PDF Developing Materials For Language Teaching Brian Tomlinson Ebook Full Chapter

Developing Materials for Language
Teaching Brian Tomlinson

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/developing-materials-for-language-teaching-brian-tom
linson/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Developing materials for language teaching Second

Edition Tomlinson
https://textbookfull.com/product/developing-materials-for-
language-teaching-second-edition-tomlinson/
Teaching and Developing Reading Skills: Cambridge

Handbooks for Language Teachers Peter Watkins
https://textbookfull.com/product/teaching-and-developing-reading-
skills-cambridge-handbooks-for-language-teachers-peter-watkins/
Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language Techniques for

Developing Language Skills and Grammar 1st Edition
Mohammad T. Alhawary
https://textbookfull.com/product/teaching-arabic-as-a-foreign-
language-techniques-for-developing-language-skills-and-
grammar-1st-edition-mohammad-t-alhawary/
Literacies and Language Education 3rd Edition Brian V.

Street
https://textbookfull.com/product/literacies-and-language-
education-3rd-edition-brian-v-street/
Teaching English as a Foreign Language Carola Surkamp
https://textbookfull.com/product/teaching-english-as-a-foreign-
language-carola-surkamp/
Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills Judith

R. Birsh
https://textbookfull.com/product/multisensory-teaching-of-basic-
language-skills-judith-r-birsh/
Negotiating Identity in Modern Foreign Language

Teaching Matilde Gallardo
https://textbookfull.com/product/negotiating-identity-in-modern-
foreign-language-teaching-matilde-gallardo/
Foreign Language Teaching in Romanian Higher Education

Teaching Methods Learning Outcomes Lucia-Mihaela Grosu-
R■dulescu
https://textbookfull.com/product/foreign-language-teaching-in-
romanian-higher-education-teaching-methods-learning-outcomes-
lucia-mihaela-grosu-radulescu/
Practical Teaching Skills for Driving Instructors

Developing Your Client Centred Learning and Coaching
Skills 11th Edition John Miller
https://textbookfull.com/product/practical-teaching-skills-for-
driving-instructors-developing-your-client-centred-learning-and-
coaching-skills-11th-edition-john-miller/
Developing Materials
for Language
Teaching
Also available from Bloomsbury
Advances in Language and Education, edited by Anne McCabe, Mick O’Donnell and
Rachel Whittaker
Language and Education, by M. A. K Halliday (edited by Jonathan J. Webster)
Language, Education and Discourse, edited by Joseph Foley
Language in Education, edited by Rita Elaine Silver and Soe Marlar Lwin
The Grammar Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning,
edited by Alessandro Benati, Cécile Laval and María J. Arche
Developing Materials
for Language
Teaching
Second Edition
Edited by
Brian Tomlinson
L ON DON • N E W DE L H I • N E W Y OR K • SY DN EY
Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA
www.bloomsbury.com
Bloomsbury is a registered trademark of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published 2013
© Brian Tomlinson and Contributors, 2013
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission
in writing from the publishers.
Brian Tomlinson and contributors have asserted their rights under the Copyright,
Designs and Patent Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work.
No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or

refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication
can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
eISBN: 978-1-4411-5311-1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Developing Materials for Language Teaching / Edited by Brian Tomlinson.Â€– Second Edition.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4411-5188-9 (Hardcover) ISBN 978-1-4411-8683-6 (Paperback)
ISBN 978-1-4411-5311-1 (eBook (PDF)) ISBN 978-1-4411-7687-5 (eBook (ePub))â•‡
1. Language and languages – Study and teaching.â•‡ 2. Teaching – Aids and devices.â•‡
I. Tomlinson, Brian.
P53.15.D48â•‡ 2014
418.0071–dc23
2013020287
Typeset by Newgen Knowledge Works (P) Ltd., Chennai, India

Contents
List of Contributors viii
Preface Brian Tomlinson ix
Introduction: Are Materials Developing? Brian Tomlinson 1
Part A Evaluation and Adaptation of Materials 19
1 Materials Evaluation Brian Tomlinson 21
2 Adapting Courses: A Personal View Claudia Saraceni 49
3 Publishing a Coursebook: The Role of Feedback

Duriya Aziz Singapore Wala 63
Comments on Part A Brian Tomlinson 89
Part B Principles and Procedures of Materials

Development 93
4 Developing Principled Frameworks for Materials
Development Brian Tomlinson 95
5 The Instructional Design of a Coursebook Is As It Is
Because of What It Has To Do – An Application of Systemic
Functional Theory Duriya Aziz Singapore Wala 119
6 Humanizing the Coursebook Brian Tomlinson 139
7 The Visual Elements in EFL Coursebooks David A. Hill 157
8 Creative Approaches to Writing Materials Alan Maley 167
9 Developing Digital Language Learning Materials Thom Kiddle 189
10 Demystifying Blended Learning Freda Mishan 207

Comments on Part B Brian Tomlinson 225
vi Contents
Part C Developing Materials for Target Groups 227
11 Authors’ Knowledge, Rationales and Principles – Steady

Flow-Through or Stuck in the Publishing Pipeline? The Case of
Early Reading with Young Learners Shelagh Rixon 229
12 Developing Motivating Materials for Refugee Children:
From Theory to Practice Irma-Kaarina Ghosn 247
13 Materials for Adults: ‘I am No Good at Languages!’ –
Inspiring and Motivating L2 Adult Learners of Beginner’s
Spanish Rosa-Maria Cives-Enriquez 269
14 Materials for Adult Beginners from an L2 User
Perspective Vivian Cook 289
15 Mining the L2 Environment: ESOL Learners and Strategies
Outside the Classroom Naeema Hann 309
Comments on Part C Brian Tomlinson 333
Part D Developing Specific Types of Materials 335
16 Materials for the Teaching of Grammar Jeff Stranks 337
17 Materials for Teaching Vocabulary Paul Nation 351
18 Materials for Developing Reading Skills Hitomi Masuhara 365
19 Materials for Developing Writing Skills Ken Hyland 391
20 Developing Materials for Speaking Skills Dat Bao 407
21 Coursebook Listening Activities David A. Hill and

Brian Tomlinson 429
22 Materials for Cultural Awareness Alan Pulverness and
Brian Tomlinson 443
23 Corpora and Materials: Towards a Working
Relationship Ivor Timmis 461
Comments on Part D Brian Tomlinson 475
Contents vii
Part E Materials Development and Teacher Training 479
24 Materials Development Courses Brian Tomlinson 481
25 Simulations in Materials Development Brian Tomlinson and

Hitomi Masuhara 501
26 Working with Student-Teachers to Design Materials for Language
Support within the School Curriculum Helen Emery 521
Comments on Part E Brian Tomlinson 537
Conclusion Brian Tomlinson 541
Copyright Acknowledgements 544
Index 545
List of Contributors
Dat Bao, Monash University, Melbourne

Rosa-Maria Cives-Enriquez, Motiva Language and Training Specialists Limited
Vivian Cook, University of Newcastle
Helen Emery, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat
Irma-Kaarina Ghosn, Lebanese American University, Byblos
Naeema Hann, Leeds Metropolitan University
David A. Hill, Freelance, Budapest
Ken Hyland, University of Kong Kong
Thom Kiddle, NILE (Norwich Institute for Language Education)
Alan Maley, Leeds Metropolitan University
Hitomi Masuhara, University of Liverpool
Freda Mishan, University of Limerick
Paul Nation, Victoria University of Wellington
Alan Pulverness, NILE (Norwich Institute of Language Education)
Shelagh Rixon, University of Warwick
Claudia Saraceni, University of Bedfordshire
Jeff Stranks, Freelance
Duriya Aziz Singapore Wala, Scholastic, Singapore
Ivor Timmis, Leeds Metropolitan University
Brian Tomlinson, Leeds Metropolitan University, Anaheim University
Preface
Brian Tomlinson
T he first edition of this book published in 2003 developed from a realization that
the recent explosion in interest in materials development for language teaching,
both as ‘a field of study and as a practical undertaking’ (Tomlinson, 2001), had not
been adequately catered for by the literature on materials development. A number
of books had dealt with important aspects of materials development and had raised
issues of great significance to the developers and users of language learning materials
(e.g. Sheldon, 1987; McDonough and Shaw, 1993; Byrd, 1995; Hidalgo et al., 1995;
Cunningsworth, 1996; Tomlinson, 1998; Richards, 2001; McGrath, 2002). But no
book had provided a comprehensive coverage of the main aspects and issues in
materials development for language learning. And no book had attempted to view
current practice in materials development through the eyes of developers and users
of materials throughout the world. This is what Developing Materials for Language
Teaching aimed to do. It was designed and written (by native and non-native speakers
of English from eleven different countries) so that it could provide both an overview
of what is happening in the world of materials development for language teaching and
a stimulus for further development and innovation in the field. It included reference
to the teaching of languages other than English (e.g. Italian, Spanish, Japanese) and
offered both objective and critical overviews of current issues in the field as well as
proposals for principled developments for the future. It was written so that it could be
used as a coursebook on teachers’ courses and on postgraduate courses in applied
linguistics, and also to provide stimulus and refreshment for teachers, publishers and
applied linguists in the field. Since this book was first published a number of books
have focused on different aspects of materials development. For example:
●● Johnson (2003) has reported a study of how novice and expert materials
developers approached the writing of a task for a unit of materials.
●● Tomlinson and Masuhara (2004) have provided a practical guide for
teachers engaging in materials development.
●● Tomlinson (2008) has provided a critical survey of different types of
materials and of materials in different parts of the world.
x Preface
●● Harwood (2010) has focused on the principles and procedures of materials

development (especially with reference to English for Academic Purposes).
●● Tomlinson and Masuhara (2010) have reported research on materials
development from all over the world.
●● Gray (2010) has written about cultural and idealogical influences on the
development of the global coursebook.
●● Tomlinson (2011) has published contributions from eminent materials
developers who have made presentations at MATSDA Conferences.
●● McDonough, Shaw and Masuhara (2013) have focused on materials
adaptation and development for teachers.
●● Tomlinson (2013) has investigated the match between applied linguistics
theory and materials development.
However no publication has appeared which aims to provide such complete coverage
of aspects and issues in materials development as Developing Materials for Language
Teaching. This updated second edition of the book aims to provide a similar informative
coverage for participants of teachers’ and post-graduate courses while at the same
time providing stimulus and refreshment for teachers, academics and materials
developers. Many of the chapters have been retained and updated and a number
of new chapters have been added on recent developments in blended learning,
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), corpus-informed materials, ESOL,
materials for young learners and materials for writing.
Ultimately, ‘It is the language teacher who must validate or refute specific proposals’
for applying linguistic and psycholinguistic theory to language teaching (Chomsky,
1996, p. 46) and it is the language teacher who must validate or refute the materials
which are developed for the language classroom. Widdowson (2000, p. 31) offers
the ‘applied linguist’ as a ‘mediating agent’ who must make ‘insights intelligible in
ways in which their usefulness can be demonstrated’ but Tomlinson (2013) raises
questions about how effective applied linguistics has been in achieving ‘intelligibility’
and ‘usefulness’. In this book, instead of the applied linguist, we offer the informed and
reflective practitioner as the ideal agent for mediating between theory and practice.
Some of the contributors to this book might be labelled teachers, some materials
developers, some applied linguists, some teacher trainers and some publishers. But
all of them share four things in common. They have all had experience as teachers of
a second or foreign language (L2), they have all contributed to the development of L2
materials, they have all kept in touch with developments in linguistic, sociolinguistic
and psycholinguistic theory and they all have respect for the teacher as the person
with the power to decide what actually happens in the language classroom.
This book is dedicated to classroom teachers and teachers in training. It aims to help
them to make decisions about materials for themselves and to help them and others
Preface xi
to contribute to the development of materials which can facilitate the acquisition of

