported that s/he ‘ignored all the extra components.’ This same teacher had
a negative view of CBs and TBs, stating that the biggest challenge in adopting a new CB
was ‘wading through the mountain of irrelevant stuff in there’ and that using a TB is a ‘waste
of time.’ It’s worth looking at this teacher’s responses more closely. This is a teacher with
six to ten years’ experience who is an hourly paid employee, and unhappy with her condi-
tions of work. The teacher’s comments in the survey reflect this feeling, ‘I don’t get paid for
training, so I don’t do it.’ ‘We have to develop our own materials unpaid.’
Figure 33.1 Comparison of teachers’ evaluation of CBs and CB components.
495
Stacey H. Hughes
Interestingly, the same teacher says that s/he does not use a CB and has never had induc-
tion training, but agrees that CBs save time, though they are constraining and not relevant
for his/her students. This teacher does not feel that coursebooks can be used to further a
teacher’s PD. While it is impossible to know this teacher’s specific situation, it does bring
up some important points about the role that schools can play in fostering an atmosphere
conducive to professional development.
Professional development and training

One of the aims of the survey was to find out the respondents’ commitment to PD. As out-
lined above, only one of the teachers reported not being involved in any kind of PD, with
most respondents listing a number of different methods of furthering their PD. In addition to
the options listed in the survey, teachers reported other ways they furthered their PD, includ-
ing reading and applying what they learned from reading, discussion, taking part in online
courses such as massive open online courses (MOOCs), giving talks, and writing articles.
These results indicate a high level of commitment to PD amongst the teachers surveyed.
In terms of CB orientation training, over half said they had never had orientation training.
In a few cases, publishers were said to have provided either orientation training or method-
ology training when a new CB has been adopted. Of those who had experienced training,
the response was positive in that it made them reflect, introduced concepts or methods, and
influenced their practice. It would appear that explicit instruction or time dedicated to get-
ting to know a new set of course materials can lead to change and development.
Coursebooks as a tool for professional development

Like the trainers in the trainer’s survey, teachers were asked to comment on the question: do
you think coursebooks can be useful for a teacher’s professional development? The ques-
tion received 47 responses. Most teachers responded positively to the idea that CBs can be
useful for PD. Although the reasons given varied greatly, four important conclusions can be
drawn from the comments.
Firstly, CBs are seen by teachers as useful in providing a framework, best practice, struc-
ture, and opportunity to explore, especially for two of the novice teachers from the study –
those with zero to two years’ experience. One teacher observed that ‘they are usually backed
by years of good theoretical and practical research’ – an indication that there is an amount
of trust placed in the CB.
Secondly, CBs are largely seen to be useful for a teacher’s PD, even for more experi-
enced teachers, especially where teachers reflect on their use or are working in isolation.
One teacher commented that:
A well-written, innovative and relevant course book provides support for the teacher
and a solid structure upon which he or she can develop and consolidate their individual
teaching methods and adapt them to the context they are teaching in.
In contrast, teachers also felt caution was needed, saying that not all CBs are equally well-
written or up-to-date, that teachers should adopt a critical approach to their use, and that
they should not replace other means of PD (for example, courses and further training). The
issue of judicious use is commented on by several teachers, warning that busy teachers can
496
fall into the trap of overdependence on CB or of not adapting/supplementing them accord-

ing to their specific context.
A final theme evident in the comments was the perception that CBs offer something
‘new’ – a new approach, or new development in the field, which pushes teachers to extend
beyond what they know/what is familiar. This idea of exposure to something new was also
evident in teacher responses to the question about their use of CB components for PD.
Teacher’s books
Fifty teachers said they use TBs. The main reason given for use of a TB was to access the
answer key and/or tapescript. At a procedural level, teachers use them to get suggestions
on how to do the activities, or, as one teacher put it, for ‘Inspiration when I’m drawing a
blank!’ Teachers also found them useful for giving background information: on grammar,
vocabulary, or possible problems, on cultural issues, on reading or listening scripts. About a
third reported wanting to know more about the methodology behind the activities, and one
teacher commented that they wanted an understanding of what the materials writer intended
for the material’s use. This suggests that some teachers are interested in ‘getting under the
bonnet,’ so to speak, of what a coursebook is about fundamentally.
A teacher’s use of a TB will depend on what can be found in it. Some interesting results
emerged from the distinction between what the current teacher’s book provided and what
it should provide. As expected, most TBs provide basic procedural notes, suggestions for
extension activities, and extra materials to liven up classes, and teachers felt they should
keep doing that (see Appendix 1: Sections 5 and 7).
Other less common elements in TBs that teachers said should be included were:
·· more (background) information about reading or listening texts

·· rationale for the methodology
·· suggestions for how to deal with special issues, e.g. mixed abilities, special educational
needs, etc.
·· guidance on terms and concepts (e.g. guided discovery approach, bottom-up process-
ing, 21st-century skills, etc.)
·· how to use the CB in a one-to-one lesson or with small classes
·· extra materials for slower/faster working students
·· project work ideas
These results suggest that teachers may benefit from TBs with a focus on supporting them
at different stages of their career – from the beginning stages where classroom management
issues may dominate (e.g. with dealing with special issues or students working at different
paces), to later stages at which teachers are looking to broaden their knowledge or practice
(e.g. rationale for the methodology, guidance on terms and concepts, project work ideas).
A further question about TBs asked How useful have teacher’s books been to you in
your professional development? (see Appendix 1: Section 5). Whilst just over half of the
teachers found that they have been useful for PD, we can see from the data that they have
primarily been useful at the level of experimentation and change, that is, in providing more
materials or suggestions for using or extending materials. While these are important aspects,
given the much richer range of ways that CBs were said to aid teachers in their PD, the
result of the survey question ‘How useful have teachers’ books been to you in your profes-
sional development?’ (where 1 indicated not useful at all and 5 indicated extremely useful)
497
Stacey H. Hughes
Figure 33.2 How useful have TBs been to you in your professional development?
strongly suggests that teachers desire TBs to do more (Figure 33.2). Gearing (1999) pro-
vides an ‘Evaluation Checklist for Teachers’ Guides’ designed for less-experienced teachers
of English (1998). Questions in the ‘Teacher Development’ section highlight the importance
of the TB in supporting the teacher’s understanding about how language is learned, different
methods, why activities are used, teacher roles, and teaching skills. Though the checklist is
over two decades old, the questions are still relevant, and it would be interesting to use it to
evaluate a number of TBs in a wider study.

At the beginning of this chapter, PD was defined as what a teacher does to develop person-
ally and professionally. The results of the survey indicate that teachers use published CBs
and course materials in a number of ways to develop as teachers.
A summary of key findings of the survey:
·· trainers found that some teachers can be initially resistant to changing their CB, possi-
bly due to lack of consultation, lack of time to learn how to use it/adapt it, the ‘newness’
of it, or questions around how it fits into the syllabus/curriculum. They also find that
teachers can be positive about a new CB, though reactions vary widely;
·· trainers felt that CBs and course materials can be used by teachers to further their PD if
they are open to change, and if they use a critical approach in what they choose to use.
They also suggest that once teachers try new materials, and if they see the benefit (for
example, with digital components), this can lead to change and development;
·· teachers face a series of challenges when starting to use new course materials. They
make active choices in what to use, adapt, or skip;
·· CBs are seen as important for a number of reasons: saving time, helping to structure
lessons, providing ideas, indicating level-appropriate language and skills, supporting
materials creation, and giving students a new cultural perspective. However, they can
also be constraining and irrelevant;
498
·· course materials are important for similar reasons, and received a more positive
response;
·· teachers in the survey reported reflection on teaching practice and reflection on how
CBs and course materials worked in class as the top ways they further their PD;
·· teachers generally use a TB, primarily for the answer key and/or tapescript, but they
also felt that TBs should do more. They felt that TBs had been useful to their PD pos-
sibly because of the suggestions and additional information they contain;
·· teachers felt that CBs are valuable for their PD with an important caveat: teachers need
to be judicious when choosing content and should be prepared to adapt and supplement
as needed. Teachers also felt that novice teachers can develop by using a CB.
With these results in mind, the onus falls on publishers to ensure that the course materials
they sell to teachers are research-based, piloted, flexible, and appropriate for the culture(s)
they sell into. Nick Sheard, publisher at Oxford University Press (OUP) (personal commu-
nication, 15 January 2019), gives examples of ways in which publishers already work to cre-
ate course materials that are right for teachers, schools, and ministries. These include ‘expert
panels’ who advise on theory, methodology, and best practice; course-specific pilot studies
within schools; attitudinal and longitudinal studies in collaboration with schools worldwide;
and online teacher communities such as the Oxford English Learning Exchange which aims
to be a ‘global community of educators exchanging views on English Language Teaching.’
OUP is not the only publisher engaged in these kinds of collaborative work with teachers,
schools, and institutions. However, publishers will never be able to predict what makes the
perfect mix of content and syllabus in every classroom or with every teacher and student
across the world. Therefore, teachers will need to continue making choices about what to
use and adapting how they use it according to their specific set of students and their specific
context.
Future directions
In the survey, reflection on teaching practice and reflection on how the CB or course mate-
rials worked in class were the top two ways teachers said they furthered their PD (see
Appendix 1: Section 2). This puts additional responsibility on the publishers to relay infor-
mation to teachers about the underlying principles or rationale behind the approach of the
course. Some efforts have been made in this regard. Business Result (Hughes 2009) includes
15 self-study videos which show how to teach different aspects of business English (for
example, presentation skills, business writing), the Skillful series (for example, Hughes
2013) includes pedagogical essays which aim to explain key methodological principles. The
Navigate series has short video introductions to each unit that explain the aim of the unit
and the rationale behind the pedagogy (Walter 2015). As a way forward, publishers could
include more of this kind of support to explain principles, give classroom tips, and highlight
ELT research in more modern video, audio, or interactive formats.
Building on the five functions of teachers’ guides that Cunningsworth and Kusel (1991)
outline, and the suggestions from teachers in the survey, TBs could give different levels of
support and guidance to teachers at different points in their career. For novice teachers, good
course materials should support them through the difficulties of the early years in teaching
by providing guidance or suggestions on how to deal with classroom issues such as disci-
pline and motivation. For these teachers, support might focus more on:
499
Stacey H. Hughes
·· identification of the aims of the exercises and what students should be able to do by the
end of the lesson
·· advice on language points (grammar, vocabulary), especially potential problems (e.g.
confusing would like with like)
·· example concept check questions
·· ways to set up and do different activities in the CB
·· suggestions for how to deal with special issues (mixed abilities, motivation, etc.)
·· suggestions for board work
·· reminders of best practice (e.g. clear instructions or avoidance of interfering while
monitoring, etc.)
·· information about local contexts
·· lesson plans with ideas for how to adapt them
·· information about local culture/cultural expectations and advice on how to balance the
approach of the course in light of culture (especially for teachers who are not native to
the culture in which they teach)
·· grammar PowerPoints to support the teaching of grammar points
To quote a trainer from the survey, ‘I think good Teacher’s books are essential, especially
with novice teachers.’
Support for more experienced teachers would recognise that they are comfortable with
the basics and are ready to experiment more or refine their teaching techniques. Though
some experienced teachers may still regard the above ideas as useful, suggestions for this
group include:
·· rationale for the methodology

·· guidance on newer or trending terms and concepts
·· background information on language and text content
·· ways to extend materials
·· project work ideas
·· guidance on how to use and integrate new tools (e.g. online components or apps)
·· ideas for extra materials
·· ideas for how to adapt and personalise the materials
·· alternative ideas or ways of achieving the same lesson aims
Whilst it is not suggested that publishers should take on the role of teacher training, nor that
they should produce separate TBs for novice or experienced teachers, it is suggested that
publishers should consider ways to support teachers at different stages in their development.
Extensive and intensive research for teacher’s guides along the lines of current CB research
could give insight into the kinds of information and support teachers would find beneficial
in a teacher’s guide.
Conclusion
The results of the coursebook and materials survey, whose findings were presented in this
chapter, suggest that coursebooks and course materials used by teachers can play a role in
furthering their professional development. Teacher and trainer respondent comments suggest
that teachers are aware of the limitations of CBs and the need to approach their use critically.
500
However, the survey focussed on a broad view of CBs and course materials and its scope
was limited. More research is needed to find out the roles played by local cultural context,
type of school or institution, accessibility to in-house professional development, comfort
level with the language, accessibility to other teaching materials, and the types of course
materials used. An interesting topic of future research might also differentiate between
teachers at different stages of their career.
Further reading
McGrath, I., 2013. Teaching materials and the roles of EFL/ESL teachers: practice and theory.
London: Bloomsbury.
This book provides a useful overview of some of the issues outlined in this chapter regarding how
teachers use coursebooks and their potential value. It lists a number of advantages of CBs, summarises
the pro- and anti-CB viewpoints, and considers how teachers evaluate, adapt, and supplement CBs.
Farrell, T. S. C., ed. 2008. Novice language teachers: insights and perspectives for the first year.
London: Equinox.
This is a useful collection of studies of novice teachers in various countries, and highlights the
challenges novice teachers face in their first few years of teaching.
Hutchinson, T. and Torres, E. 1994. The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48/4:315–328.
Hutchinson and Torres build a good argument for the importance of a coursebook to teachers,
especially during periods of change. Some of their criticisms of coursebooks could, however, be
considered outdated given how coursebooks have evolved in recent years.
Related topics
Making the materials writing leap: scaffolding the journey from teacher to teacher-writer,
training materials writers.
References
Allen, C., 2015. Marriages of convenience: Teachers and coursebooks in the digital age. English
Burns, A., 2005. Action research: An evolving paradigm? Language Teaching, 38/2:57–74.
Clandfield, L., 2010. C is for Coursebook. An A-Z of ELT: Scott Thornbury’s Blog [Online]. Retrieved
on 14 February 2019 from: https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/c-is-for-coursebook
-by-lindsay-clandfield
Cunningsworth, A. and Kusel, P., 1991. Evaluating teachers’ guides. English Language Teaching
Journal, 45/2:128–139.
Eckersley, C.E., n.d. English by Radio Course for Hungarians Teacher’s Guide. London: British
Broadcasting Corporation.
Gearing, K., 1999. Helping less-experienced teachers of English to evaluate teachers’ guides. English
Grieve, D.W., 1954. English Course for Secondary Schools Book 2: Teaching English in Africa Series.
London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.
Harmer, J., 1998. How to Teach English. Harlow: Longman.
Hughes, J., 2009. Business Result Teacher Training Videos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hughes, S., 2013. Skillful Reading & Writing Teacher’s Book 3. Oxford: Macmillan.
Hutchinson, T. and Torres, E., 1994. The textbook as agent of change. English Language Teaching
Journal, 48/4:315–328.
Mann, S., 2005. The language teacher’s development. Language Teaching, 38/3:103–118.
501
Stacey H. Hughes
McDonough, J., Shaw, C. and Masuhara H., 2013. Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide.
3rd ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
McGrath, I., 2007. Textbooks, technology and teachers. In Alexander, O., ed. Proceedings of the 2005
Joint BALEAP/SATEFL Conference: New Approaches to Materials Development for Language
Learning. Oxford: Peter Lang AG.
London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Meddings, L. and Thornbury, S., 2009. Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language Teaching.
Surry: Delta.
Medgyes, P., ed. 2015. IATEFL-Hungary Repertory: 1991–2015 [Online]. Retrieved on 11 August
2020 from: http://www.iatefl.hu/?q=node/123 .
Medgyes, P., 2017. Point and counterpoint: The (ir)relevance of academic research for the language
teacher. English Language Teaching Journal, 71/4:491–498.
Richards, J., 2001. The role of instructional materials. Curriculum Development in Language
Teaching, 8:251–85.
Roberts, J., 1998. Language Teacher Education. London: Arnold.
Sayer, M., 2019. Life Advanced Teacher’s Book. 2nd ed. Andover: National Geographic Learning.
Shawer, S.F., 2010 Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-
developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education,
26/2:173–184.
Sheldon, L.E., 1988. Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. English Language Teaching Journal,
42/4:237–246.
Walter, C., 2015. Navigate B1 lesson overview videos [Online]. Retrieved on 17 May 2020 from:
https://elt.oup.com/teachers/navigate/videos?cc=gb&selLanguage=en&mode=hub.
Zein, M.S., 2017. Professional development needs of primary EFL teachers: Perspectives of teachers
and teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 43/2:293–313.
Appendix 1
Section 1 of 8
Coursebook and course materials survey
This questionnaire is designed for two groups: (1) teachers and (2) teacher trainers who
provide induction training for coursebooks.
Are you completing this survey as a teacher or trainer?
·· Teacher [continue to next section]

·· Trainer [go to section 8 – Trainer’s survey]
·· Both [continue to next section]
Section 2 of 8
Teaching context
This part of the survey is aimed at finding out about teachers’ experience of using published
teaching materials.
How many years have you been teaching?
·· 0–2
·· 3–5
502
·· 6–10
·· More than 10
How many different coursebooks have you used?
·· 1
·· 2–5
·· More than 5
Which is true currently:
·· I use a coursebook from a local publisher.

·· I use a coursebook published especially for my school (e.g. by the school or ministry).
·· I use a coursebook from a major publisher (Oxford/Cambridge/National Geographic
Learning/Cengage/Macmillan/Pearson/etc.)
·· I don’t currently use a coursebook.
·· Other.
Which methods do you use to further your professional development?
·· Attend conferences
·· Attend training events (e.g. organised by publishers, the Ministry, local teacher’s
groups, etc.)
·· Attend workshops organised by the school or institution
·· Attend webinars
·· Conduct my own action research
·· Reflect on my teaching practice
·· Reflect on how the coursebook or coursebook materials worked in my class
·· Other
Section 3 of 8:
Coursebooks
In answering questions for this section, please think about a published coursebook you cur-
rently use or have used in the past. Please feel free to add comments.
Who chooses the coursebook you use or have used?
·· I choose my own coursebook

·· The head of the department or school
·· The Ministry
·· Other
What is the reason for the choice of coursebook you use?
·· It fits with educational goals from the Ministry or school.

·· It has a range of materials and support for teachers.
·· It is based on the latest methodology.
503
Stacey H. Hughes
·· The additional or complementary components (e.g. online activities, workbooks, sup-

port materials, apps, etc.) are attractive.
·· It is interesting and/or useful for my students and helps them reach their learning goals.
·· I don’t know/It wasn’t my decision.
·· Other
How is training provided when a new coursebook is adopted? (choose all that apply)
·· Publisher provides induction training.

·· Publisher provides methodology training.
·· Ministry provides training for department heads, then they cascade the training to the
teachers.
·· Someone at the school/institution provides training for teachers.
·· No training is provided.
·· Other.
Please choose one or more of the following:
·· I haven’t had training.

·· The training helped me see how to use the coursebook and materials.
·· The training made me think about some of my teaching practices.
·· The training introduced me to new concepts or methods.
·· I tried out new ideas as a result of my coursebook training.
·· The training didn’t have any effect on my teaching or use of the coursebook.
·· Other.
Which of the following is true? Because of my coursebook or coursebook training I have

(choose all that apply):
·· Tried a new approach (e.g. using a guided discovery approach to teach grammar, using
peer feedback, etc.)
·· Tried a new activity or series of activities
·· Learned a new skill (e.g. use of technology, use of drama, etc.)
·· Learned a new technique (e.g. elicitation, concept check questioning, etc.)
·· Moved from one approach to another (e.g. from a grammar-based approach to a skills-
based one or vice versa)
·· Changed my attitude about teaching and/or learning
·· Done things differently to before
What are your biggest challenges when adopting a new coursebook? (choose all that apply):
·· Different methodology of the new coursebook

·· Knowing how to organise lessons with the new coursebook
·· Knowing how to organise specific activities
·· Knowing how long each section should take
·· Getting to know where things are in the coursebook
·· Knowing what other materials there are for each lesson (e.g. photocopiable materials,
practice tests, workbook materials, video or audio, online components, etc.)
504
·· Knowing how to fit various components into the syllabus or lessons

·· Knowing how to use the coursebook in my particular situation
·· Knowing how the coursebook fits into the syllabus or curriculum from the school or
Ministry
·· Fitting the methodology of the coursebook to the exams (e.g. when the coursebook
focuses on one thing, but the exams focus on other things)
·· Other
How does the coursebook affect your teaching? (choose all that apply):
·· I use the coursebook as it is without adapting it.

·· I mostly use the coursebook as it is, but arrange the content to suit my needs.
·· I use the coursebook as a springboard, but bring in my own materials, too.
·· I skip over activities that won’t work in my classroom.
·· I try activities in the coursebook that I haven’t used before.
·· The school tells me what to use from the coursebook and when.
·· The coursebook helps me know what to teach and how.
·· Other.
Which of the following statements about coursebooks do you agree with? (choose all that
apply):
·· Coursebooks save me time.

·· Coursebooks provide students with a new cultural perspective.
·· I learn new teaching techniques from coursebooks.
·· I’ve learned what works and what doesn’t work in the classroom through using
coursebooks.
·· Coursebooks help me structure a lesson effectively.
·· I use a similar lesson structure to that of my coursebook when I create my own materials.
·· Coursebooks help me see which language and skills are important to teach at each level.
·· Coursebooks can provide me with ideas that I haven’t thought of before.
·· Coursebooks are constraining or the content is not relevant for my students.
·· Other.
Do you think coursebooks can be useful for a teacher’s professional development? Please
comment below.
Section 4 of 8
Coursebook components
In answering the next set of questions, please think about the published coursebook com-
ponents that accompany your coursebook (the teacher’s book, workbooks, online practice,
apps, photocopiable materials, teacher training/support videos, etc.).
Which coursebook components are available to you? (choose all that apply):
·· Teacher’s book
·· Workbook
505
Stacey H. Hughes
·· Additional resources/photocopiables
·· Tests
·· Online practice materials
·· Video/ audio for use with students
·· Guides on the background of each unit or on how to teach the unit
·· Methodology support (e.g. training videos/articles explaining the course’s methodo-
logical approach, etc.)
·· Other
Which of the following statements about coursebook components do you agree with?
·· I learn new teaching techniques from coursebook components.

·· I’ve learned what works and what doesn’t work in the classroom through using course-
book components.
·· I use coursebook components as an example when I create my own materials.
·· Coursebook components help me see which language and skills are important to teach
at each level.
·· Coursebook components can provide me with ideas that I haven’t thought of before.
·· Sometimes I try activities suggested by coursebook components that I haven’t tried
before.
·· I learn how to/how not to structure an effective lesson through my use of coursebook
components.
·· Other.
Do you use a teacher’s book?
·· Yes
·· No
·· Other
Section 5 of 8:
Teachers’ books
Why do you use a teachers’ book?
·· Answer keys and/or tapescripts

·· Suggestions on how to do activities
·· Background information on grammar, vocabulary, or possible problems
·· Learn more about the methodology behind the activities
·· Get background information about reading or listening scripts
·· Background information on cultural issues
·· Other
How useful have teachers’ books been to you in your professional development?
Not at all useful __________________________very useful

1 2 3 4 5
506
What do your current teachers’ book or teacher resources provide for teachers?
·· Cultural notes
·· More information about reading or listening texts
·· Suggestions for how to set up/do the activities in the book
·· Suggestions for extensions to activities
·· Extra materials to liven up classes
·· Suggestions for how to deal with special issues: e.g. mixed abilities, special educational
needs, etc.
·· Rationale for the methodology
·· Guidance on terms and concepts (e.g. guided discovery approach, bottom-up process-
·· Other
Section 6 of 8:
Teacher’s books
If you don’t use a teacher’s book, why not?
·· I don’t find them useful.

·· My school/ institution doesn’t buy them.
·· I’ve used the same book for many years and no longer need the teacher’s book.
·· Other.
Section 7 of 8:
Coursebook resources
What should a teacher’s book or teacher resources provide for teachers? (choose all that
apply):
·· Information about English-speaking cultures

·· Information about how English is used in English-speaking contexts
·· More background information about reading or listening texts
·· Suggestions for how to set up/do the activities in the book
·· Suggestions for extensions to activities
·· Extra materials to liven up classes
·· Suggestions for how to deal with special issues: e.g. mixed abilities, special educational
needs, etc.
·· Project work ideas
·· Rationale for the methodology
·· Extra materials for slower/faster working students
·· Guidance on terms and concepts (e.g. guided discovery approach, bottom-up process-
·· Other
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please add any further comments
here.
507
Stacey H. Hughes
Section 8 of 8:
Trainer’s survey (for teacher trainers only)
This questionnaire is designed for teacher trainers who provide induction training for
coursebooks.
In which countries have you done coursebook (CB) induction training? Please comment
below.
Who generally chooses the CB for the places in which you train?
·· The Ministry
·· The school/institution
·· Someone chooses it for all the schools in the chain
·· The head of department
·· Teachers
·· Unknown
·· Other
What is the teachers’ reaction to the adoption of a new CB in your experience?
·· Generally positive
·· Generally negative
·· It varies widely
·· Other
What is the aim of your CB induction? (Choose all that apply):
·· To introduce teachers to the structure and/or components of the CB

·· To support teachers in adopting the methodology inherent in the CB
·· To train teachers in how to use components (e.g. online)
·· To provide pedagogical or methodological input to help teachers develop their teaching
practice
·· To ensure teachers understand the theory behind the approach of the coursebook
·· To help teachers structure lessons or activities
·· Other
What issues have you encountered when doing CB or CB component induction? (Choose
all that apply):
·· Initial resistance to the coursebook or course components

·· Initial resistance to the training
·· Teachers want to know how the coursebook and components fit into the syllabus/
curriculum
·· The coursebook’s methodology is new to the teachers
·· Teachers are excited about using the new coursebook/course components
·· The teachers feel the new CB is in line with the learning aims of their students
·· Other
If teachers are initially resistant to the CB or training, what is the reason?
508
·· The methodology is different and it doesn’t fit the way they currently teach.
·· They agree with the methodology/aims of the book, but are not given sufficient time to
plan for a new coursebook.
·· The CB aims do not fit the aims of the curriculum.
·· The CB is not in line with the tests/exams given at the institution (e.g. the CB focuses
on skills, but the exams focus on language).
·· They feel that management are trying to force them to teach in a certain way (e.g. using
the methodology of the coursebook).
·· They feel that the methodology is wrong for their teaching/cultural context.
·· They don’t know how to teach in the way the CB requires.
·· Other.
How do you feel the CB and CB components can be used by teachers to further their profes-
sional development?
Which methods have you used to help teachers use their CB?
·· Lecture/presentation
·· Demonstration
·· Exploratory task (e.g. scavenger hunt)
·· Piloting of the CB
·· Team teaching followed by discussion/action research
·· Online or webinar training
·· E-learning module
·· Mentoring
·· Setting up of action research plan
·· Other
Which methods were most effective?
·· Lecture/presentation
·· Demonstration
·· Exploratory task (e.g. scavenger hunt)
·· Piloting of the CB
·· Team teaching followed by discussion/action research
·· Online or webinar training
·· E-learning module
·· Mentoring
·· Setting up of action research plan
·· Other
How useful do you think induction training is to a teacher’s professional development?