an L2. It does so by applying insights gained from applied linguistics, from materials
development and from classroom practice.
References
Byrd, P. (1995), Material Writer’s Guide. New York: Heinle and Heinle.
Chomsky, N. (1996), Powers and Prospects: Reflections on Human Nature and the Social
Order. London: Pluto.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995), Choosing Your Coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.
Gray, J. (2010), The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism and Promotion in the
ELT Coursebook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harwood, N. (ed.) (2010), Materials in ELT: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hidalgo, A. C., Hall, D. and Jacobs, G. M. (eds) (1995), Getting Started: Materials Writers
on Materials Writing. Singapore: RELC.
Johnson, K. (2003), Designing Language Teaching Tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
McDonough, J. and Shaw, C. (1993), Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide.
London: Blackwell.
McDonough, J., Shaw, C. and Masuhara, H. (2013), Materials and Methods in ELT:
A Teacher’s Guide (3rd edn). London: Blackwell.
McGrath, I. (2002), Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Richards, J. (2001), Curriculum Development in Language Education. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sheldon, L. E. (ed.) (1987), ELT Textbooks and Materials: Problems in Evaluation and
Development. ELT Documents 126. London: Modern English Publications/The British
Council.
Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (1998), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Tomlinson, B. (2001), ‘Materials development’, in R. Carter and D. Nunan (eds), The
Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–71.
Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (2008), English Language Teaching Materials: A Critical Review.
London: Continuum.
— (ed.) (2011), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
— (ed.) (2013), Applied Linguistics and Materials Development. London: Bloomsbury.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H. (eds) (2004), Developing Language Course Materials.
Singapore: RELC Portfolio Series.
— (eds) (2010), Research for Materials Development in Language Learning: Evidence for
Best Practice. London: Continuum.
Widdowson, H. G. (2000), ‘On the limitations of linguistics applied’, Applied Linguistics,
21 (1), 3–25.
Introduction: Are Materials
Developing?
Brian Tomlinson
What is materials development?

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. As an undertaking it involves the
production, evaluation and adaptation of language teaching materials, by teachers for
their own classrooms and by materials writers for sale or distribution. Ideally these
two aspects of materials development are interactive in that the theoretical studies
inform and are informed by the development and use of classroom materials.
Tomlinson, 2001, p. 66
This book deals with both the aspects of materials development outlined above.
For example, Chapter 4 (Tomlinson) and Chapter 17 (Nation) deal with the principles
and procedures of aspects of the development of materials, Chapter 1 (Tomlinson)
deals with the principles and procedures of the evaluation of materials and Chapter 2
(Saraceni) deals with the principles and procedures of materials adaptation. On the
other hand, for example, Chapters 5 (Singapore Wala) and 26 (Emery) focus on the
actual process of the writing of materials. There is also a third aspect of materials
development which is dealt with in this book, that is the use of materials development
as a means of facilitating and deepening the personal and professional development
of teachers (e.g. Chapters 24 (Tomlinson), 25 (Tomlinson and Masuhara) and 26
(Emery)).
There is a growing inclusion of materials development on courses for teachers:
for example the International Graduate School of English (IGSE) in Seoul runs an MA
in Materials Development for Language Teaching, and MA TESOL/Applied Linguistics
courses throughout the world now include modules on materials development. This is
mainly because of the realization that, ‘Every teacher is a materials developer’ (English
Language Centre, 1997) who needs to be able to evaluate, adapt and produce materials
2 Developing Materials for Language Teaching
so as to ensure a match between their learners and the materials they use. It is also
because of the realization that one of the most effective ways of ‘helping teachers
to understand and apply theories of language learning – and to achieve personal and
professional development – is to provide monitored experience of the process of
developing materials’ (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 67). This concrete experience of developing
materials as a basis for reflective observation and conceptualization enables teachers
to theorize their practice (Schon, 1987).
A fourth aspect of materials development focused on in this book is the use of
materials to actualize new pedagogical or content approaches in ELT. Examples of this
are Chapter 26 (Emery) on materials for Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL), Chapter 9 (Kiddle) on materials exploiting the use of digital aids, Chapter 15
(Hann) on materials for ESOL and Chapter 23 (Timmis) on materials for corpus informed
approaches.
Although a number of chapters in this book focus primarily on one of the four
aspects of materials development described above, many of them deal with two
or even three of these aspects. For example, Chapter 10 (Mishan) examines both
the theories which drive blended learning and their implementation, Chapter 16
(Stranks) looks at both the theories and the practicalities of developing grammar
teaching materials, Chapter 18 (Masuhara) looks at the application of reading research
and theory to the development of coursebook materials for teaching reading, and
Chapter 25 (Tomlinson and Masuhara) considers the theoretical principles of using
simulations for learning, outlines procedures for developing and using simulations and
reflects on actual examples of simulations used on materials development courses for
teachers. In addition, a number of chapters (e.g. Chapter 26 (Emery) and Chapter 22
(Pulverness and Tomlinson)) focus on issues related to the content of materials, as well
as concerning themselves with the application of theory to practice.
What are materials?

In this book ‘materials’ ‘include anything which can be used to facilitate the learning
of a language. They can be linguistic, visual, auditory or kinaesthetic, and they can
be presented in print, through live performance or display, or on cassette, CD-ROM,
DVD or the internet’ (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 66). They 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 the language for themselves. See also
Richards (2001, p. 251) for a definition of materials.
Despite the recent ‘explosion’ of electronic materials most language learning
materials are still published as books and most of the chapters in this book focus on print
materials. However, Chapter 7 (Hill), for example, focuses on visuals and Chapter 21
(Hill and Tomlinson) on auditory materials, Chapter 9 (Kiddle) focuses on the computer
and the internet, Chapter 10 (Mishan) focuses on blended learning, Chapter 13
Introduction 3
(Cives-Enriquez) focuses on live materials and Chapter 18 (Masuhara) focuses on a

multidimensional approach. Most materials are instructional (‘instructional materials
generally serve as the basis for much of the language input learners receive and the
language practice that occurs in the classroom’ (Richards, 2001, p. 251)) and many
of the chapters in this book focus on materials for instruction. However, many other
chapters advocate more attention being paid to experiential materials (e.g. Chapters 2
(Saraceni) and 21 (Hill and Tomlinson)) and to elicitative materials (e.g. Chapters 14
(Cook) and 4 (Tomlinson) focus on materials stimulating learner discovery).
What are the issues in materials development?

What should drive materials?
The obvious answer to this question is that the needs and wants of the learners should
drive the materials. But teachers have needs and wants to be satisfied too (Masuhara,
2011) and so do administrators, with their concerns for standardization and conformity
with, for example, a syllabus, a theory of language learning, the requirements of
examinations and the language policies of a government (see Chapter 5 (Singapore
Wala) in this book for discussions of the multiple requirements of a national and of
institutional textbooks). These needs and wants are not irreconcilable and, in my
experience, they can best be satisfied by localized projects which consult learners,
teachers and administrators before, during and after the materials writing process.
This is what happened in the process of developing the most satisfactory textbook
I have ever been involved in, On Target (1996), a coursebook for secondary school
students in Namibia. Prior to the writing of the book, students and teachers were
consulted all over Namibia about what they wanted and needed from the book. During
the writing of the book, Ministry of Education officials were present throughout each
day in which 30 teachers wrote the materials, and the syllabus, the curriculum and
the examination documents were frequently referred to. After the writing of the book,
it was trialled extensively and revised in relation to the feedback which was provided
by students, teachers and officials. A similar approach has been followed by Bilkent
University in Turkey and by Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat in the production of
new textbooks for their English courses. See Tomlinson (1995, 2001, 2012b), Lyons
(2003) and Al-Busaidi and Tindle (2010) for descriptions of these projects. Many of
the projects referred to above decided to adopt a text-driven approach rather than
a syllabus-driven, grammar-driven, functions-driven, skills-driven, topic-driven or
theme-driven approach. That is, they decided to start by finding written and spoken
texts with a potential for affective and cognitive engagement, and then to use a
flexible framework to develop activities connected to these texts. Later on they
would cross-check with the syllabus and the examination requirements to ensure
satisfactory coverage. For a description and justification of such an approach, see
Chapter 4 (Tomlinson) in this book.
The situation is complicated in the case of materials produced by publishers for

commercial distribution. ‘The author is generally concerned to produce a text that
teachers will find innovative, creative, relevant to their learners’ needs, and that they
will enjoy teaching from.. . . The publisher is primarily motivated by financial success’
(Richards, 2001, p. 257). Publishers obviously aim to produce excellent books which
will satisfy the wants and needs of their users but their need to maximize profits
makes them cautious and conservative and any compromise with the authors tends
still to be biased towards perceived market needs rather than towards the actual needs
and wants of the learners. For discussions of the compromises necessitated by the
commercial production of materials (and especially of global coursebooks) see Ariew
(1982), Richards (2001), Gray (2010) and Bell and Gower (2011), as well as 5 (Singapore
Wala) and 16 (Stranks) in this volume.
Who should develop the materials?

These days most commercial materials are written by professional materials writers
writing to a brief determined by the publishers from an analysis of market needs (see
Amrani, 2011). These writers are usually very experienced and competent, they are
familiar with the realities of publishing and the potential of the new technologies and they
write full-time for a living. The books they write are usually systematic, well designed,
teacher-friendly and thorough. But they often lack energy and imagination (how can
the writers be imaginative all day and every day?) and are sometimes insufficiently
relevant and appealing to the actual learners who use them (see Tomlinson et al., 2001;
Masuhara et al., 2008; Tomlinson, 2010; Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2013). Dudley Evans
and St John (1998, p. 173) state that ‘only a small proportion of good teachers are also
good designers of course materials’. This observation is contrary to my experience, as
I have found that teachers throughout the world only need a little training, experience
and support to become materials writers who can produce imaginative materials of
relevance and appeal to their learners. This has certainly been the case with teachers
on materials development courses I have run in Belgium, Brazil, Botswana, Indonesia,
Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mauritius, Oman, the Seychelles, Vanuatu and Vietnam,
and on textbook projects I have been a consultant for in Ethiopia, Bulgaria, China,
Turkey and Namibia (Tomlinson, 2001).
This issue is addressed in a number of chapters in this book, for example Chapters 4
(Tomlinson), 24 (Tomlinson) and 26 (Emery).
How should materials be developed?

Typically, commercial materials are written over a long period of time by a pair or small
group of writers (e.g. in the year 2010 Speakout Intermediate by Antonia Clare and
J. J. Wilson, the Big Picture Pre-Intermediate by Beth Bradfield and Carol Lethaby
Introduction 5
and global by Lindsay Clanfield and Rebecca Robb-Benne with Amanda Jeffries were
published). The materials usually take a long time to produce because these days
most of the materials published are courses (supplementary books are generally not
considered profitable enough), because most courses have multiple components
(e.g. Bradfield and Lethaby (2011) has seven components per level) and because the
important review process takes time (though many publishers now save time by not
trialling their materials (Amrani, 2011)). In my experience the result very often is a drop
in creative energy as the process drags on and the eventual publication of competent
but rather uninspiring materials.
My own preference is for a large team approach to writing materials, which aims at
fast first draft production by many people followed by refinement by a smaller group
of experts. This is the procedure that the Namibian and Bilkent projects referred to
above decided to follow. In the writing of the Namibian coursebook, On Target (1996),
30 teachers were selected to provide a team of varying age, experience and expertise
and were then brought from all over the country to Windhoek. On the first day,
I demonstrated some innovative approaches to extend the teachers’ repertoires of
activity types and to stimulate thought and discussion about the principles of language
learning. On the second day, we worked out a flexible framework to use in producing
the materials and made some decisions together about the use of illustrations, music,
cassettes, etc. Then, for four days the teachers wrote and monitored materials in small
teams while a small group of facilitators supported them and cross-checked with the
syllabus. That way we managed to complete the first draft of the whole book in one
week, and then this was trialled, revised, edited and published within the year. In
Bilkent University we followed a similar procedure and 20 teachers in small teams
produced and monitored 60 units within a week for a group of 4 ‘writers’ to select
from, revise and trial.
In both cases described above, the teachers managed to inspire each other with
ideas, to maintain creative energy, to relate their materials to the actual learners who
were going to use them and to suggest useful improvements to each other’s materials.
All this was achieved to a far greater degree than I have ever managed when writing
a coursebook by myself, with a partner or in a small team working at a distance from
each other. And all this was achieved because a large group of enthusiastic teachers
were working together for a short time.
How should materials be evaluated?

Materials are often evaluated in an ad hoc, impressionistic way, which tends to favour
materials which have face validity (i.e. which conform to people’s expectations of what
materials should look like) and which are visually appealing. In order to ensure that
materials are devised, revised, selected and adapted in reliable and valid ways, we
need to ensure that materials evaluation establishes procedures which are thorough,
rigorous, systematic and principled. This often takes time and effort but it could prevent
many of the mistakes which are made by writers, publishers, teachers, institutions and
ministries and which can have negative effects on learners’ potential to benefit from
their courses. For ways of achieving this, see Chapters 1 (Tomlinson) and 2 (Saraceni)
in this volume, as well as McGrath (2002), Mukundan and Ahour (2010), Tomlinson
(2012b) and McDonough, Shaw and Masuhara (2013).
Should texts be authentic?

Materials aiming at explicit learning usually contrive examples of the language which
focus on the feature being taught. Usually these examples are presented in short,
easy, specially written or simplified texts or dialogues, and it is argued that they help
the learners by focusing their attention on the target feature. The counterargument is
that such texts overprotect learners, deprive them of the opportunities for acquisition
provided by rich texts and do not prepare them for the reality of language use, whereas
authentic texts (i.e. texts not written especially for language teaching) can provide
exposure to language as it is typically used. A similar debate continues in relation to
materials for the teaching of reading and listening skills and materials for extensive
reading and listening. One side argues that simplification and contrivance can facilitate
learning; the other side argues that they can lead to faulty learning and that they deny
the learners opportunities for informal learning and the development of self-esteem.
Most researchers argue for authenticity and stress its motivating effect on learners
(e.g. Bacon and Finneman, 1990; Kuo, 1993; Little et al., 1994; Mishan, 2005; Gilmore,
2007; Rilling and Dantas-Whitney, 2009). However, Widdowson (1984, p. 218) says
that ‘pedagogic presentation of language . . . necessarily involves methodological
contrivance which isolates features from their natural surroundings’; Day and Bamford
(1998, pp. 54–62) attack the ‘cult of authenticity’ and advocate simplified reading texts
which have the ‘natural properties of authenticity’, Ellis (1999, p. 68) argues for ‘enriched
input’ which provides learners with input which has been flooded with exemplars of
the target structure in the context of meaning focused activities and Day (2003) claims
there is no evidence that authenticity facilitates acquisition but that there is evidence
that learners find authentic texts more difficult.
Some researchers have challenged the conventional view of authenticity and
redefined it, for example, in relation to the learners culture (Prodromou, 1992; Trabelsi,
2010), to the learners’ interaction with a text or task (Widdowson, 1978), to the
‘authenticity of the learner’s own interpretation’ (Breen, 1985, p. 61) and to the personal
engagement of the learner (van Lier, 1996). For discussion of the issues raised above
see Widdowson (2000), Mishan (2005), Trabelsi (2010) and Tomlinson (2012b: 161–2),
as well as Chapters 2 (Saraceni), 16 (Stranks) and 18 (Masuhara) in this volume.
For me the most useful definition of an authentic text is ‘one which is produced
in order to communicate rather than to teach’ (Tomlinson, 2012b, p. 162) and the
most useful definition of an authentic task is ‘one which involves the learners in
communicating to achieve an outcome, rather than to practice the language’ (ibid.).
Introduction 7
I believe that all texts and tasks should be authentic in these ways, otherwise the
learners are not being prepared for the realities of language use. I also believe that
meaningful engagement with authentic texts is a prerequisite for the development of
communicative and strategic competence but that authentic texts can be created by
interactive negotiation between learners as well as presented to them (see Breen and
Littlejohn, 2000, as well as Chapters 2 (Saraceni), 4 (Tomlinson) and 13 (Cives-Enriquez)
in this volume). I also believe, though, that it is useful for learners to sometimes pay
discrete attention to linguistic or discoursal features of authentic texts which they have
previously been engaged by (Tomlinson, 1994, 2007; Bolitho et al., 2003; Chapter 4
(Tomlinson) in this volume).
Other issues
Other issues which have received attention in the literature and which feature in this
book include:
ll Do learners need a coursebook? In the eighties Allwright (1981) put

forward arguments against ways in which textbooks deliver materials
and O’Neil responded with a defence of the coursebook. Since then
there has been continual debate about whether learners benefit from
coursebooks or not. Opponents have argued that the coursebook benefits
administrators and teachers without catering for the needs and wants
of learners (Tomlinson, 2010), that it is used mainly to impose control
and order (Mukundan, 2009) and that it is ‘superficial and reductionist in
its coverage of points and in its provision of language experience . . . it
imposes uniformity of syllabus and approach, and it removes initiative and
power from teachers’ (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 67). Proponents (e.g. Torres
and Hutchinson, 1994) have countered that the coursebook is a cost-
effective way of providing security, system, progress and revision for the
learner, that it saves teachers time and provides them with a secure base
and that it helps administrators achieve credibility and standardization.
For discussion of this issue see Mishan (2005), Tomlinson (2013) and
Chapters 2 (Saraceni) and 13 (Cives-Enriquez) in this volume.
ll Do learners need published materials at all? In recent years there has been
a move away from using published materials with institutions throughout
the world developing their own locally relevant materials (e.g. Al Busaidi and
Tindle, 2010; Mason, 2010; Park, 2010) and with Meddings and Thornbury
(2009) proposing the Dogme ELT movement which advocates, learner-
centred, materials-light approaches. And yet surveys by the British Council
(2008) and Tomlinson (2010) show that most teachers continue to use
commercially published materials (even though many do so with compulsion
or reluctance). For discussion of this issue see Tomlinson (2012b).
ll Should materials be learning or acquisition focused? Most published

materials focus on conscious learning of language points but many
researchers argue that the learners should be provided with many more
opportunities to acquire language informally from exposure to language
in use. For discussion of this issue see Tomlinson, 2008, 2010, 2011,
2012a; and Chapters 4 (Tomlinson), 18 (Masuhara), 17 (Nation) and 20
(Dat) in this book.
ll Should published materials be censored? It is common practice for
publishers to censor materials to make sure that they do not give offence
or cause embarrassment. Many authors have complained about the
unengaging blandness of the materials which result from what they see
as excessive caution (e.g. Wajnryb, 1996; Tomlinson, 2001) and Chapter 2
(Saraceni) in this book and about the ‘safe, clean, harmonious, benevolent,
undisturbed’ (Wajnryb, 1996), successful, materialistic and aspirational
EFL world (Gray, 2010). Tomlinson (2001) understands the publishers’
caution but stresses the importance of affective engagement in language
acquisition and therefore of controversial topics and provocative texts.
ll Should materials be driven by theory or practice? Reviews of ELT
coursebooks (Tomlinson et al., 2001; Masuhara et al., 2008; Tomlinson
and Masuhara, 2013) reveal that coursebook writers are much more
influenced by what is conventional practice than by theories of language
practice or even by classroom research. In some ways this is a vicious
circle as publishers continue to produce courses with face validity which
they know will sell. Tomlinson (2010, 2011, 2012a, 2013) understands
the publishers’ reluctance to change but argues that learners are being
disadvantaged by the failure of coursebook writers to apply even such
basic theories of second language acquisition (SLA) as the necessity for
exposure to language in use and for opportunities to use language for
communication. For discussion of this issue see Bell and Gower, 2001;
Harwood, 2010; Prowse, 2011; and Chapters 4 (Tomlinson) and 8 (Maley)
in this volume.
ll Should materials be driven by syllabus needs, learner needs or market
needs? Most published materials are inevitably driven by perceived
market needs but many large institutions are beginning to publish
their own materials because of the mismatch between the courses
available and their local institutional needs (Tomlinson, 2012b). And many
researchers are arguing that learners are suffering because courses are
designed primarily to appeal to the administrators and teachers who are
responsible for buying them. For discussion of this issue see, for example
Amrani, 2011; Masuhara, 2011; and Chapters 4 (Tomlinson) 3 and 5
(Singapore Wala) in this book.
Introduction 9
ll Should materials cater for learner expectations or try to change them?