Not at all useful __________________________ very useful
1 2 3 4 5
In what ways have you seen teachers use CBs and CB components to further their profes-
sional development?
·· Try a new activity/series of activities
509
Stacey H. Hughes
·· Try a new approach (e.g. use guided discovery to teach grammar, try using projects,
etc.)
·· Learn a new skill (e.g. use of technology, use of drama, etc.)
·· Learn a new technique (e.g. elicitation, concept check questioning, etc.)
·· Change the order of the way they do things in the CB unit
·· Move from a grammar-based approach to a skills-based approach (or vice-versa)
·· Change of attitude or view (e.g. on how to handle different abilities in the classroom)
·· Other
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please add any further comments
here.
510
34
Training materials writers
John Hughes
Introduction
Training teachers to write materials is a relatively new field in ELT. Tomlinson reports
that ‘before the 1990s, materials development was given little prominence on teacher
training or teacher education courses’ (Tomlinson 2013:445). Then, from the 1990s to the
early part of the 21st century, a body of literature appeared (McDonough and Shaw 1993;
McGrath 2002; Tomlinson 1998, 2011) which aimed to support teachers who needed to
develop their own materials. In turn, this led to the emergence of university-based MA
programmes in the field of materials development. More recently, the last decade has seen
a small but significant number of independent training providers offer shorter, more inten-
sive training in materials writing. Training organisations such as the International Teacher
Development Institute (iTDi) and ELT Teacher 2 Writer, for example, have focussed on
providing teachers with the key skills they need to produce certain types of materials
and – potentially – to self-publish or to be published. As Karen Spiller, co-director of ELT
Teacher 2 Writer, notes:
In the past, a teacher often learnt how to write materials through trial-and-error. The
approach seemed to be based on an idea that you had to get it wrong before you got
it right. We started to offer training which provided shortcuts for writers rather than
undergo the traditional long process of learning to write materials.
(personal communication)
As a published coursebook author and a teacher trainer (Hughes 2015a), I also run courses
for teachers in materials writing where participants produce an end-product for use in the
classroom, rather than upon reflecting upon the wider framework of materials development
from needs analysis through to the final evaluation of materials (Jolly and Bolitho 2011).
Participants on such courses are often teachers who require a general introduction to the
key skills required in writing a set of materials. Sometimes, a course is tailored to a specific
group of teachers who have to write their own specific set of materials for a target group of
DOI: 10.4324/b22783-43 511

John Hughes
students at their language school; in this case, the needs are defined beforehand so that the
course can be designed in advance.
This increase in the need for and provision of training in materials writing, rather than
what might be referred to as materials development, is also reflected by the recent publica-
tion of new titles on materials writing (e.g. Clandfield and Hughes 2017; Krantz et al. 2016)
and the creation of new teachers’ associations such as the IATEFL Materials Writing Special
Interest Group (MaWSIG) in 2013. The ‘Critical Issues and Topics’ section of this chapter
considers in more detail the following areas: the profiles and training needs of teachers who
attend materials writing courses, how this type of training can be approached, suitable for-
mats for delivery (e.g. face-to-face, online, blended), and, perhaps primarily, the content of
such materials writing courses. The chapter then goes on to make recommendations for the
implementation of such training through a range of practical training techniques.

This section outlines some of the key considerations and potential challenges when planning
a training course in materials writing.
Participant profiles and training needs

When defining the type of teacher who takes part in training courses in materials writing,
no two groups or courses will ever be the same. However, course participants fall into three
broad categories which reflect their stage of development as a teacher. Firstly, there are
teachers in the early stages of their career. As part of their pre-service teacher education
courses, such teachers may have received prior training in how to ‘analyse learners’ needs
… plan lessons and develop materials’ (McGrath 2002:3). For example, on the pre-service
course leading to the Trinity College London Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers
of Other Language (CertTESOL), a trainee teacher will be asked to analyse and reflect on
one piece of material they have written or significantly adapted from published material and
used with their students (Trinity College London 2016). Once these teachers begin work-
ing, they often (though not always) follow a coursebook or set of materials provided by the
school, but may need to develop the skills to write their own supplementary materials such
as tests, quizzes, games, questionnaires, flashcards, or sets of questions to accompany a
reading or listening text, a song, or a video (Clandfield and Hughes 2017). A training course
could provide these teachers with such skills.
The second teacher profile is the more experienced teacher who has developed the abil-
ity to adapt published materials (McDonough and Shaw 2003) and to write their own sup-
plementary materials. At this stage, any further in-service teacher education in materials
writing might not be necessary but if this teacher is required to write materials that will be
used by other teachers then training could be beneficial, because writing materials for other
teachers demands a new skill set; the teacher needs to be able to write clear instructions for
other teachers to follow as well as comprehensive teacher’s notes. Schools that assign the
task of writing such materials to experienced teachers without any training might be disap-
pointed by the final results. As one British Council project manager of a new online course
discovered, when it comes to writing, ‘many years of classroom experience isn’t necessarily
a guarantee of good materials writing’ (Hughes 2014).
The third profile could be a very experienced teacher who is commissioned to write mate-
rials for publication which might be used by unknown audiences of teachers – for example,
512
teachers in other countries. Reaching this stage of development in materials writing is not
necessary – or even desirable – for many teachers, but for those teachers who undertake this
role, training at this stage has traditionally been lacking. As one established and published
ELT author told me, ‘I fell into coursebook writing by accident – there was no training when
I started’ (personal communication). Instead, training writers to produce published materi-
als tends to take the form of mentoring and feedback from a more experienced co-author
or editor, or a supportive publisher. The writer at this third stage is often required to write
to a predefined format or template and increasingly will be one writer amongst a team of
writers being asked to produce content based around a framework (Harwood 2014) which
forms only part of a much larger series of course components and might include print-based
books, online content, and a multimedia package. Perhaps because of these new develop-
ments in the way course materials are being produced, it is more important than ever that
publishers provide bespoke training for their teams of writers. One publisher I interviewed
(personal communication) outlined how in the development of a new coursebook series, the
author team took part in some tailor-made training prior to starting the actual writing. It was
assumed that the team of experienced teacher-writers already had the key skills and, in fact,
the focus of the training was on ‘the way we do things’; in other words, materials writing
which reflected the publisher’s expectations, conventions, and approach to materials.
Approaches to the training and the role of the trainer

Having established the type of course participant and their needs, a trainer needs to consider
the most effective way to train the teachers. Wallace (1991) outlines three approaches or
models for trainers: a craft model, an applied science model, and a reflective model. With
a craft model, the materials writing trainer is viewed as the master practitioner who passes
on the skills of materials writing in much the same way that a trainee apprentice might learn
a skill in a factory or workshop. Critics of such an approach view it as ‘static,’ but Wallace
argues that the craft model ‘cannot be dismissed out of hand’ (Wallace 1991:6). For exam-
ple, if we were to provide training in how to write a set of exam practice materials to prepare
students for taking an exam, then a craft model might be appropriate. It is a training situation
where the teachers need to learn how to write certain – often formulaic – exam items based
on a framework or set of criteria demanded by an exam board.
For further long-term development, the trainer will also strive to broaden the course par-
ticipants’ theoretical knowledge. This approach is more characteristic of an applied science
model and typically adopted on academic or postgraduate courses in which course content
takes the form of research and knowledge being passed from the trainer to the practition-
ers (which Wallace describes as a relationship between ‘thinkers’ and ‘doers’). The aim of
this approach however is for course participants to become critical thinkers themselves by
engaging in debate, reading the literature on the subject, and then applying this to their own
materials writing.
With regard to the third approach, the reflective approach, favoured by Wallace, course
participants are encouraged to reflect upon their current practice as writers, consider what
would make their writing more effective, and apply that learning to their materials.
My own experience of training writers is that the trainer’s approach is informed by all
three of the above models. When training inexperienced teachers or writers embarking on
new areas of writing, a craft model is helpful in terms of providing templated formats for
writing. On the other hand, asking participants to read relevant literature which may sup-
port (or not) the principles behind their writing is necessary. Finally, all effective materials
513
John Hughes
writers need to critically reflect in order to have the ability to analyse and develop their
work.
Length and delivery

Obviously, the length of a course and how it is delivered will vary; I have run courses over
five consecutive days, over a period of about three months, combining face-to-face sessions
with individualised feedback via email as well as other courses run entirely online via webi-
nars and learning management systems over six months. What most courses in materials
writing have in common is the fact that the participants are usually practising teachers with
little spare time for training. The courses have to be short and intensive with clear outcomes
and tangible results. Perhaps unlike the final assessment on most MA programmes, achieve-
ment of the course goals and objectives will be defined purely in terms of the quality of the
materials produced by the end of the course.
The mode(s) of delivery will vary. Face-to-face and webinar-based training sessions are
invaluable, but the nature of writing materials means that course participants also need time
alone to create and write their materials. For this reason, courses which include periods
between input sessions for the teacher to write and test out their own materials with stu-
dents can be highly effective. Shorter intensive courses tend to require participants to write
overnight; this has obvious drawbacks though some would argue that it’s more realistic in
reflecting the real world of writing materials under pressure for either your daily lessons or
a demanding publisher.
The content of a materials writing course

Perhaps one of the most contentious critical issues for any training course is the choice of
content because it is linked to the question of whether all aspects of materials writing can, in
fact, be trained. One view of materials writing is that it is ‘a creative rather than a mechani-
cal process’ (Prowse 2011). If it is largely creative, it begs the question: to what extent
can we train creativity in materials writing? Another viewpoint is that materials writing is
messy, spontaneous, and intuitive (Hadfield 2014). This is a view of writing which can be
hard to reflect when listing the training objectives of a materials writing course, however. A
third view is that the writers need to be trained in the principles underpinning the materials
they write (Bilsborough 2018): for example, course participants should consider the body
of literature related to second language acquisition theory and reflect relevant findings in
their materials.
Whilst these different viewpoints on materials writing should influence the design of
a course, the limitations in terms of the teacher’s stage of development, the length of the
course, and its mode of delivery means that the content of most courses takes the key skills
of writing materials as the starting point. For this reason, I developed the syllabus shown in
Table 34.1 which provides a list of items which can be drawn upon to create a shorter tailor-
made course. Although I have never been asked to deliver a course that covers all these
items, it would be possible to use it as the basis for a year-long course in materials writing
on an MA programme.
The basic idea behind my syllabus is that it breaks down the skill of materials writing into
20 areas, each of which comprises a range of subskills. Sections 1 and 2 include introductory
components where participants consider the main skills and qualities required of a materials
514
Table 34.1 Training syllabus for materials writers
1. Introduction to materials writing 5. Writing a basic exercise
•• use of headings/titles
•• the required skills and knowledge of a writer
•• rubrics/instruction lines
•• defining language learning materials (e.g. the
•• numbers and letters for referencing
different types) •• choice of answers and distractors
•• critically evaluating materials (your own and •• separate sentences vs a contextualised exercise
others) •• answer keys
•• identifying the needs/wants/lacks to inform
the materials writing 6. Selecting texts for reading and/or writing
•• topic choice
2. Categories of materials
•• target language/modelling language
•• in-class materials (roleplays, quizzes, exercises, •• level of interest/need
readings, etc.) •• length
•• self-study (worksheets/workbooks) •• analysing level of language
•• language reference (e.g. grammar reference) •• including images
teacher’s notes (answer keys, extension tasks, •• cultural sensitivity/taboos
••
•• discourse features
etc.)
•• worksheets 7. Adapting texts for level
•• photocopiables (games, etc.) •• shortening texts
•• tests/exams •• simplifying sentence/text structure
•• audio (dialogues, songs, etc.) •• inclusion of low- and high-frequency words
•• video (TED Talks, scripts, etc) •• recycling language
•• methodology/articles for journals
8. Writing new texts
3. Ways of presenting language (grammar, •• researching

vocabulary, pronunciation) •• choosing sources
•• journalism skills
•• image/video 9. Audio/video
•• written/spoken text
•• selecting types of listening text (e.g. radio,
•• sentences
news, lecture, commentary, conversation,
•• diagrams (e.g. timelines, tables)
interviews, etc.)
•• describing how language works
•• writing scripts
•• complete the rule
•• balancing authentic and graded speech
•• giving examples of target language
•• screenplay writing
•• contrastive analysis •• recording techniques using audio and visual
•• translation equipment
•• match to rule or definition
10. Receptive skills question types
•• guided discovery
•• identify the language in context •• identifying gist
•• true/false statements
4. Controlled practice question types •• closed/open questions
•• multiple choice
•• gap fills •• note-taking
•• multiple choice •• write the missing word/phrase
•• ranking and re-ordering •• gapped text
•• categorisation •• summary writing
•• transformations •• fill in a table
•• error correction •• matching
•• complete a chart/table •• tick the phrase (you hear)
•• jumbled words/letters
(Continued)
515
John Hughes
Table 34.1 (Continued)
11. Speaking exercises 16. Teacher’s supplementary materials
•• discussion prompts •• answer keys

•• questionnaire interviews •• scripts
•• dialogues •• instructions for using in-class materials
•• role plays •• anticipated problems
•• information gap •• Photocopiables (e.g. games, cards, etc.)
•• using pictures (e.g. describing, comparing) •• methodology of materials
•• problem solving •• extension activities
•• storytelling
17. Print-based and digital
•• presentations
•• knowledge and understanding of both forms

12. Writing text type questions
•• ability to follow print-based writing conventions
•• ability to write in online templates
•• argumentative essay
•• prompts for a text type
18. Editing and improving
•• provide context/reason to write an email
•• identifying structure and discourse of text type
•• piloting the materials
•• writing sub-skills (e.g. punctuation, •• peer feedback on materials
paragraphing, cohesion, register, etc.) •• copy editing
•• writing basic design briefs
13. Tests and exams
19. Publishing options
•• purpose
•• questions types •• approaching publishers
•• validity and reliability •• self-publishing/online publishing
14. Materials for a complete lesson (e.g. a 20. Legal issues and professional advice
worksheet or spread in a coursebook)
•• copyright
•• use of titles and sub-headings •• permissions
•• aims/objectives •• creative commons
•• use of images •• professional bodies such as the Society of
•• flow from one exercise to the next Authors and the IATEFL MaWSIG
•• lead-in activities
•• navigational tools (e.g. rubric/instruction lines,
numbering, etc.)
•• design/word-processing
•• self-evaluation/can-do statements
15. Ways of planning a set of materials
•• designing your syllabus/contents

•• the approach
•• methodology
•• language level
•• managing and designing a brief (for teams of
writers)
516
writer and possible definitions of language learning material. Sections 3 and 4 focus on writ-
ing materials for presenting and practising grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. Sections
6 to 12 list the different aspects of writing materials for the four skills, from text selection,
analysis, and creation (for reading and listening) to writing basic question types for receptive
lessons to creating generative tasks for speaking lessons. Sections 14 and 15 look at materi-
als writing less segmentally and more holistically: participants will develop the skills needed
to create a complete set of materials for a lesson (or series of lessons) in which one exercise
or task flows into the other. The remaining sections are more specialised, although the ability
to write a useful set of accompanying teacher’s notes (Section 16) is arguably a useful skill
for all writers, as is the ability to write for either print-based or digital media (Section 17).
Section 18 aims to improve a writer’s ability to self-edit their own work and, given that writ-
ers are increasingly writing in teams, that of others. The final two sections (19 and 20) are of
use to writers who would like to publish their work and earn money from it.
Implications, challenges, and recommendations for practice

Following the presentation of my syllabus for designing materials courses, this section illus-
trates how different parts of the syllabus might be delivered, using different training procedures
(Hughes 2015a; Tomlinson 2013; Woodward 1992). The ten training techniques presented
here are a representative sample of what I might use on my own training courses and they are
all related to different parts of my syllabus which was outlined in the previous section.
1 Questionnaires
As previously mentioned, when training courses are commissioned by a language school or
organisation, the needs and aims will be defined before the course begins. It is also helpful, how-
ever, to design a needs analysis questionnaire that is filled in by the individual participants. In
reality, many training courses begin without the possibility of receiving such information before-
hand. In this case, trainers can make use of short questionnaire-based tasks in the first meeting
with participants. Even if your participants have already completed a needs analysis form or they
know each other well, the task of interviewing each other using a short questionnaire is effective
in making everyone aware of each other’s experience and views on materials writing. An exam-
ple of such a form is provided in Table 34.2. Each participant is given two minutes to fill it in for
themselves and then they work in pairs or groups to share their responses.
2 Brainstorming
Another possible training technique to incorporate in the early stages of a training session
is brainstorming. Sometimes on a course, I ask participants to work in groups and brain-
storm the features of effective materials. It relates back to Section 1 of my syllabus, in
which course participants consider the type of material they would like to be able to write
by the end of the course. In the following example, a group of teachers with very varied
backgrounds in materials writing brainstormed the following impressive and exhaustive list
before sharing their ideas with the other groups:
Effective ELT materials for publication need to be interesting and up-to-date, use
authentic texts and graded texts, use a variety of tasks, recycle language, include
examples from real life situations, use listenings with a balance between authentic and
517
John Hughes
Table 34.2 Needs analysis questionnaire
Write ONE word or phrase to describe…
1 A quality of your favourite coursebook (or published material)

2 The reason why you used a piece of published material and didn’t like it
3 One benefit of using published materials in ELT
4 One drawback of using published materials in ELT
5 A skill you need for writing ELT material
6 The main thing you hope to gain from this course
Now compare your words and phrases with others in the group.
Source: Hughes 2015a:54.
graded, present useful vocabulary/high frequency vocabulary, consider photos, images,

design and layout, be well-paced and have clear timing, encourage reflective learning
(e.g. use can-do statements), be easy-to-navigate, teacher friendly and student friendly,
encourage autonomy, use a clear, large font, headings and menus, include cross cultural
and taboo issues (not normally included in course books), be useable with mixed-ability
classes, have activities which ‘flow’ and provide a framework to follow, include all four
skills, have the right amount of grammar with a grammar reference, be flexible and save
time, match students’ needs/specific needs/exam needs/parents’ needs.
Such a list provides a useful starting point for a course and highlights what different teach-
ers considered important about published materials. It is helpful to keep a copy of the list
that participants produce so they can refer to it later in the course and consider whether their
own materials reflect the kinds of qualities they expect from other materials they have used.
3 Categorising
Section 2 of the syllabus addresses the need for writers to be able to produce materials that,
for example, are more appropriate for in-class use than self-study. In other words, it encour-
ages novice writers to consider: who is my audience? How will the materials be used? One
activity to raise awareness of these questions is to put the diagram shown in Figure 34.1
on the board. It represents the three-way relationship between materials, the learner, and
the teacher. For example, where materials intersect with teachers in 3, it denotes materials
which are written for teachers, such as teacher’s guides, journals, resources, online activi-
ties, blogs, etc.; 2 denotes materials for learners only such as self-study workbooks, gram-
mar references, online exercises, and so on. Finally, number 1 is where materials are needed
to serve both the teacher and the learners; typically, these could be the main coursebook, a
video to be shown in class, or role-play activities for speaking practice.
The figure can be exploited on the training course in various ways. For example, once the
diagram has been presented, participants can discuss how writing style will vary depending
on the audience focus (e.g. the material in 2 for a student self-study guide must work with-
out the guidance of a teacher, whereas the material in 1, such as a coursebook, assumes the
teacher is mediating the material for the students). Alternatively, a large range of materials
such as coursebooks, dictionaries, worksheets, and teacher’s guides can be brought into the
518
Learners
2.
1.
Teacher Materials
3.
Figure 34.1 The relationship between the materials, the learner, and the teacher.
training room and participants categorise the different materials into categories 1, 2, or 3. In
some cases, the categorisation is straightforward, but for some publications, such as diction-
aries, there will be discussion about whether the material is for the teacher, learner, or both.
The activity forces participants to consider the role of different materials, the writing style,
and the way the reader is addressed.
4 Comparing drafts
In my experience, one of the most useful training activities is to have course participants
compare different drafts of a piece of writing, for example, the first draft with the second
draft after the writer has received editorial feedback. The trainer hands out the first draft and
participants discuss in groups what they like/dislike about the materials; the real test ques-
tion being: would you like to teach with this material? Why? Why not?
Then the trainer hands out the next draft and participants identify what has changed and
why.
The example in Table 34.3 relates back to Sections 4 and 5 of the syllabus. The participants
are comparing two drafts of a gap fill exercise for a grammar point. When compared, partici-
pants should notice some of the following in the second draft: use of headings; the items are
numbered 1 to 7; an example is given in item 1; and all forms of the verb (I/you/he/she/it/we/
they in statements, negatives, and question forms) are targeted for practice. The activity illus-
trates many things that we take for granted as teachers and might omit when asked to produce
this kind of controlled practice activity, but editors would expect to see these features.
5 Mini-writing tasks
Writing more extensive sets of material is time-consuming, and for this reason it may be
better to leave this activity until after the course. It is, however, a good idea to set very short
‘micro’ writing tasks during an input session. This is an invaluable way to draw attention to
certain skills and for participants to compare and discuss their writing. Here is one example
of a short, five-minute task which addresses the issue of writing rubrics (also known as
519
John Hughes
Table 34.3 A comparison of two drafts of a gap fill exercise
Exercise A
Complete these sentences in the past simple or present perfect using the verb in brackets.
Last week I (go) to Paris.
Yesterday I (meet) my friend Bill.
I (see) Rachel at the party last night.
I (be) to Japan twice before.
I never (play) lacrosse.
I (work) for this company since 1996.
I (join) the company in 1995.
Exercise B
Complete these sentences in the past simple or present perfect.
Use the verb in brackets.
1 Last week I went (go) to Paris.

2 Yesterday she (meet) my friend Bill.
3 you (see) Rachel at the party last night?
4 He (be) to Japan twice before.
5 they ever (play) tennis?
6 We (work) for this company since 1996.
7 We (not/join) the company in 1995.
Now write questions to ask your partner:

Did you ?
Have you ?
Source: Extract from A Practical Introduction to Teacher Training in ELT (Hughes 2015a:54) reproduced with the kind
permission from Pavilion Publishing and Media.
instructional lines) to explain how to do an exercise which is listed in Section 5 of the syl-
labus: the participants look at different examples of rubrics from published course materials
and discuss what makes an effective rubric (e.g. short, consistent, use of imperative forms,
etc.). They are then given two or three different exercises from course materials with the
rubric removed. They have to write the missing rubric for each exercise. Afterwards they
compare their rubrics in groups and note the reasons for any differences. Finally, they read
the original rubrics from the exercises.
6 Text analysis
One of the greatest challenges for many materials writers, both experienced and inexperi-
enced, is to be able to write or select a suitable written or spoken text at the appropriate level
(relating to Sections 6 and 7 of the syllabus). One way to develop this skill is to bring in a
selection of materials and/or pages from coursebooks and ask participants to guess the level
they were written for.
Another activity is to analyse an authentic text which you would like to use for the
basis of a reading or listening class. You (or the participants themselves) choose a short
text (around 100 words) from an authentic source, e.g. a news report. Participants then
520
work in pairs and identify which words they think will be above level (e.g. above B1
level). They can then be shown a version of the text which has been analysed for level,
using an online tool, such as TextInspector, Oxford Text Checker, Vocabkitchen, English
VocabularyProfile, or SketchEnglish. (These online tools can be accessed by putting the
title into a search engine.) They all work in slightly different ways, but in general they
allow a prospective materials writer to copy and paste their text into the site, which
then analyses the level of the vocabulary in the text. Participants can then compare
their intuitive guesses with the results of the online analysis. This could also be a good
opportunity to discuss writer intuition and how far it can be relied upon when producing
texts for a particular level.
To work on adapting texts (see Section 7), it is useful to follow on from the previous
activity by having the participants rewrite the text so that it can be used by lower level stu-
dents, for example, at A2 level. This task introduces them to the need for not only finding
replacement vocabulary when adapting texts, but also for the need to simplify the sentence
structure, the text structure, and omit low-frequency vocabulary.
7 Writing audio
Section 9 of the syllabus addresses the need for writers to write scripts, either for audio
or video. This is a growing area for writers, especially for video. One useful exercise that
draws a writer’s attention to what people actually say in a situation (rather than what we
might imagine they say) is to put participants into groups of three. Two of the participants
are given a typical speaking situation that is often played in classroom recordings, such as
buying something at a shop or complaining about a faulty product, and they enact the situa-
tion, rather like doing a role play. The third person has to listen carefully to their conversa-
tion and write down any words or phrases that might be useful if you were to write an audio
script for the situation. It is a challenging exercise but it has several potential benefits: for
example, the listener gains awareness of the real language we use, and of preconceptions
about what might be said in a particular situation. Similarly, it can be a useful activity for
writers to test whether a speaking activity they have written, for example a role play, actu-
ally generates the target language (see Section 11 of the syllabus).
8 Loop input activities

Many sections of the syllabus concentrate on writing materials for the four skills, for exams,
and complete lessons (Sections 10–14). An obvious way to develop the skill of writing these
kinds of materials is to become familiar with the range of question types and task types
which are used in skills-based lessons. The trainer can facilitate this by showing exam-
ples of such materials taken from published sources and having the participants assess the
quality. However, there is a danger on any materials writing course that simply leafing
through examples of materials and showing ‘model versions’ can become rather tiresome.
Loop input provides a useful alternative (Hughes 2015a; Woodward 1992). The idea behind
loop input is that participants simultaneously experience engaging in the exercise type and
receiving input relevant to the focus of the training session, in this case materials writing.
For instance, if we wanted them to consider how to design a ranking activity for speaking
practice, we might show them the example below as a ‘model version’ taken from a pre-
intermediate coursebook (Hughes et al. 2019).
521
John Hughes
Table 34.4 Example of a ranking activity
Work in groups. Discuss the importance of these inventions. Put them in order from 1 (most
important) to 7 (least important).
•• The aeroplane
•• The bicycle
•• The camera
•• The engine
•• The internet
•• The mobile phone
•• The washing machine
Source: Hughes et al. 2019:96.
Table 34.5 Loop input ranking activity
Work in groups. Discuss these features of a speaking activity in a coursebook. Put them in order from
1 (most important) to 7 (least important).
•• It’s fun to do
•• The instructions are clear
•• It practises the target language
•• The task is achievable (for the level)
•• It doesn’t take long for the teacher to organise it
•• The context is authentic
•• It won’t go out-of-date
If loop input was applied to this same activity on a materials writing course, the activity
could be introduced in the context of discussing what makes a good speaking activity, as
shown in Table 34.5.
The same principle works with exercises and question types that accompany a listening
or reading text about writing materials. For example, you could interview a materials writer
about how they approach writing listening materials, then write a series of different listening
tasks for the trainees to do while listening to the interview. They would benefit both by lis-
tening to the expert and by experiencing different types of listening exercise. Alternatively,
it would be possible to choose an article from a journal on materials writing and ask the
trainees to design a set of reading comprehension questions about the article.
9 Writing and piloting