Traditionally it has been argued that it is important to provide learners with
what they expect or else risk rejection of the materials. Recently though
researchers (e.g. Tomlinson, 2005) have pointed out that it is teachers
rather than learners who are resistant to change and that learners often
welcome innovative approaches which have the potential to engage them.
See Chapters 6 (Tomlinson), 13 (Cives-Enriquez) and 14 (Cook) in this book
for discussion of this volume.
ll Should materials aim for language development only or should they also
aim for personal and educational development? Many language teachers
argue that it is their job to help the learners to acquire language and that
they are not responsible for their educational development. Others argue
that if language learners are situated in an educational establishment
then their teacher’s main responsibility is to help them to develop. And
others argue that not only are personal and educational development
main objectives of any language course but that the achievement of
these objectives actually facilitates the acquisition of language too. For
discussion of this issue see Banegas (2011) and Chapters 2 (Saraceni) and
6 (Tomlinson).
ll Should materials aim to contribute to teacher development as well as
language learning? All teachers need frequent stimulus and refreshment
if they are not to ‘fossilize’. Most teachers have very few opportunities
for personal and professional development though and many researchers
are now arguing that published materials should aim to help teachers to
develop by involving them in, for example, making principled decisions
about which texts and tasks to use and how to use them to the best
advantage of their learners. See Tomlinson (1995) and Chapter 1
(Tomlinson), in this book for discussion of this issue.
What are the current trends in

materials development?
In the first edition of this book (Tomlinson, 2003) I claimed that it is arguable that
there is nothing much new going on in materials development and that in the area
of commercially produced materials there is even a sort of principled going back.
This is justified by publishers by reference to their confidential research into what
learners and teachers want (e.g. the return to the centrality of grammar highlighted in
Tomlinson et al., 2001, p. 84). But in my view it is almost certainly driven by economic
constraints and the ever-increasing cost of producing the sort of multicoloured,
multicomponent coursebook which seems to attract the biggest sales these days.
As a result, publishers dare not risk losing vast sums of money on a radically different
type of textbook, they opt for safe, middle-of-the-road, global coursebooks which
clone the features of such best-selling coursebooks as Headway and they cut down on
non-profit-making supplementary materials. Unfortunately this then has a washback
effect on non-commercial materials, as teachers and curriculum developers tend to
imitate the approaches of best-selling coursebooks on the assumption that this must
be what learners and teachers want (though the reality is more likely that the models
are the books which have been promoted most expensively and successfully by their
publishers).
Ten years later I think my words above are still true. There have been a few peripheral
developments such as materials for Content and Integrated Language Learning (e.g.
Coyle et al., 2010), materials for task-based approaches (e.g. Van den Branden, 2006)
and materials which are corpus informed (e.g. McCarthy et al., 2006) but nothing much
else has changed.
There is still some hope of progress, though, and in my list of current trends below
I have listed a number of positive ones:
Positive trends
ll There are some materials requiring investment by the learners in
order for them to make discoveries for themselves from analysis of
samples of language in use (e.g. McCarthy et al., 2006; Bradfield and
Letharby, 2011; Clare and Wilson, 2011). Unfortunately though most of
the current coursebooks inviting discovery just ask the learners to find
predetermined answers rather than to make unexpected discoveries of
their own.
ll There are more materials making use of corpus data reflecting actual
language use (e.g. McCarthy et al., 2006). However, as Timmis (2013)
points out, there are still many coursebooks which deliberately do not
make any use of corpora at all (e.g. Dellar and Walkley, 2005).
ll There are more extensive reader series being produced with fewer linguistic
constraints and more provocative content (e.g. Maley, 2008; Maley and
Prowse, 2013) but, as Maley and Prowse (2013) point out, there has also
been a disturbing trend for publishers to add comprehension questions to
their extensive readers, thus ironically promoting intensive reading.
ll There has been a very noticeable and welcome increase in attempts to
personalize the learning process by getting learners to relate topics and
texts to their own lives, views and feelings (e.g. Clanfield and Benn, 2010;
Bradfield and Letharby, 2011; Clare and Wilson, 2011).
ll There is an increase in attempts to gain the affective engagement
of learners (Tomlinson, 2010, 2011) by involving them in tasks which
Introduction 11
encourage the expression of feelings but there has also been a decline
in the number of texts likely to stimulate affective engagement (see
Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2013).
ll There is an increasing use of the internet as a source of current, relevant
and appealing texts. For information about and examples of this trend see
Kervin and Derewianka, 2011; Motteram, 2011; Levy, 2012; Reinders, 2012;
McDonough, Shaw and Masuhara, 2013; Tomlinson and Whittaker, 2013;
and Chapters 4 (Tomlinson), 9 (Kiddle) and 10 (Mishan) in this book.
ll There is evidence of a movement away from spoken practice of written
grammar and towards experience of spoken grammar in use (e.g. Dellar
and Walkley, 2005; McCarthy et al., 2006).
ll There is a considerable increase in the number of ministries (e.g. in
Belarus, Bulgaria, Columbia; Ethiopia, India, Iran, Morocco, Namibia,
Romania, Russia and Uzbekistan) and institutions (e.g. Bilkent University
in Ankara; the University of Hue; Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat) which
have decided to produce their own locally relevant materials (see Busaidi
and Tindle, 2010; Tomlinson, 2012b).
Negative trends
ll There is an even more pronounced return to the ‘central place of
grammar in the language curriculum’ (Soars and Soars, 1996), which
contradicts what my own confidential research for a British publisher
revealed about the needs and wants of learners and teachers and
which goes against many of the findings of second language acquisition
research (Ellis, 2010; Tomlinson, 2010, 2011, 2013; Tomlinson and
Masuhara, 2013).
ll There is still a far greater prominence given in coursebooks to listening
and speaking than to reading and writing (Tomlinson et al., 2001; Masuhara
et al., 2008).
ll There is an assumption that most learners have short attention spans, can
only cope with very short reading and writing texts and will only engage in
activities for a short time.
ll There seems to be an assumption that learners do not want and would not
gain from intellectually demanding activities while engaged in language
learning.
ll There is a neglect (or sometimes an abuse) of literature in coursebooks,
despite its potential as a source of stimulating and engaging texts and
despite the many claims of methodologists for the potential value and
appeal of literature (e.g. Chapters 2 (Saraceni), 4 (Tomlinson), 6 (Tomlinson)

and 8 (Maley)) in this volume.
ll There is a continuing predominance of analytical activities and a neglect of
activities which could cater for learners with other preferred learning styles
(Masuhara et al., 2008; Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2013).
ll There is still an ‘absence of controversial issues to stimulate thought, to
provide opportunities for exchanges of views, and to make topic content
meaningful’ (Tomlinson et al., 2001) and there is a resultant trivialization
of content (see, for example, Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2013; Chapters 2
(Saraceni) and 18 (Masuhara)) in this volume.
ll There is a tendency to underestimate learners linguistically, intellectually
and emotionally.
ll Despite the increase in publications reflecting the predominant use of
International English as a lingua franca most coursebooks still focus on
English as used by native speakers and prepare the learners for interaction
with them (see Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2013)
Obviously my evaluation of the trends above is subjective and is related to my

principles, hopes and beliefs. Another materials developer might come to very different
conclusions as a result of holding different principles, hopes and beliefs.
What is the future of materials development?

The authors of the chapters in this book each give their version of what they would
like to see as the future of materials development. The reality is that publishers will
probably still play safe and stick to what they know they can sell; but the hope is that
a decrease in customer satisfaction and an increase in local materials development
projects will help some of the following to develop:
ll even greater personalization and localization of materials;

ll greater flexibility of materials and creativity in their use;
ll more respect for the learners’ intelligence, experience and communicative
competence;
ll more affectively engaging content;
ll a greater emphasis on multicultural perspectives and awareness;
ll more opportunities for learners with experiential (and especially
kinaesthetic) learning style preferences;
Introduction 13
ll more attempts made to engage the learner in the language learning