At some stage during a materials writing course, it is, of course, optimum for the trainees to
write a piece of material. A group of experienced, practising teachers could also be asked to
send some materials before the course begins. This would allow the trainer to assess their
current skills and the submitted material could potentially be used as the starting point of
the course, with the possibility of trainees re-submitting further drafts of the materials as
the course progresses. Much will depend upon the format of the course. For example, a
face-to-face course will need time assigned to meet each participant individually and to
give feedback on their respective materials. Alternatively, a blended programme can allow
522
the training to be delivered face-to-face or by webinar, and then trainees submit their work
online. The trainer can then give feedback on the materials in much the same way that an
editor gives feedback to authors by inserting comments in the manuscript or by summaris-
ing the main points in a separate document.
As well as feedback coming from the trainer, it is important for materials writers to
develop their own techniques for self-editing and improving their work (see Section 18 of
the syllabus). One aspect of this is piloting the materials. There are two main forms of pilot-
ing: a teacher takes the new material into their lesson and tries it out with a class of students.
Ideally, this should be followed by some kind of reflection on how well the materials worked
and how the teacher might consider developing them further. Ideally, a teacher should pilot
the materials with more than one class in order to gain more representative insights into how
the materials might work in different classes. The second method, and perhaps a truer test of
material at the piloting stage, is to hand the material to another teacher and ask them to teach
using it. The way teachers write materials, after all, often reflects their own style of teach-
ing, but another teacher will need to re-interpret the material and may also require teacher’s
notes with answer keys and guidance in order to work with the content.
On a materials writing training course it is useful to place teachers in pairs so they can
swap their materials and peer review each other’s work. The feedback that follows from
this process could be invaluable, and it may be useful to establish a formalised system of
feedback, perhaps based upon a pro forma that is completed after using the material. It can
also be beneficial for the materials writer to observe the lesson in which his/her material is
used by another teacher to recognise how re-interpretation of content can vary and that any
material must take this into account.
10 Challenging assumptions
More experienced teachers on training courses may need to create entire sets of course
materials to cover a week, a term, or even a whole academic year. The kind of skills this type
of participant needs are listed in Section 15 of the syllabus and require the ability to write
a syllabus or produce a content map, similar to those you see in the front of coursebooks.
The activity described in Table 34.6 is an engaging way of introducing this topic and
adopts the training technique of challenging assumptions. It makes participants consider
how teachers and materials writers make decisions when planning a series of lessons or the
contents page of a coursebook. Participants work in groups of three or four and are given
a set of cut-up cards containing part of the wording from a typical mainstream coursebook
contents page.
The participants’ task is to imagine they are going to devise materials for a series of
different lessons and to decide which language items would typically be included in each
lesson. For example, read a biographical text – past simple – time expressions – pronuncia-
tion of -ed endings are naturally grouped together because they are often thematically linked
in language lessons and many coursebooks present them in the same unit or even on the
same page. When the groups have sorted the cards into mini-plans for their lesson materi-
als, they are asked to mix them up again and to group them in new and original ways. They
are encouraged to forget the way they have seen their coursebook do it and to challenge
their preconceptions by creating new types of lessons. This task is more challenging, but
it encourages both less experienced and more experienced writers to think about how they
plan their materials. Afterwards, groups can compare the ways in which they have sorted
523
John Hughes
Table 34.6 Example set of cards
Read a biographical Past simple Time expressions Pronunciaon of -ed

text endings
Talking about free Verbs to talk about Collocaons with Wring a personal
me likes and dislikes do, go, play profile
(e.g. enjoy, hate etc)
Ordering food from Countable and Arcles Listening to a

a menu uncountable nouns conversaon in a
cafe
Giving opinions for Comparave forms Reading about cies Vocabulary for
and against around the world describing transport
Present connuous Vocabulary for the Phrases for making Word stress
tense weather decisions
A video of a news Wring a video Reported speech Phrasal verbs

broadcast script
the cards and reflect on the way we make assumptions about how language courses should
be organised. Note that you can either use these cards or create a new set of cards, based on
the contents page of any coursebook or perhaps the current syllabus used where you work.
Conclusion
This chapter began by looking at how training in materials writing developed from being a
rather neglected aspect of teacher education courses into a significant area of study on MA
programmes. More recently, training providers increasingly offer shorter, intensive courses
in materials writing. These courses are often needs-driven and tailor-made to suit specific
goals. For this reason, the content of such courses will vary widely, but a 20-point syllabus
was proposed in this chapter which a trainer could draw upon when designing course con-
tent. The chapter has also considered a range of techniques and activity types which a trainer
could use on a course.
Of course, the success of a training course in materials writing cannot rely on course
content alone. It also requires a trainer with two strands of expertise: experience of writing
materials (both published and unpublished) is essential, as well as a background as a teacher
trainer. In addition, the course participants themselves need to display an aptitude for mate-
rials writing. Although there is a set of key writing skills which can be trained (as outlined
in the syllabus presented in the ‘Critical Issues and Topics’ section), attendance on a course
524
is no guarantee of a wider ability to write an entire coursebook, for example. The trainer of
materials writers can only facilitate the participants’ development, have them apply certain
principles, and encourage criticality and creativity where appropriate.
As for future developments in the training of ELT materials writers, this is very much
dependent on the future of ELT in general. In this century, as with every other aspect of our
daily lives, ELT publishing and materials writing have experienced the impact of technol-
ogy, both in terms of how content is written (or created) and how it is delivered (in print, on
video, online, etc.). So far, whilst these external changes have meant writers need to develop
certain skills to write digitally (Hughes 2015b), such as writing content into predefined
software templates, the basic requirements remain the same: the ability to write materials
which achieve the language aims of a lesson, can be used effectively by teachers, and which
respond to the needs and interests of the learners.
Further reading
Clandfield, L. and Hughes, J., 2017. ETpedia Materials Writing. Shoreham-by-Sea: Pavilion
Publishing and Media.
This resource for English language teachers provides the reader with reference guides to standard
exercise and question types used in materials and advice on how to write materials for entire lessons
and courses.
Hughes, J., 2015a. A Practical Introduction to Teacher Training in ELT. Shoreham-by-Sea: Pavilion
This companion for teacher trainers covers all aspects of training, including different training
techniques, mentoring, classroom observation, and management of training courses.
Krantz, C., Cunningham, S., Roberts, R., Kerr, P., Dummett, P. and Hughes, J., 2016. How to Write
Excellent ELT Materials. ELT Teacher 2 Writer. eltteacher2writer.co.uk.
This is one of a series of how-to guides for new and experienced materials writers with a particular
focus on writing materials for publication.
Related topics
Making the materials writing leap: scaffolding the journey from teacher to teacher-writer,
materials as a tool for professional development: a perspective from publishing.
References
Bilsborough, K., 2018. ELT materials writing: More on emerging principles. In Hands, P. and Pattison,
T., eds. Manuscript Volume III, the MaWSIG ebook 2017–18. Faversham, Kent: IATEFL.
Clandfield, L. and Hughes, J., 2017. ETpedia Materials Writing. Shoreham-by-Sea: Pavilion
Hadfield, J., 2014. Chaosmos: Spontaneity and order in the materials design process. In Harwood,
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hughes, J., 2014. Do-it-yourself materials and self-publishing. Modern English Teacher, 23/2:24–26.
Hughes, J., 2015a. A Practical Introduction to Teacher Training in ELT. Shoreham-by-Sea: Pavilion
ELT.
Hughes, J., 2015b. Emerging Skills for ELT Digital Writers. Retrieved on 13 April 2021 from: https://
learnjam.com/emerging-skills-for-elt-digital-writers/.
525
John Hughes
Hughes, J., Stephenson, H. and Dummett, P., 2019. Life Pre-Intermediate. 2nd ed. Andover, Hampshire:
National Geographic Learning.
Jolly, D and Bolitho, R., 2011. A framework for materials writing. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials
Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krantz, C., Cunningham, S., Roberts, R., Kerr, P., Dummett, P. and Hughes, J., 2016. How to write
excellent ELT materials. ELT Teacher 2 Writer. eltteacher2writer.co.uk.
McDonough, J. and Shaw, C., 1993. Materials and Methods in ELT. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
McDonough, J. and Shaw, C., 2003. Materials and Methods in ELT. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
University Press.
Prowse, P., 2011. How writers write. In Tomlinson, B, ed. Materials Development in Language
Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
University Press.
Tomlinson, B., ed. 2013. Materials development courses. In Tomlinson, B., ed. Developing Materials
for Language Teaching. 2nd ed. London: Continuum Press.
Trinity College London, 2016. Syllabus for Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages (CertTESOL). Retrieved on 13 April 2021 from: https://www.trinitycollege.com/
qualifications/teaching-english/CertTESOL/content.
Wallace, M., 1991.Training Foreign Language Teachers: A Reflective Approach. Cambridge:
Woodward, T., 1992. Ways of Training: Recipes for Teacher Training. Harlow: Longman.
526
Index
21st century competencies 434 Amrani, F. 279, 392, 443, 456, 463, 467, 478, 479
21st century learners 478 appropriation 225
21st century skills 371, 443, 489, 490, 497, 507 apps 18, 19, 23–25, 101, 228, 409, 414, 415, 417,
419–23, 443, 453, 478, 490, 500, 504, 505
academic language 253, 323, 326; support 324 aptitude for materials writing 524
academic literacy see literacy artwork 193; brief see brief
academic vocabulary 207, 327, 355; words Asian Corpus of English 94
203, 350 aspect: simple and progressive 188
Academic Word List 204 aspirational content 126
academic writing 23, 248, 324, 329, 479 assessment 49, 52, 96, 233, 241, 249–251, 280,
accent 24, 53, 94, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 114, 140, 281, 284, 285, 287, 330, 342, 356, 404; criteria
223, 310, 311, 390, 391, 447 33, 369
accessible texts 357–8, 448 asynchronous tools 25
accommodation 94, 95, 103; accommodation audience 24, 35, 43, 54, 61, 66, 67, 74, 244, 170,
strategies 94, 96, 103 174, 193, 196, 246, 250, 253, 295, 304, 366,
accuracy 32, 55, 85, 96, 159, 187, 188, 194, 219, 368, 381, 385–6, 391, 394, 445, 453, 475, 479,
220, 222, 223, 228, 229, 244, 250, 251, 256, 480, 481, 518
340, 489 audio 10, 17, 25, 43, 53, 156, 177, 180, 205, 206,
action research 162, 382, 486, 489, 494, 509 229, 245, 299, 311, 312, 329, 335, 390, 391,
activating schemata see schemata 415, 417, 419, 450, 479, 490; scripts 180, 341,
activity theory 20–1 374, 458
activity-based learning 300 audiolingualism 24, 187, 432
ADAPT model 389, 393 audiovisual materials 123, 205–6
adaptation 3, 61, 100, 277, 420, 486; of authentic augmented reality see virtual reality
texts 326; of coursebooks 97, 99, 494; authenticity 22, 36, 97, 238, 373–74, 434–34,
curriculum realisation 283–84; factors that 437, 441, 445, 483; authentic dialogues 67;
influence 307–18, 278, 478; market-specific authentic interaction 73; authentic language
452, 460; of materials 141, 193; 434, 439; 85, 93, 229, 223, 278, 338, 341; authentic
post-normative 96; principles and procedures materials 67, 177, 180, 341, 438, 450, 482;
279, 282–83; studies 141, 146–8, 156, 277, authentic tasks 72, 341, 445; authentic texts
280–83; teacher practices 280–282, 299; 43, 69, 72–75, 205, 238, 270, 315, 325, 335,
validity 282–83 393, 442, 447–48, 517, 520; authentic tools 19;
adaptive learning 179, 443, 452 authentic videos 24, 70, 451; inauthentic texts
Adult ESOL Core Curriculum 335, 336, 344 56, 246
affect 236, 389; affective engagement 5, 7, 10, 12, authors 24, 61, 82, 83, 84, 87, 95, 125, 143, 145,
21, 54, 300; affective response 237 146, 148, 149–50, 172, 193, 219, 247, 295,
affordance 10, 18, 19, 21, 25, 61, 171, 180, 248, 296–97, 301, 304, 310–11; 318, 355, 358, 361,
256, 318, 342, 368, 402, 403, 417, 421–25; 369, 370, 377, 380–82, 402, 430; 443, 449–53,
mapping 421–22, 425 456–469, 475, 478, 480, 482, 490; teams 263,
agency 57, 59, 114, 131, 422 443, 448, 513
Allwright, R. 49, 51, 65 automaticity 53, 222, 228, 229
American National Corpus 171 autonomous learner 24, 53, 225, 241, 256, 284, 443
Amnesty International 117, 119 awareness-raising activities 95, 103
527
Index
BALEAP 330 classroom research 12, 52, 59, 60–1, 80, 97,
Bax, S. 400, 406, 452 99–100, 104, 132, 139, 141–43, 147, 156,
BBC 23, 24, 205, 442 158–60, 165, 356, 372, 382
beginner learners 104, 188, 206, 214, 309, 340, CLIL see Content and Language Integrated
341, 445, 480 see also lower levels Learning
behaviourism: behaviourist theory 414, 415; COBUILD see Collins COBUILD
behaviourist approaches 81; 418, 420 code-switching 356, 359, 360, 390, 392
big data 443 cognates 368, 378, 379
bilingualism 96, 128; bilingual education 348, cognitive ability 42, 299, 302, 371, 382
356, 366; bilingual mode 93; bilingual Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency 349
students 366 cognitive approaches to SLA 222, 336
Blackboard 23, 402 cognitive demands see cognitive load
blended learning 10, 18, 26, 179, 400–406, cognitive level see cognitive ability
408–410 cognitive load 226, 300, 321, 347, 350, 359, 417
Block, D. 55, 124, 125, 127, 128, 131, 140, 156, cognitive process 245, 254, 256, 267
266, 313 coherence 234, 237, 244, 245, 251
blogs 19, 23, 26, 248, 373, 402, 405, 518 cohesion 82; 221, 244, 245, 249, 251
Bloomfield, L. 187 collaboration 113, 114, 330, 434, 443, 489; in
bottom-up processing 35, 36, 43, 489, 497, 507 materials development 105, 277, 285, 318,
bottom-up strategies see bottom-up processing 319; 380, 381, 430, 431, 451, 453; between
brief 310, 316, 369, 380, 402, 443, 446, 450, 451, researchers and practitioners 104, 499; tasks
458, 461; design 341, 458 24, 371
bring your own device (BYOD) 409 Collins COBUILD: dictionary 81, 84, 170;
British Council 25, 53, 54, 251, 277, 285, English Course 170, 191, 479
334, 335, 361, 409, 415, 448, 477, 512; collocations 39, 40, 84, 85, 141–43, 204, 207,
learnenglish site 23–4 211, 214, 251
British National Corpus 43, 72, 171, 204 colonialism 55, 115, 116, 119
budgets 310, 458, 461, 463, 466, 467 commerce 87, 125, 172, 317, 424, 447, 457, 460;
Business English 98, 99, 172, 179, 424 commercial constraints 145, 468; commercial
Bygate, M. 31, 32, 33, 220, 228, 229, 340, 431 interests 55, 61; commercial materials 4, 6, 8,
Byram, M. 109, 111, 113 25, 146, 165, 177, 192, 263, 279, 280, 283,
313, 324, 361, 401, 403, 420, 430, 431, 441;
CALL 18–21, 179, 415; evaluation 22–26 commercial success 55, 170, 173, 315, 444, 458
Cambridge and Nottingham Business English commissioning process 446
Corpus 172, 175, 176 communication strategies 32, 96, 98, 101, 103,
Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse 223, 224–25, 390–391
in English 172 communicative activities 31, 42, 53, 65, 97, 219,
Cambridge Assessment English 250; exams 233 224, 226, 228, 229, 282, 283, 298, 414, 418–19
Cambridge Learner Corpus 86, 88, 171 communicative approach see communicative
Cambridge University Press 23, 50, 52, 419 language teaching
Canagarajah, A.S. 116, 132, 247 communicative competence 6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 191,
capitalism 124, 126, 127, 128, 132, 156, 266 266, 418–19, 425, 442
Carnegie Report 80–1 communicative language teaching 31, 65, 82–3,
Carter, R. 33, 59, 67, 68, 73, 85, 170, 172, 178, 187, 219, 244, 278, 279, 283, 340, 368, 415,
188, 221, 222, 227 416, 420, 425, 431, 444, 452, 476, 493
case studies 148, 318, 321, 325–28, 330, 402, communicative purpose 66, 67, 219, 245,
415, 476 446, 448
CEFR 78, 129, 171, 273, 279, 442; descriptor competence 65, 220, 224–25, 330, 349, 369–70,
445–56; framework 446; levels 72, 88, 350 379, 419; see also strategic competence
censorship 421, 445 competent users of English 39, 196, 342
Chapelle, C. 19, 20, 21, 22, 115, 123 Compleat Lexical Tutor 72, 204, 205, 209
checklists see evaluation checklists complexity 32, 41, 84, 86, 221, 222, 228; of
Chomsky, N. 187 materials writing 394; theories 94
citizenship education 110, 111, 113–4, 119, comprehensible input 6, 65, 72, 159, 191,
120, 125 299, 442
classroom observation 9, 132, 147, 148, 156, 158, comprehension questions 7, 38–9, 66, 73, 130,
269, 295, 297, 381, 466 239, 401, 449, 522
528
Index
compromise 7, 84, 87, 145, 295, 297, 310, 316, 228–29, 240, 246, 251, 263, 280, 308–19, 357–
317, 318, 373, 457, 458, 469, 475–76, 480–81, 59, 476, 523–24; anti-coursebook arguments
484, 485 54–56; attitudes towards 281; best-selling
computer-mediated communication 18, 229, 248 5, 308; components 43, 110, 415, 460–61,
concordance 103–4, 160–1, 172, 173, 177, 179, 489–90; critical perspectives 55; global 50–61,
204–5, 206, 207, 253, 255 102, 128, 132, 156, 277, 278, 295, 339, 387,
connected speech 153, 206, 207 389, 393, 444–45, 447, 449, 477; local 285,
connectivity 417, 418, 421, 422 295, 304, 309–310, 367–71, 477; package 58;
conscious learning 43, 189, 210, 224 pro-coursebook arguments 50–51; production
consciousness raising 7, 25, 192, 194, 195, process 143–46, 149–150, 294–304, 310;
198, 269 series 80, 82, 83, 170, 194, 391, 430, 449, 479;
conservatism 424, 463, 479; conservative nature users 51, 131, 147–48, 279, 283, 303, 484,
of ELT materials 55, 88, 145, 308; cultural 491; writers 66, 97, 198, 317, 444–46, 449,
conservatism 312 461
constraints 24, 88, 173, 279, 318, 341, 373–74, Coxhead, A. 204, 207, 214, 247, 323
463; for materials writers 37, 145–46, 149, creativity 34, 54, 371, 434, 443, 446, 447, 479,
295, 382; on the teacher 59, 277; see also 514, 525
commercial constraints criteria see evaluation checklist
constructivism 21, 25–6, 415, 431, 437; critical discourse analysis 97–99
constructivist approaches 273, 433 critical language awareness 241
content and language integrated learning 7, 110, critical reflection 315, 390, 439, 493
347–48, 350–63, 443 critical studies 99, 116, 125, 127, 132
context 17, 66, 94, 226, 234–6, 251, 338–39; critical theory 126, 127
contextual factors 431; monolingual 311, critical thinking 115, 131, 132, 324, 372, 443, 484
377, 378, 418; multilingual 103; language in cross-curricular approach 301
context 25, 31, 53, 190, 208, 211, 213, 253, culture 140, 297, 343, 388–89; cultural
378; teaching and learning 49, 50, 51, 52, 68, accessibility 69; cultural awareness 113, 339,
69, 70, 86, 96–7, 98, 99, 104–5, 114, 116, 370; cultural bias 55, 103, 125–26; cultural
129, 132, 149, 156, 162, 179, 244, 250, 256, content 51, 53, 97, 98, 103, 109, 110, 118, 120,
257, 264, 265, 269, 271, 277–80, 283, 284, 299, 308, 311–13, 387; cultural diversity 98,
285, 293, 294–95, 298, 307–9, 316–17, 322, 113, 114; cultural imperialism 312; of learning
323–325, 330, 347, 350, 355, 357, 359, 366, 192, 193; cultural neutrality 94; cultural
385, 392–93, 399, 400, 402–3, 417, 418, 419, sensitivities 270, 315, 316, 319, 378–80, 477;
425, 444–45, 447, 452, 457, 464, 467, 468, see also representation
481, 491, 494, 495, 499 cultural studies 111, 114–15, 119, 124, 125
contextualisation 206, 301, 340, 368 Cambridge University Press 52, 55, 419
continuing professional development 330, 331 curriculum 5, 54, 96, 98, 99, 101, 123, 219, 250,
contrastive analysis 81, 84, 192, 194, 196–67, 251, 277, 278, 281, 283–84, 294, 350, 367,
198, 368 430; developers 82, 95, 141, 281, 307, 444,
contrastive rhetoric 246–47 491; fidelity 281; innovation 283; makers 141,
controlled practice 5, 32, 35, 224, 241, 434, 519 281, 491; requirements 308, 309, 311, 369,
copyright 315, 447, 449 379–80; transmitters 141, 281, 491; see also
corpora see corpus hidden curriculum
corpus 35, 72, 159, 160, 253; analysis 42, 69,
74, 222, 323; linguistics 41, 83, 87, 188, 218, data-driven learning 155, 158, 159, 173, 192, 331;
221, 451; research 40, 94, 103, 128, 196, 338; activities 103; analysis 267
spoken 71, 479, 482; see also English as a De Saussure, F. 187
Lingua Franca; learner corpora declarative knowledge 6, 7, 54, 189, 190, 224
Corpus of Contemporary American English 204 decoding 235, 237, 240, 338
corpus-driven materials 174–175 decolonial studies 116
corpus-informed materials 84–5, 173–74, 178–9, deductive teaching 192, 283
327–78, 331 Dekeyser, R. 6, 190, 195, 337
correction 42; corrective feedback 249; of design 10, 308, 309, 313, 315, 316, 341, 458, 461,
writing 249 462, 518; layout 56, 146, 193, 268, 313, 314,
course planning 338, 341, 512, 523 316, 341, 518; production teams 310, 478; see
coursebooks 52, 67–8, 70, 97–100, 109–12, 114, also artwork; images
118–19, 187–88, 192–98, 203, 213–14, 219, dialogues 67–8, 69, 72, 218, 225, 286
529
Index
dictionaries 20, 24, 39, 80, 84, 85, 159, 162, 170, ESP see English for Specific Purposes
179, 263 ethnic minorities 113
digital: classrooms 405; content materials ethnicity 110, 114, 125, 126, 393
23; editing 462, 464–65; materials 10, 20, evaluation 264–65, 269–272, 277–78, 302, 318;
24, 279, 318, 406, 410, 452; natives 478; checklists 156, 269–73, 293, 498; criteria 26,
platforms 19, 22, 27, 341–42, 453; resources 156, 271, 285; frameworks 21–3, 148, 476;
58, 442, 491; tools 19, 21, 400, 403–4, pre-use, in-use and post-use 286, 287; as a
407, 409–10, 446; see also literacy; virtual specialist activity 272; studies 280, 478
learning environments exams 33, 139, 150, 175, 233, 281, 283, 370–71,
digitalisation 286, 299 409, 462; preparation course 366, 477, 513;
disability: representation of 312, 317 proficiency 250–51; washback 280, 283
discourse 31, 33, 42, 55, 68, 69, 73, 82, 94, 114, experiential approaches 8, 224, 236, 284
178, 180, 207, 220–21, 223–25, 245, 253, 273, experiential view of learning 223, 431, 433
281, 300, 322–23, 447–48 expert users 172, 174, 178, 222, 337, 339, 342, 374
discovery approaches 7, 8 expertise 51, 94, 280, 284, 361, 417
discrimination 95, 126, 389, 391 explicit learning 6, 39
diversity 125, 140, 268, 317, 339, 368, 386, 392; of explicit instruction 6, 11, 41, 54, 142, 178, 188,
English 93, 94, 96, 98, 102, 103; erasure of 312; 189, 191–92, 195, 283, 300
of teaching situations and learner needs 280 explicit knowledge 54
drafts 149, 245, 248, 251, 255, 285, 310, extensive reading 6, 37–38, 158, 159, 161, 162,
519, 522 163, 165, 205, 206, 213; programme 155
dyslexia 339
Faucett, L. 80, 83
EAP see English for Academic Purposes feedback: on language 24, 25, 179, 189, 191, 212,
editing 453, 462–63 229, 415; on materials 57, 149, 255, 295, 297,
editor 176, 295, 297, 308, 310, 316, 318, 341, 372, 480, 481, 513, 514, 519, 522–23;
355, 358, 361, 372, 446, 447, 450, 451; from students 302; on writing 245, 246,
commissioning 471, 478; content 458; copy 248–49, 253–54
459; freelance 461, 466; training 465–66 fees see royalties
ELF see English as a Lingua Franca flipped classroom 372, 377, 380, 401, 408, 442
Ellis, R. 6, 7, 8, 21, 189, 190, 191, 192, 197, 222, flipped learning see flipped classroom
224, 226, 267, 294, 340, 387, 402 fluency 32, 33, 70, 145, 177, 194, 213, 218, 219,
empirical evidence see empirical research 220, 222–23, 225–26, 229
empirical research 8, 22, 50, 52, 89, 94, 96, 100, form-focused instruction 6, 19, 24, 195, 198
151, 156, 158–65, 189, 195, 202, 277, 278, formulaic chunks 39, 40, 72, 100, 160, 176–77,
279, 280, 284, 286, 293, 323, 431 228, 247, 432, 442, 451
empirical study see empirical research formulaic language see formulaic chunks
empowerment of learners 390 foundation programmes 324
English as a Lingua Franca 66, 93, 118, 172, 174, four skills 30, 301, 336, 339, 379, 517, 521
196, 246, 256, 385, 390, 391–92, 442; corpora framework: for CALL evaluation 22–4; for
94, 103, ELF-informed pedagogy 96, 102; developing EAP materials; for materials
research 94, 95, 97; users 93, 102, 391 analysis 110, 120, 266–68, 298; for materials
English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings development 298, 302, 321, 325, 403, 406,
corpus 94 407, 437, 443, 451, 458, 513, 525; pedagogical
English as an additional language 347 19 26, 27; for TBLT 387; see also evaluation
English for academic purposes 204, 247–48, 249, frameworks
389; materials 322–31; teachers 322, 324–25, frequency 39, 40, 41, 43, 73, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85,
330–31 176, 188, 204, 206, 208, 214, 446; lists 172,
English for specific purposes 82, 322, 493 173, 177
English Grammar Profile 86, 88
English-medium education 207, 321, 324–25, games 42, 160, 163, 219, 228, 371, 374; digital
347–48, 348–35, 357–62, 429 19, 23, 24, 157, 415, 416; video 372, 373, 439
English-medium instruction see English medium gender 337, 393; equality 98, 131; norms 55;
education representation 125
English Vocabulary Profile 88, 171, 521 generative grammar 187
ESOL: approaches 339–40; classrooms 336, genre 31, 34–5, 43, 53, 118, 244, 245, 248, 251,
337–38; context analysis 340–41 253, 331; analysis 82, 87, 220, 321, 323, 325;
530
Index
-based activities 254–55; online 248, 417; initial teacher education 299, 355
speech 221, 222, 225 innovation 81, 85, 88, 250, 406; in language
Gilmore, A. 65, 67, 70, 74, 172, 266, 373 teaching materials 11, 218, 392, 467, 475, 479;
global coursebooks see coursebooks pedagogical 55, 65, 330, 448
Global English see Global Englishes input 6, 12, 21, 35–6, 52, 54, 70, 73, 86, 205, 206,
Global Englishes 93, 102, 280, 284 210, 213, 297, 299, 335, 336–37, 430–31, 432,
globalisation 117, 293, 331; of English 387 434–37, 439
graded readers 38, 39, 43, 159, 160, 162, 163, instructed second language acquisition 224, 336
173, 203, 205, 213, 343, 490 instructions see rubrics
grading: of language 79, 81, 445 intake 6, 12, 21
grammar bank 194 integrated skills 34, 251, 254, 403
grammar explanations 55, 61, 161, 188, 193, 194, intelligibility 102, 442
195, 197, 198, 283, 300 interactionist theory 21, 22
grammar syllabus see syllabus intercultural approach 387, 393
grammar-translation method 25, 187, 244, 432, intercultural awareness 94, 97, 388, 392
452, 477 intercultural communication 113, 125, 266,
Gray, J. 9, 11, 50, 57, 78, 83, 88, 97, 115, 123, 389–390; strategies 96
124, 125, 126–27, 127, 128, 131–33, 140, 141, intercultural education 103, 109, 111, 113, 115,
156, 263, 264, 266, 313, 388, 391, 392, 393 116, 117
internal syllabus see syllabus
Harwood, N. 4, 9, 30, 139, 140, 141, 147, International Corpus of English 193
149, 150, 155, 157, 170, 278, 279, 280, internationalisation 331
303, 466, 513 intuition 42, 43, 96, 285, 445, 521
Headway Plus 392
Headway series 188, 219–20, 386, 444, 449 Jenkins, J. 66, 93, 94, 95, 96, 102, 172, 189, 390
heterogeneity 370 Jordan, R.R. 244, 295
heteronormativity 55, 392
heterosexism 391, 392, 393 Kachru, B. 93, 385, 388
hidden curriculum 126, 265 Kolb, D. 433
Higher Education 128, 321, 324, 325, 331, 335, Kramsch, C. 109, 115, 116, 388, 437
366, 385 Krashen, S. 6, 8, 21, 65, 72, 189, 190, 233, 299, 448
holistic learning 300, 301 Kumaravadivelu, B. 95, 117, 123, 280, 477
homogeneity 50, 88, 318, 367, 444, 446
homosexuality see representation L1: interference 197, 370, 377–78; use in the
Hornby, A.S. 81, 83 classroom 56, 355–56, 192; use in materials
human rights 114, 117, 119, 317 196, 309, 311, 353, 368–69
humour 110, 446, 448, 450 language acquisition 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 30,
Hyland, K. 34, 140, 245–46, 248, 321, 323, 325 32, 55, 65, 83, 128, 140, 142, 187, 189, 190,
191, 195, 249, 267, 282, 298, 300, 303, 336,
identity 95, 111, 112, 114, 116, 128, 336, 367, 368, 415, 416, 420, 432, 446, 514
370, 391–92, 393, 482; learner 33; politics language awareness approach 8, 178, 387, 393
124, 126; see also national identity language proficiency 12, 24, 50, 51, 52, 60, 72,
idiomaticity 222, 223 86, 103, 119, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 174,
IELTS 233, 250, 251 206, 223, 240, 284, 285, 299, 302, 321. 335,
illustrations 53, 406 337, 340, 367, 378, 431, 443, 447, 448
images 25, 124, 163, 309, 312, 313, 341, 407, language variety 94, 95, 99, 103, 111, 140,
415, 518; see also artwork 338, 386
immersion 191, 195, 213, 348, 423 large classes 10, 281, 382, 475, 477
implicit instruction 41, 44 layout see design
implicit knowledge 54, 189, 190, 192 LBGTQIA+ community 391, 393
inauthentic texts see authenticity Leakey, J. 22–4
incidental learning 44, 227; of vocabulary 39, learnability 55, 83, 84
210, 302 learner autonomy 23, 43, 53, 179, 279, 372, 379,
inclusivity 125, 317, 391, 392 380, 386–89, 431, 435–39, 451
independent learning see learner autonomy learner corpora 83, 85–6, 88, 171, 173, 174, 311
inductive methods 41, 42, 159, 192, 193, 206 learner-generated materials 150, 280, 335, 343,
information and communications technology 18, 19 431, 434
531
Index
learning management systems see virtual learning 355, 357, 359, 362, 370, 390, 415–16, 418,
environments 425, 431
learning outcomes 60, 172, 190, 250, 278, 301, materials selection 272, 330, 490
331, 381, 416, 421, 425, 430, 435, 450 materials writers see authors
lesson observation 9, 146, 147, 148, 282, 295, materials in use 60, 141, 382
297, 381 materials adaptation see adaptation
lesson study 148–49 materials evaluation see evaluation
level of materials 24, 67, 70, 80, 88, 93, 129, 159, MATSDA 4
160, 170, 178, 194, 203, 207, 294, 295, 297, measurability 442, 444–6, 448, 450
299, 307, 371, 374, 441, 520–21 memorisation 187, 218, 226–30, 371, 379, 414
lexical approach 83, 170, 191, 228, 451 metacognitive strategies 22, 36
lexical chunks see formulaic chunks metaphors 52, 57–8, 491
lexical sets 208, 302 methodology 24, 35, 41, 50, 56, 97, 123, 174,
lexical syllabus see syllabus 178, 192, 219, 240, 269, 270, 273, 279, 285,
lexico-grammatical features 67, 69, 94, 96, 103, 298, 308, 310–11, 323, 325, 368, 370, 372,
159, 160, 162, 163, 164 380–82, 431, 433, 441, 443–44, 447–48, 451,
Lillis, T. 245, 247 476, 492–93, 496–97, 499, 500
linguistic contrast 368–89 Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken
listening texts 42, 56, 67, 101, 130, 204, 379, 393, English 171
415, 442, 447, 497, 517 migration 109, 113, 117–18, 337, 385; migrant
literacy 145, 340; academic 324; alphabetic 338; workers 334, 338
digital 18, 20, 27, 443; skills 240, 335, 443 minority education 348
local community 387–90, 393 Mishan, F. 4, 5, 8, 19, 24, 26–7, 30, 36, 38, 40,
local coursebooks see coursebooks 51, 53–4, 58, 72–3, 139, 279–80, 307, 310,
Lock, D. 458; ‘iron triangle’ 367–68 312, 343, 378, 400, 406, 442
Long, M. 6, 21, 84, 191, 286 mobile apps see apps
loop input 521–22 mobile devices 18, 24, 229, 414–20, 422–25;
lower levels 72, 144, 159, 197, 298, 302, 337, mobile phones 100, 342
338, 340, 341, 355, 358, 359, 369, 378, 418, mobile platforms 419, 423
445, 450, 521 mobile-assisted language learning 92, 415,
418–21, 425
McCarthy, M. 33, 67–8, 72, 74, 170–3, 175–6, mobile learning see mobile-assisted language
178–9, 203, 221–2, 224, 227–8, 400, 430, 451 learning
McGrath, I. 4, 9, 30, 50, 52, 56–8, 61, 84, 100, models 33–4, 55, 67, 69, 72, 96–7, 102, 187, 190,
104, 110, 148, 150, 155, 270, 278–9, 284, 286, 192, 196, 218, 226, 343, 360, 431, 513
489–91, 494, 511–12 monolingual contexts see contexts
MA courses 285 Moodle 23, 402
machine translation 424 Morrow, K. 66, 74
mainstream education 123, 148, 273, 310 motivation 7–8, 37, 43, 69, 157, 172, 211, 241,
market 24–5, 30, 50, 81, 85, 87–8, 98, 119, 125, 282, 286, 298–300, 336–37, 342, 370–72, 380,
127–30, 132, 170, 193–4, 257, 268, 273, 279, 386–89, 392, 394, 416, 451, 499–500
283, 307–313, 315–18, 357, 360–2, 366, 370, multiculturalism 113, 125
372, 377–8, 380, 387, 423–4, 445, 447, 450, multilingualism 96, 103, 128, 343
452, 457–8, 460–2, 464, 466–7, 479, 481; multimedia 26, 329, 416, 420–21, 430, 513
demand 451, 460; global 277, 324, 366–8,
491; market-led projects 464; market-specific Nation, I.S.P. 37, 39, 40, 85, 203–11, 213–14,
adaptations of materials 452, 460; needs 369, 301, 369, 442; four strands 213
387; research 279, 310–11, 315, 318, 378–80, National Geographic 442, 490
444, 451, 456, 481 national identity 112, 312, 367
marketing 52, 188, 192–3, 419, 457, 461–3; national studies 110–12, 118, 120, 125
teams 310, 317, 475, 478 native speaker 33, 66, 85, 94–5, 103, 172, 188,
materials analysis 110, 143, 264–5, 267, 270, 222, 256, 279, 389–390, 442, 482; competence
272–3 97; norms 96–7, 172–73, 256, 389–90;
materials in action see materials in use standard see norms; teachers 70, 95, 452
materials design 4, 13, 78, 81–7, 102, 139, 148, needs analysis 286, 295–96, 322, 325, 330, 511,
150, 165, 171, 189–91, 195, 207, 211, 214, 517; of learners 82–3, 87, 307, 328, 339, 357,
220, 223, 263, 293, 317, 323, 330, 350, 353, 359, 481; of students see of learners
532
Index
Neoliberalism 55, 124–8, 131, 266 446, 480, 483, 485, 493, 499, 513–14, 525;
New Headway 194, 195, 203, 220, 308, pedagogical 23, 149, 453; principled approach
313–15, 316 26, 102, 296, 317, 319, 381, 406
New Headway Plus 308, 313–15 private language schools 50, 370, 385
non-native speaker teachers 70, 95, 452 process approaches to writing see writing
noticing 6, 21, 24, 70, 100, 178, 210–11, 297 pro-coursebook arguments see coursebooks
notions 82, 84, 228, 322 product approaches to writing see writing
novice teachers 51, 57, 60, 148, 246, 299, professional development 51–2, 102, 148–9, 165,
491–92, 496, 499–500 285, 317, 330–31, 452, 466, 477, 488–89, 491,
Nunan, D. 50, 82, 104, 150, 286, 293, 300–1, 493–94, 496–97, 500–1
343, 374, 386, 430–36, 438–9, 448, 453 proficiency 12, 24, 50–2, 60, 72, 86, 110, 157,
161, 163–4, 206, 214, 240, 284–5; 299, 302,
observational studies 156–7 321, 325, 328, 335, 337, 340, 349, 367, 431,
O’Neill, R. 49, 52, 61, 82 443, 447–48, 488, 491; examination 250
online platforms see virtual learning profit 55, 192, 387, 392
environments pronunciation 31–2, 40, 94, 96–7, 101–2, 178,
organising principle 80, 422, 432 180, 194, 207, 214, 229, 270, 336, 367, 370,
outer circle countries 385, 390 377–78, 390, 407, 415, 442, 450, 490, 517, 523
Oxford Bookworms 160–61 proofreading 459, 461, 464–65
Oxford University Press 23, 52, 80, 84, 160, 308, publishers 4, 6, 8–9, 38, 50, 52, 55, 57, 61, 81,
360–61, 499 84–5, 87–8, 96, 98, 104, 132, 143, 146, 148–
51, 170–73, 176, 192–93, 203, 263, 277–79,
Palmer, H. 78–81, 83 294, 303, 307–8, 310–11, 313, 317–18, 330,
PARSNIP 97, 312, 378, 445, 447 355, 357–62, 369, 380, 391–94, 401–3, 415,
pedagogy 19–23, 25–6, 52, 56, 78, 80, 88, 419, 420, 423, 442–45, 448–52, 457, 459–64,
95–6, 115, 123–4, 128, 130, 165, 171, 179, 466–68, 476–79, 481, 483, 485, 488–89, 496,
246–7, 265, 302, 315, 318, 323, 347, 349–50, 499–500, 513; commercial considerations 125,
355–56, 362, 393, 450, 453, 466, 476–7, 457; conservatism 55, 145, 312, 475, 479;
499; pedagogic tasks 428, 448; pedagogical expectations 513
principles see principles publishing 87–8, 125, 127, 146, 149, 172, 193,
peer feedback 253, 256 294–95, 310–12, 315–16, 318, 347, 355,
Pennycook, A. 116–7, 280, 476 357–58, 360–61, 420, 442, 449, 453, 456–57,
personalisation 179, 236, 368, 422, 489 459–60, 462–65, 467, 525; companies 456,
phonemic symbols 310–11 460–3, 466, 484; cycles 309, 463; industry
phonological representation 391, 393 170, 307–8, 452, 475, 485; schedule 146;
photographs 21, 66, 313–14, 316, 422; briefs see strategy 457–58
artwork briefs
Piaget, J. 371 readability scores 358, 359
Pienemann, M. 55, 84, 189 reader response 37, 234–41
piloting 141, 144, 146, 149, 151, 296–97, 326–27, reading activities 204–5, 211, 238–39, 254
341, 381, 453, 458, 461, 466, 483, 522–23 reading comprehension 38, 130, 159, 233, 238,
political concerns see political sensitivities 401–2, 522
political sensitivities 125, 157, 309, 319, 378, 380 reading fluency 37; skills 160, 162, 206,
postcolonial studies 111, 115–16, 119–20, 125 237–41, 449
PPP 4–8, 11, 41, 178, 193, 195, 197–8, 219 reading speed 38, 163–65
practice activities 146, 178, 224, 311 reading texts 37, 80, 85, 145, 198, 238–39, 251,
pragmatics 94, 140, 220, 224–25, 227, 266, 339; 315, 326, 338, 358, 378–79, 442, 522
pragmatic competence 65, 95, 225; pragmatic recycling 10, 33, 40, 42–3, 208, 213, 229, 254,
strategies 94, 390 298, 301–2, 311, 372
prediction 157, 195, 236–37, 241, 326, 424 reflection 9, 32, 95, 97–101, 103, 111–15, 117,
pre-service training 74, 488 140, 149, 174, 176, 213, 250, 315, 317–18,
pre-sessional courses 247, 324 329, 343, 368, 390, 433, 439, 442, 484, 489,
principles 4, 21–2, 24–5, 30–1, 43, 53, 78–9, 493–94, 499, 523: reflective practice 489, 494
82–4, 86, 102, 124, 132, 150, 157–58, 175, refugees 114, 117–19, 334, 338, 389
178, 191, 202, 206, 208, 214, 221, 233, 238, register 31, 40, 43, 65, 225, 244, 250, 286 register
266–67, 279, 284–85, 298, 300–2, 308–9, analysis 321–22, 325
315–18, 362, 399, 403, 406, 416, 425, 432–33, religion 97, 110, 114–15, 119, 312, 378, 445
533
Index
repertory grids 162–63 standard language ideology 94