process as an experienced, intelligent and interesting individual;
ll more attempts made to use multidimensional approaches to language
learning (Tomlinson, 2010).
MATSDA
MATSDA (the Materials Development Association) is an association founded in 1993 by
Brian Tomlinson, which is dedicated to improving the future for materials development.
It runs conferences and workshops on materials development and produces a journal,
Folio, twice a year, which provides a forum for the discussion of materials development
issues and a channel for the dissemination of new ideas and materials. Recently,
for example, MATSDA held a Conference at the University of Limerick on Applied
Linguistics and Materials Development and Conferences at the University of Liverpool
on New Ideas for Language Materials and Enjoying to Learn: the Best Way to Acquire
a Language? Other Conferences have been held in recent years in Belfast, Dublin,
Japan, Singapore, South Africa, the United States and York.
Anybody who is interested in joining MATSDA should contact the secretary,
Hitomi Masuhara (hitomi.masuhara@gmail.com) and anybody who would like more
information about MATSDA activities should contact the President, Brian Tomlinson
(brianjohntomlinson@gmail.com).
References
Al-Busaidi, S. and Tindle, K. (2010), ‘Evaluating the impact of in-house materials on
language learning’, in B. Tomlinson and H. Masuhara (eds), Research for Materials
Development for Language Teaching: Evidence for Best Practice. London: Continuum,
pp. 137–49.
Amrani, F. (2011), ‘The process of evaluation; a publisher’s view’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.),
Materials Development in Language Teaching (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 267–95.
Ariew, R. (1982), ‘The textbook as curriculum’, in T. Higgs (ed.), Curriculum Competence
and the Foreign Language Teacher. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company,
pp. 11–34.
Bacon, S. M. and Finneman, M. D. (1990), ‘A study of the attitudes, motives and strategies
of university foreign language students and their disposition to authentic oral and
written input’, Modern Language Journal, 74 (4), 459–73.
Banegas, D. L. (2011), ‘Teaching more than English in secondary education’, ELT Journal,
65 (1), 80–2.
Bell, J. and Gower, R. (2011), ‘Writing course materials for the world: a great compromise’,
in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching (2nd edn).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–50.
Bolitho, R. (2008), ‘Materials used in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review.
London: Continuum, pp. 213–22.
Bolitho, R. and Tomlinson, B. (2005), Discover English (2nd edn). Oxford: Macmillan.
Bolitho, R., Carter, R., Hughes, R., Ivanic, R., Masuhara, H. and Tomlinson, B. (2003), ‘Ten
questions about language awareness’, ELT Journal, 57 (2), 251–9.
Bradfield, B. and Lethaby, C. (2010), The Big Picture. Oxford: Richmond.
Breen, M. P. and Littlejohn, A. (eds) (2000), Classroom Decision-Making: Negotiation and
Process Syllabuses in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
British Council (2008), Teaching English: Course Books. London: British Council.
Carter, R. A. and McCarthy, M. J. (1997), Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge:
Clanfield, L. and Robb-Benne, R. with Jeffries, A. (2010), Global. Oxford: Macmillan.
Clare, A. and Wilson, J. J. (2010), Speakout Intermediate. Harlow: Pearson.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D. (2010), Content and Language Integrated Learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Day, R. (2003), ‘Authenticity in the design and development of materials’, in
W. A. Renandya (ed.), Methodology and Materials Design in Language Teaching:
Current Perceptions and Practices and their Implication. Singapore: RELC, pp. 1–11.
Day, R. and Bamford, J. (1998), Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom.
Dellar, H. and Walkley, A. (2005), Innovations. London: Thomson/Heinle.
Dudley-Evans, T. and St John, M. (1998), Developments in English for Specific Purposes.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Duff, A. and Maley, A. (1990), Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1999), ‘Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: a review of classroom
oriented research’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 64–80.
English Language Centre (1997), Unpublished handout from the English Language Centre,
Durban, South Africa.
Fox, G. (1998), ‘Using corpus data in the classroom’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Materials
Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 25–43.
Gilmour, A. (2007), ‘Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning’,
Language Teaching, 40, 97–118.
Gray, J. (2010), The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism and Promotion in the
ELT Coursebook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Greenall, S. (1995), Reward. Oxford: Heinemann.
Haines, S. and Stewart, B. (2000), Landmark. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hutchinson, T. and Torres, E. (1994), ‘The textbook as an agent of change’, ELT Journal, 48
(4), 315–28.
Islam, C. and Mares, C. (2003), ‘Adapting classroom materials’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.),
Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum, pp. 86–100.
Joseph, F. and Travers, T. (1996), Candidate for CAE. London: Phoenix ELT.
Kay, S. and Jones, V. (2000), Inside Out. Oxford: Macmillan/Heinemann.
Kervin, L. and Derewianka, B. (2011), ‘New technologies to support language learning’,
in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Materials Development for Language Teaching (2nd edn),
pp. 328–51.
Kuo, C. H. (1993), ‘Problematic issues in EST materials development’, English for Specific
Purposes, 12, 171–81.
Introduction 15
Lazar, G. (1993), Literature and Language Teaching: A Guide for Teachers and Trainers.
Little, B. L., Devitt, S. and Singleton, S. (1994), ‘Authentic texts, pedagogical grammar and
language awareness in foreign language learning’, in C. James and P. Garrett (eds),
Language Awareness in the Classroom. London: Longman, pp. 123–32.
Lyons, P. (2003), ‘A practical experience of institutional textbook writing: product/process
implications for materials development’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Developing Materials for
Language Teaching. London: Continuum, pp. 490–504.
Maley, A. (2001), ‘Literature in the language classroom’, in R. Carter and D. Nunan (eds),
The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 180–5.
Mason, J. (2010), ‘The effects of different types of materials on the intercultural
competence of Tunisian university students’, in B. Tomlinson and H. Masuhara (eds),
Research for Materials Development for Language Teaching: Evidence for Best
Practice. London: Continuum, pp. 67–82.
Masuhara, H. (2011), ‘What do teachers really want from coursebooks?’, in B. Tomlinson
(ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 236–66.
Masuhara, H., Hann, M., Yi, Y. and Tomlinson, B. (2008), ‘Adult EFL courses’, ELT Journal,
62 (3), 294−312.
McCarthy, M. J., McCarten, J. and Sandiford, H. (2006), Touchstone. Student’s Book 3.
McDonough, J., Shaw, C. and Masuhara, H. (2013), Materials and Methods in ELT: A
Teacher’s Guide (3rd edn). London: Blackwell.
McGowen, B., Richardson, V., Forsyth, W. and Naunton, J. (2000), Clockwise. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
McGrath, I. (2002), Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Meddings, L. and Thornbury, S. (2009), Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language
Teaching. Peaslake: Delta.
Mishan, F. (2005), Designing Authenticity into Language Learning Materials. Bristol: Intellect.
Motteram, G. (2011), ‘Developing language-learning materials with technology’,
in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Materials Development for Language Teaching (2nd edn),
pp. 303–27.
Mukundan, J. (2009), ‘Are there really good reasons as to why textbooks should exist?’
in J. Mukundan (ed.), Readings on ELT Materials III. Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia,
pp. 92–100.
Mukundan, J. and Ahour, T. (2010), ‘A review of textbook evaluation checklists across four
decades (1970–2008)’, in B. Tomlinson and H. Masuhara (eds), Research for Materials
Development in Language Learning: Evidence for Best Practice. London: Continuum,
pp. 336–52.
On Target (1996), Windhoek: Gamsberg Macmillan.
Parish, J. (1995), ‘Multi-media and language learning’, Folio, 2 (1), 4–6.
Park, H. (2010), ‘Process drama in the Korean EFL secondary classroom: A case study of
Korean middle-school classrooms’, in B. Tomlinson and H. Masuhara (eds), Research
for Materials Development for Language Teaching: Evidence for Best Practice. London:
Continuum, pp. 155–71.
Prowse, P. (1998), ‘How writers write: testimony from authors’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.),
Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 130–45.
— (2011), ‘How writers write: testimony from authors’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Materials
Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 151–73.
Reinders, H. and White, C. (2010), ‘The theory and practice of technology in materials
development and task design’, in N. Harwood (ed.), English Language Teaching
Materials: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 58–80.
Richards, R. (2001), Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Rilling, S. and Dantas-Whitney, M. (eds) (2009), Authenticity in the Language Classroom
and Beyond: Adult Learners. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Schon, D. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Soars, L. and Soars, J. (1996), Headway. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomlinson, B. (1994), Openings. Language through Literature: An Activities Book (new
edn). London: Penguin.
— (1995), ‘Work in progress: textbook projects’, Folio, 2 (2), 26–31.
— (1998a), ‘Affect and the coursebook’, IATEFL Issues, 145, 2,021.
— (1998b), ‘And now for something not completely different’, Reading in a Foreign
Language, 11 (2), 177–89.
— (1998c), ‘Introduction’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Materials Development in Language
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–24.
Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (1998d), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Tomlinson, B. (1999), ‘Developing criteria for materials evaluation’, IATEFL Issues, 147,
10–13.
— (2001), ‘Materials development’, in R. Carter and D. Nunan (eds), The Cambridge Guide
to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 66–71.
— (2007), ‘Teachers’ responses to form-focused discovery approaches’, in S. Fotos and
H. Nassaji (eds), Form Focused Instruction and Teacher Education: Studies in Honour of
Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 179–94.
— (2008), English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review. London: Continuum.
— (2010), ‘What do teachers think about EFL coursebooks?’, Modern English Teacher,
19 (4), 5−9.
— (2011), ‘Principled procedures in materials development’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Materials
Development in Language Teaching (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
— (2012a), ‘Materials development’, in A. Burns and J. C. Richards (eds), The Cambridge
Guide to Pedagogy and Practice in Second Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 269–78.
— (2012b), ‘Materials development for language learning and teaching’, Language
Teaching: Surveys and Studies, 45 (2), 143–79.
Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (2013), Applied Linguistics and Materials Development. Cambridge:
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H. (2013), ‘Review of adult EFL published courses’, ELT
Journal, 67 (2), 233–49.
Tomlinson, B. and Whittaker, C. (2013), Blended Learning in ELT: Course Design and
Implementation. London: British Council.
Tomlinson, B., Dat, B., Masuhara, H. and Rubdy, R. (2001), ‘EFL courses for adults’, ELT
Journal, 55 (1), 80–101.
Trabelsi, S. (2010), ‘Developing and trialling authentic material for business English
students at a Tunisian university’, in B. Tomlinson and H. Masuhara (eds), Research for
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
In addition to the above resolution, the General Assembly of
Virginia “appealed to the other states, in the confidence that they
would concur with that commonwealth, that the acts aforesaid [the
alien and sedition laws] are unconstitutional, and that the necessary
and proper measures would be taken by each for co-operating with
Virginia in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and
liberties reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
The legislatures of several of the New England States, having,
contrary to the expectation of the legislature of Virginia, expressed
their dissent from these doctrines, the subject came up again for
consideration during the session of 1799, 1800, when it was referred
to a select committee, by whom was made that celebrated report
which is familiarly known as “Madison’s Report,” and which deserves
to last as long as the constitution itself. In that report, which was
subsequently adopted by the legislature, the whole subject was
deliberately re-examined, and the objections urged against the
Virginia doctrines carefully considered. The result was, that the
legislature of Virginia reaffirmed all the principles laid down in the
resolutions of 1798, and issued to the world that admirable report
which has stamped the character of Mr. Madison as the preserver of
that constitution which he had contributed so largely to create and
establish. I will here quote from Mr. Madison’s report one or two
passages which bear more immediately on the point in controversy.
“The resolutions, having taken this view of the federal compact,
proceed to infer ‘that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous
exercise of other powers the states who are parties thereto have the
right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress
of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the
authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.’”
“It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense,
illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that,
where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the
parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the
bargain made has been pursued or violated. The constitution of the United States
was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It
adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the constitution, that
it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the
parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of
necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide, in the last
resort, whether the compact made by them be violated, and consequently that, as
the parties to it, they must decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of
sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
“The resolution has guarded against any misapprehension of its object by
expressly requiring for such an interposition ‘the case of a deliberate, palpable, and
dangerous breach of the constitution, by the exercise of powers not granted by it.’
It must be a case, not of a light and transient nature, but of a nature dangerous to
the great purposes for which the constitution was established.
“But the resolution has done more than guard against misconstructions, by
expressly referring to cases of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous nature. It
specifies the object of the interposition, which it contemplates, to be solely that of
arresting the progress of the evil of usurpation, and of maintaining the authorities,
rights, and liberties appertaining to the states, as parties to the constitution.
“From this view of the resolution, it would seem inconceivable that it can incur
any just disapprobation from those who, laying aside all momentary impressions,
and recollecting the genuine source and object of the federal constitution, shall
candidly and accurately interpret the meaning of the General Assembly. If the
deliberate exercise of dangerous powers, palpably withheld by the constitution,
could not justify the parties to it in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress
of the evil, and thereby to preserve the constitution itself, as well as to provide for
the safety of the parties to it, there would be an end to all relief from usurped
power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the
state constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principles on which
our independence itself was declared.”
But, sir, our authorities do not stop here. The state of Kentucky
responded to Virginia, and on the 10th of November, 1798, adopted
those celebrated resolutions, well known to have been penned by the
author of the Declaration of American Independence. In those
resolutions, the legislature of Kentucky declare, “that the
government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or
final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that
would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the
measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact
among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal
right to judge, for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and
measure of redress.”
At the ensuing session of the legislature, the subject was re-
examined, and on the 14th of November, 1799, the resolutions of the
preceding year were deliberately reaffirmed, and it was, among other
things, solemnly declared,—
“That, if those who administer the general government be permitted to
transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special
delegations of power therein contained, an annihilation of the state governments,
and the erection upon their ruins of a general consolidated government, will be the
inevitable consequence. That the principles of construction contended for by
sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge
of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since
the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution,
would be the measure of their powers. That the several states who formed that
instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to
judge of its infraction, and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all
unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”
Time and experience confirmed Mr. Jefferson’s opinion on this all
important point. In the year 1821, he expressed himself in this
emphatic manner: “It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our state
governments are superior to the federal, or the federal to the state;
neither is authorized literally to decide which belongs to itself or its
copartner in government; in differences of opinion, between their
different sets of public servants, the appeal is to neither, but to their
employers peaceably assembled by their representatives in
convention.” The opinion of Mr. Jefferson on this subject has been so
repeatedly and so solemnly expressed, that they may be said to have
been the most fixed and settled convictions of his mind.
In the protest prepared by him for the legislature of Virginia, in
December, 1825, in respect to the powers exercised by the federal
government in relation to the tariff and internal improvements,
which he declares to be “usurpations of the powers retained by the
states, mere interpolations into the compact, and direct infractions of
it,” he solemnly reasserts all the principles of the Virginia
Resolutions of ’98, protests against “these acts of the federal branch
of the government as null and void, and declares that, although
Virginia would consider a dissolution of the Union as among the
greatest calamities that could befall them, yet it is not the greatest.
There is one yet greater—submission to a government of unlimited
powers. It is only when the hope of this shall become absolutely
desperate, that further forbearance could not be indulged.”
In his letter to Mr. Giles, written about the same time, he says,—
“I see as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the
federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the
rights reserved to the states, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign
and domestic, and that too by constructions which leave no limits to their powers,
&c. Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume, indefinitely, that also
over agriculture and manufactures, &c. Under the authority to establish post roads,
they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, and
digging canals, &c. And what is our resource for the preservation of the
constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the
marble columns encircling them, &c. Are we then to stand to our arms with the
hot-headed Georgian? No; [and I say no, and South Carolina has said no;] that
must be the last resource. We must have patience and long endurance with our
brethren, &c., and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives
left are a dissolution of our Union with them, or submission. Between these two
evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.”
Such, sir, are the high and imposing authorities in support of “The
Carolina doctrine,” which is, in fact, the doctrine of the Virginia
Resolutions of 1798.
Sir, at that day the whole country was divided on this very
question. It formed the line of demarcation between the federal and
republican parties; and the great political revolution which then took
place turned upon the very questions involved in these resolutions.
That question was decided by the people, and by that decision the
constitution was, in the emphatic language of Mr. Jefferson, “saved
at its last gasp.” I should suppose, sir, it would require more self-
respect than any gentleman here would be willing to assume, to treat
lightly doctrines derived from such high resources. Resting on
authority like this, I will ask gentlemen whether South Carolina has
not manifested a high regard for the Union, when, under a tyranny
ten times more grievous than the alien and sedition laws, she has
hitherto gone no further than to petition, remonstrate, and to
solemnly protest against a series of measures which she believes to
be wholly unconstitutional and utterly destructive of her interests.
Sir, South Carolina has not gone one step further than Mr. Jefferson
himself was disposed to go, in relation to the present subject of our
present complaints—not a step further than the statesman from New
England was disposed to go, under similar circumstances; no further
than the senator from Massachusetts himself once considered as
within “the limits of a constitutional opposition.” The doctrine that it
is the right of a state to judge of the violations of the constitution on
the part of the federal government, and to protect her citizens from
the operations of unconstitutional laws, was held by the enlightened
citizens of Boston, who assembled in Faneuil Hall, on the 25th of
January, 1809. They state, in that celebrated memorial, that “they
looked only to the state legislature, who were competent to devise
relief against the unconstitutional acts of the general government.
That your power (say they) is adequate to that object, is evident from
the organization of the confederacy.”
A distinguished senator from one of the New England States, (Mr.
Hillhouse,) in a speech delivered here, on a bill for enforcing the
embargo, declared, “I feel myself bound in conscience to declare,
(lest the blood of those who shall fall in the execution of this measure
shall be on my head,) that I consider this to be an act which directs a
mortal blow at the liberties of my country—an act containing
unconstitutional provisions, to which the people are not bound to
submit, and to which, in my opinion, they will not submit.”
And the senator from Massachusetts himself, in a speech delivered
on the same subject in the other house, said, “This opposition is
constitutional and legal; it is also conscientious. It rests on settled
and sober conviction, that such policy is destructive to the interests
of the people, and dangerous to the being of government. The
experience of every day confirms these sentiments. Men who act
from such motives are not to be discouraged by trifling obstacles, nor
awed by any dangers. They know the limit of constitutional
opposition; up to that limit, at their own discretion, they will walk,
and walk fearlessly.” How “the being of the government” was to be
endangered by “constitutional opposition” to the embargo, I leave
the gentleman to explain.
Thus it will be seen, Mr. President, that the South Carolina
doctrine is the republican doctrine of ’98—that it was promulgated
by the fathers of the faith—that it was maintained by Virginia and
Kentucky in the worst of times—that it constituted the very pivot on
which the political revolution of that day turned—that it embraces
the very principles, the triumph of which, at that time, saved the
constitution at its last gasp, and which New England statesmen were
not unwilling to adopt, when they believed themselves to be the
victims of unconstitutional legislation. Sir, as to the doctrine that the
federal government is the exclusive judge of the extent as well as the
limitations of its powers, it seems to me to be utterly subversive of
the sovereignty and independence of the states. It makes but little
difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme
Court are invested with this power. If the federal government, in all,
or any, of its departments, is to prescribe the limits of its own
authority, and the states are bound to submit to the decision, and are
not to be allowed to examine and decide for themselves, when the
barriers of the constitution shall be overleaped, this is practically “a
government without limitation of powers.” The states are at once
reduced to mere petty corporations, and the people are entirely at
your mercy. I have but one word more to add. In all the efforts that
have been made by South Carolina to resist the unconstitutional laws
which Congress has extended over them, she has kept steadily in
view the preservation of the Union, by the only means by which she
believes it can be long preserved—a firm, manly, and steady
resistance against usurpation. The measures of the federal
government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon
involve the whole south in irretrievable ruin. But even this evil, great
as it is, is not the chief ground of our complaints. It is the principle
involved in the contest—a principle which, substituting the discretion
of Congress for the limitations of the constitution, brings the states
and the people to the feet of the federal government, and leaves them
nothing they can call their own. Sir, if the measures of the federal
government were less oppressive, we should still strive against this
usurpation. The south is acting on a principle she has always held
sacred—resistance to unauthorized taxation. These, sir, are the
principles which induced the immortal Hampden to resist the
payment of a tax of twenty shillings. Would twenty shillings have
ruined his fortune? No! but the payment of half twenty shillings, on
the principle on which it was demanded, would have made him a
slave. Sir, if acting on these high motives—if animated by that ardent
love of liberty which has always been the most prominent trait in the
southern character—we should be hurried beyond the bounds of a
cold and calculating prudence, who is there, with one noble and
generous sentiment in his bosom, that would not be disposed, in the
language of Burke, to exclaim, “You must pardon something to the
spirit of liberty?”
Webster’s Great Reply to Hayne,
In which he “Expounds the Constitution,” delivered in Senate,