repetition 8, 33, 42–3, 98, 187, 203, 207–8, 222, stereotypes see representations
226, 228–30, 301–2, 356, 390, 415, 447; of story-based approach 298, 300–1
tasks 43 strategy 37, 53, 141, 162, 178, 190–92, 207, 221,
representation 57, 85, 96–102, 109–12, 114, 224, 237–38, 379, 419, 457–58, 467 strategic
118–19, 123–28, 131–32, 238, 246, 268, 313, competence 65, 223; see also intercultural
367, 388, 391–93; of cultures 98, 100, 118, communication
125, 312; of homosexuality 317; of gender structuralist linguistics 187
125; of race 125 of stereotypes 110–11, 268, student see learner
368, 391 student voice 303, 318
research-informed materials 4 study skills 25, 311, 324, 329
Richards, J.C. 50, 55, 81, 84, 155–56, 194, 223, 270, style 22, 31, 35, 41, 43, 53, 81, 118, 127, 150,
296, 369, 373, 388, 406, 432, 439, 445, 491 170, 233, 236, 244, 248, 250, 255, 281, 372,
Rosetta Stone 25 446, 458, 518–19, 523
royalties 318, 443, 451, 461, 464, 467 supplementary materials 7, 23–4, 148, 159–60,
rubrics 265, 309, 311, 369, 519–20 270, 393–94, 414, 419–20, 443, 512
supplementary resources see supplementary
scaffolding 32–4, 38, 43, 58, 179, 245, 299, materials
388–89, 406, 432, 489 Swales, J. M. 146, 244, 323, 479
schema 226, 238, 299–300, 489 Swan, M. 41–2, 51, 81, 88, 127, 191, 193,
schemata 34, 237–38, 297, 299, 328 313, 268
Schmidt, N. 6, 178, 448 syllabus 25, 33, 37, 41–3, 50–1, 53, 68, 82–4, 87,
Schmitt 39–40, 202, 208–9, 222 101, 123, 139, 141, 143, 145–46, 149, 173–74,
scope and sequence 298, 369, 379 176, 178, 190–91, 193–95, 207, 222–23, 244,
scripts 8–9, 227, 238, 273, 341, 374, 490, 497, 269, 270, 273, 279, 281, 283, 297–98, 301,
521: audio see audio; see also unscripted 310–11, 324, 336, 340, 369, 372, 374, 379,
conversations 394, 402, 419, 421, 431–33, 437, 442, 445–46,
second language acquisition 30, 55, 88, 128, 140, 450–51, 458, 464, 467, 476, 491, 498–99,
244, 267, 298, 303, 336, 446, 514; research 368 514–15, 518–21, 523–24; analytic 431–32;
secondary education 294, 366, 381 grammar 40–2, 43, 84, 86, 146, 174–75,
Seidlhofer, B. 85, 93, 103, 172, 246, 442 191, 228, 283, 316, 379, 442; internal 84,
self-access 7, 160 88; lexical 39–40, 323, 327, 476; synthetic
self-publishing 453, 459, 463, 467 432, 437
sexism 55, 125–6, 265, 378, 391
Sinclair, J. 41, 84–5, 170, 172–73 taboos 312, 380, 445, 477
Skehan, P. 6, 191, 222, 387, 448 task authenticity see authenticity
skill acquisition theory 6 task design 25, 416–17
four skills 30, 301, 336, 339, 379, 517, 521 task repetition 33, 226, 228–29
Skills for Life 335, 338–339, 342 task-based approach 7, 8, 19, 25, 283 340, 415,
SLA see second language acquisition 420; see also framework for TBLT
social constructivism 21 task-based language learning and teaching see
social media 18–19, 72–3, 109, 117, 241, 248, task-based approach
280, 343, 402, 409 task-based language teaching see task-based
sociocultural theory 17, 20, 22, 225 approach
songs 66, 109, 206, 298, 300 teachability hypothesis 189–90, 192, 197
speaking activities 31–2, 98, 140, 218 teachers’ associations 362, 512
special needs 143–44, 339 teacher attitudes 491
spiky profiles 341 teacher beliefs 336
spoken discourse 33, 207 teacher’s book 489, 490–91, 495, 497–500
spoken English 67–9, 71, 80, 172, 188, 196, 221, teacher development 10–11, 53, 271, 283–85,
447, 479 382, 488, 494, 498
spoken grammar 67–8, 188, 221, 222, 227, 482 teacher education 37, 53–4, 95, 99, 101–4, 173,
spoken interaction 31, 140–1, 218–19, 223–25, 281, 284, 287, 299, 355, 362, 490, 511–12, 524
247, 414 teacher-researchers 157–59, 165
stakeholders 50–1, 57, 61, 99, 132, 279, 283, 286, teacher roles 490, 498
296, 308, 310, 315, 317–19, 355, 361, 362, teacher talk 349, 356, 360
369, 372, 381, 462, 478, 485–86 teacher trainers 143, 491–92
534
Index
teacher training 51, 59–60, 74, 100, 149, 151, vague language 67–69, 221
285, 300, 310, 330, 341, 423, 452, 490–91, validity 49, 51, 128–29, 151, 250, 271, 279, 282,
500, 511 459, 468
teaching English to young learners 293 varieties of English 99, 173, 311, 391
technology 17–26, 43, 56, 118, 170, 179, 229, versioning 307–13, 315–19, 379, 392, 402, 461
248, 255, 256, 279, 280, 286, 299, 329, 369, video 3, 10, 24, 25, 50, 70, 100–1, 109–10, 149,
372, 400, 402, 405–7, 409, 416–18, 420–24, 156, 180, 210, 229, 264, 299–300, 311–12,
439, 442–43, 453, 463, 465, 525; in teaching 329, 335, 341, 343, 372, 401, 415, 417–18,
writing 255 423–24, 432, 437, 442, 448, 451, 458, 490,
TED talks 18, 101, 205–6, 482 499, 504–6, 512, 518, 521, 525; games
teenagers 366, 369–74, 377, 380–81, 475 372–73, 439
text analysis tools 208, 214 Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English
text selection 330, 447, 517 94, 172, 188
text types 53, 241, 244, 325–26 virtual learning environments 23, 402, 241
textbook see coursebook virtual reality 409, 417, 423–25
text-driven approach 7, 8, 70, 74, 145 visualisation 237, 240–41, 339
Thornbury, S. 30, 32, 54–6, 157, 218, 220, 225, vocabulary activity books 202, 203
444, 477, 479, 491 vocabulary learning 39, 202–6, 208–11, 213–15,
Thorndike, E.L. 80 228, 302, 379
Timmis, I. 4, 26–7, 30, 33, 36, 38, 40, 51, vocabulary learning strategies 39, 379
53–4, 58–9, 69–70, 72, 74, 84, 139, 149, 172, vocabulary research 80, 202
196, 240, 279, 286, 295–96, 307, 310, 312, vocabulary selection 79, 80–1, 84–5
317, 338, 343, 378, 442, 446, 448, 451, 475, vocabulary size 39, 205–6, 209
478–80 vocabulary tests 40, 206
Tomlinson, B. 3–13, 18–19, 22, 24, 26, 30, 43, Vygotsky, L. 20–21, 371
50, 54, 58, 60, 65–66, 69, 74, 99, 139, 150,
155–58, 190, 195, 202–3, 233, 237–38, 257, webQuests 19
264, 269–71, 277–80, 284–86, 293, 295, West, M. 80, 83, 85, 202, 204, 207 General
297–98, 300–3, 307, 309–10, 335, 343, 367, Service List 85, 202, 204, 207
372–3, 381, 387, 391, 400, 402–3, 405–7, 430, Widdowson, H. 61, 66, 78, 80, 82–83, 87, 155,
434, 439, 443–44, 447, 449, 451, 456, 458, 172, 188, 191, 322–23, 434
467, 476–77, 480, 511, 517 Willis, D. 5, 8, 170, 191, 278, 387, 479
top-down processing 489 Willis, J. 5, 8, 170, 173, 191, 278, 387, 403, 448,
Touchstone series 171 451, 479
trainee teachers 148, 512 see also novice teachers word families 39, 204, 207
training courses 59–60, 399, 461, 512, 517, 523 word frequency 43, 80, 208, 446
translanguaging 93, 347, 349, 353, 355–56, 360 word knowledge 203, 206–7, 213–14
translation exercises 197 word lists 80–1, 203–4, 214, 228, 310–11, 323
transnational studies 111, 116–17, 119–20, 125 World Englishes 93, 102
Truscott, J. 224, 249
young learners 6, 193, 197, 206, 293–94, 300,
unscripted conversations 68–9 370, 432, 462
535

(Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics) Julie Norton (Editor), Heather Buchanan (Editor) - The Routledge Handbook of Materials Development For Language Teaching-Routledge (2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics) Julie Norton (Editor), Heather Buchanan (Editor) - The Routledge Handbook of Materials Development For Language Teaching-Routledge (2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Routledge Handbook of

Materials Development for

·· changes and developments in language teaching materials

Heather Buchanan is a Lecturer in Language Education and Director of Postgraduate Taught

The Routledge Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexuality

The Routledge Handbook of Plurilingual Language Education

The Routledge Handbook of the Psychology of Language Learning

The Routledge Handbook of Language Testing

The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics

The Routledge Handbook of Materials Development for Language

Edited by Julie Norton and Heather Buchanan

1 The discipline of materials development 3

2 Language learning materials in the digital era 17

3 Theory and practice in materials development 30

4 Why do we need coursebooks? 49

5 Authenticity in language teaching materials 65

6 Selecting language for materials writing 78

7 From global English to Global Englishes: Questioning current

8 Culture and materials development 109

9 Representation in coursebooks: A critical perspective 123

10 Research in materials development: What, how, and why? 139

11 Using research to inform materials development 155

12 Writing corpus-informed materials 170

13 Materials for teaching grammar 187

14 Materials for teaching vocabulary 202

15 Materials for developing speaking skills 218

16 Materials for developing reading skills 233

17 Materials for developing writing skills 244

18 The analysis and evaluation of language teaching materials 263

19 Approaches to materials adaptation 277

20 Developing a primary coursebook series for Turkey 293

21 Versioning coursebooks 307

22 Writing EAP materials 321

23 Writing materials for ESOL 334

24 Materials for English-medium education 347

25 Writing materials for Spanish teenagers 366

26 Writing materials for an English-speaking environment 385

27 Developing blended learning materials 399

28 Materials for mobile learning 414

29 Learner contributions to materials in language teaching 429

30 How do writers write? 441

31 The editor’s role in developing materials 456

33 Coursebook materials as a tool for professional development:

34 Training materials writers 511

Heather Buchanan is a Lecturer in Language Education and Director of Postgraduate

Graham Burton is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Education, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano,

Julie Choi is a Senior Lecturer in Education (Additional Languages). She is co-edi-

John Clegg is a freelance education consultant, specialising in education in a second lan-

Alessia Cogo is a Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at Goldsmiths, University of

Hiromi Hadley is an Associate Professor of TESOL at Niigata University. She is currently

Sharon Hartle is an Associate Professor of English Language in the Department of Foreign

Nigel Harwood is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Sheffield. His

Nicky Hockly is Director of Pedagogy of The Consultants-E (www​.theconsultants​-e​.com).

Yasemin Kırkgöz is a Professor in the English Language Teacher Education Department

Michael McCarthy is an Emeritus Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of

53 books, including Touchstone, Viewpoint, Cambridge Grammar of English, and English

Hitomi Masuhara is a Lecturer in the Department of English in the University of Liverpool,

Freda Mishan is an Emeritus Lecturer of the University of Limerick, working on the MA

Karen Risager is a Professor Emerita in Cultural Encounters, Roskilde University, Denmark.

Claudia Saraceni is a Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at the University of Bedfordshire.

Ivor Timmis is an Emeritus Professor of English Language Teaching at Leeds Beckett

Brian Tomlinson is an Honorary Visiting Professor at the University of Liverpool, a Chair

Takumi Uchihara is currently completing a PhD in Applied Linguistics at the University

Nicky Hockly is Director of Pedagogy of The Consultants-E (www.theconsultants-e.com).

DOI: 10.4324/b22783-3 17

Table 2.1 Synthesized list of criteria for the evaluation of CALL

DOI: 10.4324/b22783-6 49

DOI: 10.4324/b22783-7 65