January 26, 1830.
Following Mr. Hayne in the debate, Mr. Webster addressed the
Senate as follows:—
Mr. President: When the mariner has been tossed, for many days,
in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself
of the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take
his latitude, and ascertain how far the elements have driven him
from his true course. Let us imitate this prudence, and before we
float farther, refer to the point from which we departed, that we may
at least be able to conjecture where we now are. I ask for the reading
of the resolution.
[The Secretary read the resolution as follows:
“Resolved, That the committee on public lands be instructed to inquire and
report the quantity of the public lands remaining unsold within each state and
territory, and whether it be expedient to limit, for a certain period, the sales of the
public lands to such lands only as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are
now subject to entry at the minimum price. And, also, whether the office of
surveyor general, and some of the land offices, may not be abolished without
detriment to the public interest; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to
hasten the sales, and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public lands.”]
We have thus heard, sir, what the resolution is, which is actually
before us for consideration; and it will readily occur to every one that
it is almost the only subject about which something has not been said
in the speech, running through two days, by which the Senate has
been now entertained by the gentleman from South Carolina. Every
topic in the wide range of our public affairs, whether past or present,
—every thing, general or local, whether belonging to national politics
or party politics,—seems to have attracted more or less of the
honorable member’s attention, save only the resolution before us. He
has spoken of every thing but the public lands. They have escaped his
notice. To that subject, in all his excursions, he has not paid even the
cold respect of a passing glance.
When this debate, sir, was to be resumed, on Thursday morning, it
so happened that it would have been convenient for me to be
elsewhere. The honorable member, however, did not incline to put
off the discussion to another day. He had a shot, he said, to return,
and he wished to discharge it. That shot, sir, which it was kind thus
to inform us was coming, that we might stand out of the way, or
prepare ourselves to fall before it, and die with decency, has now
been received. Under all advantages, and with expectation awakened
by the tone which preceded it, it has been discharged, and has spent
its force. It may become me to say no more of its effect than that, if
nobody is found, after all, either killed or wounded by it, it is not the
first time in the history of human affairs that the vigor and success of
the war have not quite come up to the lofty and sounding phrase of
the manifesto.
The gentleman, sir, in declining to postpone the debate, told the
Senate, with the emphasis of his hand upon his heart, that there was
something rankling here, which he wished to relieve. [Mr. Hayne
rose and disclaimed having used the word rankling.] It would not,
Mr. President, be safe for the honorable member to appeal to those
around him, upon the question whether he did, in fact, make use of
that word. But he may have been unconscious of it. At any rate, it is
enough that he disclaims it. But still, with or without the use of that
particular word, he had yet something here, he said, of which he
wished to rid himself by an immediate reply. In this respect, sir, I
have a great advantage over the honorable gentleman. There is
nothing here, sir, which gives me the slightest uneasiness; neither
fear, nor anger, nor that which is sometimes more troublesome than
either, the consciousness of having been in the wrong. There is
nothing either originating here, or now received here, by the
gentleman’s shot. Nothing original, for I had not the slightest feeling
of disrespect or unkindness towards the honorable member. Some
passages, it is true, had occurred, since our acquaintance in this
body, which I could have wished might have been otherwise; but I
had used philosophy, and forgotten them. When the honorable
member rose, in his first speech, I paid him the respect of attentive
listening; and when he sat down, though surprised, and I must say
even astonished, at some of his opinions, nothing was farther from
my intention than to commence any personal warfare; and through
the whole of the few remarks I made in answer, I avoided, studiously
and carefully, every thing which I thought possible to be construed
into disrespect. And, sir, while there is thus nothing originating here,
which I wished at any time, or now wish to discharge, I must repeat,
also, that nothing has been received here which rankles, or in any
way gives me annoyance. I will not accuse the honorable member of
violating the rules of civilized war—I will not say that he poisoned his
arrows. But whether his shafts were, or were not, dipped in that
which would have caused rankling if they had reached, there was not,
as it happened, quite strength enough in the bow to bring them to
their mark. If he wishes now to find those shafts, he must look for
them elsewhere; they will not be found fixed and quivering in the
object at which they were aimed.
The honorable member complained that I had slept on his speech.

I must have slept on it, or not slept at all. The moment the honorable
member sat down, his friend from Missouri arose, and, with much
honeyed commendation of the speech, suggested that the
impressions which it had produced were too charming and delightful
to be disturbed by other sentiments or other sounds, and proposed
that the Senate should adjourn. Would it have been quite amiable in
me, sir, to interrupt this excellent good feeling? Must I not have been
absolutely malicious, if I could have thrust myself forward to destroy
sensations thus pleasing? Was it not much better and kinder, both to
sleep upon them myself, and to allow others, also, the pleasure of
sleeping upon them? But if it be meant, by sleeping upon his speech,
that I took time to prepare a reply to it, it is quite a mistake; owing to
other engagements, I could not employ even the interval between the
adjournment of the Senate and its meeting the next morning in
attention to the subject of this debate. Nevertheless, sir, the mere
matter of fact is undoubtedly true—I did sleep on the gentleman’s
speech, and slept soundly. And I slept equally well on his speech of
yesterday, to which I am now replying. It is quite possible that, in
this respect, also, I possess some advantage over the honorable
member, attributable, doubtless, to a cooler temperament on my
part; for in truth I slept upon his speeches remarkably well. But the
gentleman inquires why he was made the object of such a reply. Why
was he singled out? If an attack had been made on the east, he, he
assures us, did not begin it—it was the gentleman from Missouri. Sir,
I answered the gentleman’s speech, because I happened to hear it;
and because, also, I choose to give an answer to that speech, which, if
unanswered, I thought most likely to produce injurious impressions.
I did not stop to inquire who was the original drawer of the bill. I
found a responsible endorser before me, and it was my purpose to
hold him liable, and to bring him to his just responsibility without
delay. But, sir, this interrogatory of the honorable member was only
introductory to another. He proceeded to ask me whether I had
turned upon him in this debate from the consciousness that I should
find an overmatch if I ventured on a contest with his friend from
Missouri. If, sir, the honorable member, ex gratia modestiæ, had
chosen thus to defer to his friend, and to pay him a compliment,
without intentional disparagement to others, it would have been
quite according to the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all
ungrateful to my own feelings. I am not one of those, sir, who esteem
any tribute of regard, whether light and occasional, or more serious
and deliberate, which may be bestowed on others, as so much
unjustly withholden from themselves. But the tone and manner of
the gentleman’s question, forbid me thus to interpret it. I am not at
liberty to consider it as nothing more than a civility to his friend. It
had an air of taunt and disparagement, a little of the loftiness of
asserted superiority, which does not allow me to pass it over without
notice. It was put as a question for me to answer, and so put as if it
were difficult for me to answer, whether I deemed the member from
Missouri an overmatch for myself in debate here. It seems to me, sir,
that is extraordinary language, and an extraordinary tone for the
discussions of this body.
Matches and overmatches? Those terms are more applicable
elsewhere than here, and fitter for other assemblies than this. Sir, the
gentleman seems to forget where and what we are. This is a Senate; a
Senate of equals; of men of individual honor and personal character,
and of absolute independence. We know no masters; we
acknowledge no dictators. This is a hall of mutual consultation and
discussion, not an arena for the exhibition of champions. I offer
myself, sir, as a match for no man; I throw the challenge of debate at
no man’s feet. But, then, sir, since the honorable member has put the
question in a manner that calls for an answer. I will give him an
answer; and I tell him that, holding myself to be the humblest of the
members here, I yet know nothing in the arm of his friend from
Missouri, either alone or when aided by the arm of his friend from
South Carolina, that need deter even me from espousing whatever
opinions I may choose to espouse, from debating whenever I may
choose to debate, or from speaking whatever I may see fit to say on
the floor of the Senate. Sir, when uttered as matter of commendation
or compliment, I should dissent from nothing which the honorable
member might say of his friend. Still less do I put forth any
pretensions of my own. But when put to me as a matter of taunt, I
throw it back, and say to the gentleman that he could possibly say
nothing less likely than such a comparison to wound my pride of
personal character. The anger of its tone rescued the remark from
intentional irony, which otherwise, probably, would have been its
general acceptation. But, sir, if it be imagined that by this mutual
quotation and commendation; if it be supposed that, by casting the
characters of the drama, assigning to each his part,—to one the
attack, to another the cry of onset,—or if it be thought that by a loud
and empty vaunt of anticipated victory any laurels are to be won
here; if it be imagined, especially, that any or all these things will
shake any purpose of mine, I can tell the honorable member, once for
all, that he is greatly mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of
whose temper and character he has yet much to learn. Sir, I shall not
allow myself, on this occasion—I hope on no occasion—to be
betrayed into any loss of temper; but if provoked, as I trust I never
shall allow myself to be, into crimination and recrimination, the
honorable member may, perhaps, find that in that contest there will
be blows to take as well as blows to give; that others can state
comparisons as significant, at least, as his own; and that his impunity
may, perhaps, demand of him whatever powers of taunt and sarcasm
he may possess. I commend him to a prudent husbandry of his
resources.
But, sir, the coalition! The coalition! Aye, “the murdered
coalition!” The gentleman asks if I were led or frighted into this
debate by the spectre of the coalition. “Was it the ghost of the
murdered coalition,” he exclaims, “which haunted the member from
Massachusetts, and which, like the ghost of Banquo, would never
down?” “The murdered coalition!” Sir, this charge of a coalition, in
reference to the late administration, is not original with the
honorable member. It did not spring up in the Senate. Whether as a
fact, as an argument, or as an embellishment, it is all borrowed. He
adopts it, indeed, from a very low origin, and a still lower present
condition. It is one of the thousand calumnies with which the press
teemed during an excited political canvass. It was a charge of which
there was not only no proof or probability, but which was, in itself,
wholly impossible to be true. No man of common information ever
believed a syllable of it. Yet it was of that class of falsehoods which,
by continued repetition through all the organs of detraction and
abuse, are capable of misleading those who are already far misled,
and of further fanning passion already kindling into flame. Doubtless
it served its day, and, in a greater or less degree, the end designed by
it. Having done that, it has sunk into the general mass of stale and
loathed calumnies. It is the very castoff slough of a polluted and
shameless press. Incapable of further mischief, it lies in the sewer
lifeless and despised. It is not now, sir, in the power of the honorable
member to give it dignity or decency, by attempting to elevate it, and
to introduce it into the Senate. He cannot change it from what it is—
an object of general disgust and scorn. On the contrary, the contact,
if he choose to touch it, is more likely to drag him down, down, to the
place where it lies itself.
But, sir, the honorable member was not, for other reasons, entirely
happy in his allusion to the story of Banquo’s murder and Banquo’s
ghost. It was not, I think, the friends, but the enemies of the
murdered Banquo, at whose bidding his spirit would not down. The
honorable gentleman is fresh in his reading of the English classics,
and can put me right if I am wrong; but according to my poor
recollection, it was at those who had begun with caresses, and ended
with foul and treacherous murder, that the gory locks were shaken.
The ghost of Banquo, like that of Hamlet, was an honest ghost. It
disturbed no innocent man. It knew where its appearance would
strike terror, and who would cry out. A ghost! It made itself visible in
the right quarter, and compelled the guilty, and the conscience-
smitten, and none others, to start, with,
“Prithee, see there! behold!—look! lo!
If I stand here, I saw him!”
Their eyeballs were seared—was it not so, sir?—who had thought

to shield themselves by concealing their own hand and laying the
imputation of the crime on a low and hireling agency in wickedness;
who had vainly attempted to stifle the workings of their own coward
consciences, by circulating, through white lips and chattering teeth,
“Thou canst not say I did it!” I have misread the great poet, if it was
those who had no way partaken in the deed of the death, who either
found that they were, or feared that they should be, pushed from
their stools by the ghost of the slain, or who cried out to a spectre
created by their own fears, and their own remorse, “Avaunt! and quit
our sight!”
There is another particular, sir, in which the honorable member’s
quick perception of resemblances might, I should think, have seen
something in the story of Banquo, making it not altogether a subject
of the most pleasant contemplation. Those who murdered Banquo,
what did they win by it? Substantial good? Permanent power? Or
disappointment, rather, and sore mortification—dust and ashes—the
common fate of vaulting ambition overleaping itself? Did not even-
handed justice, ere long, commend the poisoned chalice to their own
lips? Did they not soon find that for another they had “filed their
mind?” that their ambition though apparently for the moment
successful, had but put a barren sceptre in their grasp? Aye, sir,—
“A barren sceptre in their gripe,
Thence to be wrenched by an unlineal hand,
No son of theirs succeeding.”
Sir, I need pursue the allusion no further. I leave the honorable

gentleman to run it out at his leisure, and to derive from it all the
gratification it is calculated to administer. If he finds himself pleased
with the associations, and prepared to be quite satisfied, though the
parallel should be entirely completed, I had almost said I am
satisfied also—but that I shall think of. Yes, sir, I will think of that.
In the course of my observations the other day, Mr. President, I
paid a passing tribute of respect to a very worthy man, Mr. Dane, of
Massachusetts. It so happened that he drew the ordinance of 1787 for
the government of the Northwestern Territory. A man of so much
ability, and so little pretence; of so great a capacity to do good, and so
unmixed a disposition to do it for its own sake; a gentleman who
acted an important part, forty years ago, in a measure the influence
of which is still deeply felt in the very matter which was the subject of
debate, might, I thought, receive from me a commendatory
recognition.
But the honorable gentleman was inclined to be facetious on the
subject. He was rather disposed to make it a matter of ridicule that I
had introduced into the debate the name of one Nathan Dane, of
whom he assures us he had never before heard. Sir, if the honorable
member had never before heard of Mr. Dane, I am sorry for it. It
shows him less acquainted with the public men of the country than I
had supposed. Let me tell him, however, that a sneer from him at the
mention of the name of Mr. Dane is in bad taste. It may well be a
high mark of ambition, sir, either with the honorable gentleman or
myself, to accomplish as much to make our names known to
advantage, and remembered with gratitude, as Mr. Dane has
accomplished. But the truth is, sir, I suspect that Mr. Dane lives a
little too far north. He is of Massachusetts, and too near the north
star to be reached by the honorable gentleman’s telescope. If his
sphere had happened to range south of Mason and Dixon’s line, he
might, probably, have come within the scope of his vision!
I spoke, sir, of the ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery in
all future times northwest of the Ohio, as a measure of great wisdom
and foresight, and one which had been attended with highly
beneficial and permanent consequences. I suppose that on this point
no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions.
But the simple expression of this sentiment has led the gentleman,
not only into a labored defence of slavery in the abstract, and on
principle, but also into a warm accusation against me, as having
attacked the system of slavery now existing in the Southern States.
For all this there was not the slightest foundation in anything said or
intimated by me. I did not utter a single word which any ingenuity
could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. I said only
that it was highly wise and useful in legislating for the northwestern
country, while it was yet a wilderness, to prohibit the introduction of
slaves; and added, that I presumed, in the neighboring state of
Kentucky, there was no reflecting and intelligent gentleman who
would doubt that, if the same prohibition had been extended, at the
same early period, over that commonwealth, her strength and
population would, at this day, have been far greater than they are. If
these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust,
neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. They attack nobody and
menace nobody. And yet, sir, the gentleman’s optics have discovered,
even in the mere expression of this sentiment, what he calls the very
spirit of the Missouri question! He represents me as making an
attack on the whole south, and manifesting a spirit which would
interfere with and disturb their domestic condition. Sir, this injustice
no otherwise surprises me than as it is done here, and done without
the slightest pretence of ground for it. I say it only surprises me as
being done here; for I know full well that it is and has been the
settled policy of some persons in the south, for years, to represent
the people of the north as disposed to interfere with them in their
own exclusive and peculiar concerns. This is a delicate and sensitive
point in southern feeling; and of late years it has always been
touched, and generally with effect, whenever the object has been to
unite the whole south against northern men or northern measures.
This feeling, always carefully kept alive, and maintained at too
intense a heat to admit discrimination or reflection, is a lever of great
power in our political machine. It moves vast bodies, and gives to
them one and the same direction. But the feeling is without adequate
cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. There is
not, and never has been, a disposition in the north to interfere with
these interests of the south. Such interference has never been
supposed to be within the power of the government, nor has it been
in any way attempted. It has always been regarded as a matter of
domestic policy, left with the states themselves, and with which the
federal government had nothing to do. Certainly, sir, I am, and ever
had been, of that opinion. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery
in the abstract is no evil. Most assuredly I need not say I differ with
him altogether and most widely on that point. I regard domestic
slavery as one of the greatest evils, both moral and political. But,
though it be a malady, and whether it be curable, and if so, by what
means; or, on the other hand, whether it be the culnus immedicabile
of the social system, I leave it to those whose right and duty it is to
inquire and to decide. And this I believe, sir, is, and uniformly has
been, the sentiment of the north. Let us look a little at the history of
this matter.
When the present constitution was submitted for the ratification of
the people, there were those who imagined that the powers of the
government which it proposed to establish might, perhaps, in some
possible mode, be exerted in measures tending to the abolition of
slavery. This suggestion would, of course, attract much attention in
the southern conventions. In that of Virginia, Governor Randolph
said:—
“I hope there is none here, who, considering the subject in the
calm light of philosophy, will make an objection dishonorable to
Virginia—that, at the moment they are securing the rights of their
citizens, an objection is started, that there is a spark of hope that
those unfortunate men now held in bondage may, by the operation of
the general government, be made free.”
At the very first Congress, petitions on the subject were presented,
if I mistake not, from different states. The Pennsylvania Society for
promoting the Abolition of Slavery, took a lead, and laid before
Congress a memorial, praying Congress to promote the abolition by
such powers as it possessed. This memorial was referred, in the
House of Representatives, to a select committee, consisting of Mr.
Foster, of New Hampshire, Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, Mr.
Huntington, of Connecticut, Mr. Lawrence, of New York, Mr.
Dickinson, of New Jersey, Mr. Hartley, of Pennsylvania, and Mr.
Parker, of Virginia; all of them, sir, as you will observe, northern
men, but the last. This committee made a report, which was
committed to a committee of the whole house, and there considered
and discussed on several days; and being amended, although in no
material respect, it was made to express three distinct propositions
on the subjects of slavery and the slave trade. First, in the words of
the constitution, that Congress could not, prior to the year 1808,
prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as any of the
states then existing should think proper to admit. Second, that
Congress had authority to restrain the citizens of the United States
from carrying on the African slave trade for the purpose of supplying
foreign countries. On this proposition, our early laws against those
who engage in that traffic are founded. The third proposition, and
that which bears on the present question, was expressed in the
following terms:—
“Resolved, That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of
slaves, or of the treatment of them in any of the states; it remaining with the
several states alone to provide rules and regulations therein, which humanity and
true policy may require.”
This resolution received the sanction of the House of
Representatives so early as March, 1790. And, now, sir, the
honorable member will allow me to remind him, that not only were
the select committee who reported the resolution, with a single
exception, all northern men, but also that of the members then
composing the House of Representatives, a large majority, I believe
nearly two-thirds, were northern men also.
The house agreed to insert these resolutions in its journal; and,
from that day to this, it has never been maintained or contended that
Congress had any authority to regulate or interfere with the
condition of slaves in the several states. No northern gentleman, to
my knowledge, has moved any such question in either house of
Congress.
The fears of the south, whatever fears they might have entertained,
were allayed and quieted by this early decision; and so remained, till
they were excited afresh, without cause, but for collateral and
indirect purposes. When it became necessary, or was thought so, by
some political persons, to find an unvarying ground for the exclusion
of northern men from confidence and from lead in the affairs of the
republic, then, and not till then, the cry was raised, and the feeling
industriously excited, that the influence of northern men in the
public councils would endanger the relation of master and slave. For
myself, I claim no other merit, than that this gross and enormous
injustice towards the whole north has not wrought upon me to
change my opinions, or my political conduct. I hope I am above
violating my principles, even under the smart of injury and false
imputations. Unjust suspicions and undeserved reproach, whatever
pain I may experience from them, will not induce me, I trust,
nevertheless, to overstep the limits of constitutional duty, or to
encroach on the rights of others. The domestic slavery of the south I
leave where I find it—in the hands of their own governments. It is
their affair, not mine. Nor do I complain of the peculiar effect which
the magnitude of that population has had in the distribution of
power under this federal government. We know, sir, that the
representation of the states in the other house is not equal. We know
that great advantage, in that respect, is enjoyed by the slaveholding
states; and we know, too, that the intended equivalent for that
advantage—that is to say, the imposition of direct taxes in the same
ratio—has become merely nominal; the habit of the government
being almost invariably to collect its revenues from other sources,
and in other modes. Nevertheless, I do not complain; nor would I
countenance any movement to alter this arrangement of
representation. It is the original bargain, the compact—let it stand;
let the advantage of it be fully enjoyed. The Union itself is too full of
benefit to be hazarded in propositions for changing its original basis.
I go for the constitution as it is, and for the Union as it is. But I am
resolved not to submit, in silence, to accusations, either against
myself individually, or against the north, wholly unfounded and
unjust—accusations which impute to us a disposition to evade the
constitutional compact, and to extend the power of the government
over the internal laws and domestic condition of the states. All such
accusations, wherever and whenever made, all insinuations of the
existence of any such purposes, I know and feel to be groundless and
injurious. And we must confide in southern gentlemen themselves;
we must trust to those whose integrity of heart and magnanimity of
feeling will lead them to a desire to maintain and disseminate truth,
and who possess the means of its diffusion with the southern public;
we must leave it to them to disabuse that public of its prejudices. But,
in the mean time, for my own part, I shall continue to act justly,
whether those towards whom justice is exercised receive it with
candor or with contumely.
Having had occasion to recur to the ordinance of 1787, in order to
defend myself against the inferences which the honorable member
has chosen to draw from my former observations on that subject, I
am not willing now entirely to take leave of it without another
remark. It need hardly be said, that that paper expresses just
sentiments on the great subject of civil and religious liberty. Such
sentiments were common, and abound in all our state papers of that
day. But this ordinance did that which was not so common, and
which is not, even now, universal; that is, it set forth and declared, as
a high and binding duty of government itself, to encourage schools
and advance the means of education; on the plain reason that
religion, morality and knowledge are necessary to good government,
and to the happiness of mankind. One observation further. The
important provision incorporated into the constitution of the United
States, and several of those of the states, and recently, as we have
seen, adopted into the reformed constitution of Virginia, restraining
legislative power, in questions of private right, and from impairing
the obligation of contracts, is first introduced and established, as far
as I am informed, as matter of express written constitutional law, in
this ordinance of 1787. And I must add, also, in regard to the author
of the ordinance, who has not had the happiness to attract the
gentleman’s notice heretofore, nor to avoid his sarcasm now, that he
was chairman of that select committee of the old Congress, whose
report first expressed the strong sense of that body, that the old
confederation was not adequate to the exigencies of the country, and
recommending to the states to send delegates to the convention
which formed the present constitution.
An attempt has been made to transfer from the north to the south
the honor of this exclusion of slavery from the Northwestern
territory. The journal, without argument or comment, refutes such
attempt. The session of Virginia was made March, 1784. On the 19th
of April following, a committee, consisting of Messrs. Jefferson,
Chase and Howell, reported a plan for a temporary government of
the territory, in which was this article: “That after the year 1800,
there should be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of
the said states, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the
party shall have been convicted.” Mr. Speight, of North Carolina,
moved to strike out this paragraph. The question was put according
to the form then practiced: “Shall, these words stand, as part of the
plan?” &c. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania—seven states
—voted in the affirmative; Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina, in
the negative. North Carolina was divided. As the consent of nine
states was necessary, the words could not stand, and were struck out
accordingly. Mr. Jefferson voted for the clause, but was overruled by
his colleagues.
In March of the next year (1785) Mr. King, of Massachusetts,
seconded by Mr. Ellery, of Rhode Island, proposed the formerly
rejected article, with this addition: “And that this regulation shall be
an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the
constitution between the thirteen original states and each of the
states described in the resolve,” &c. On this clause, which provided
the adequate and thorough security, the eight Northern States, at
that time, voted affirmatively, and the four Southern States
negatively. The votes of nine states were not yet obtained, and thus
the provision was again rejected by the Southern States. The
perseverance of the north held out, and two years afterwards the
object was attained. It is no derogation from the credit, whatever that
may be, of drawing the ordinance, that its principles had before been
prepared and discussed, in the form of resolutions. If one should
reason in that way, what would become of the distinguished honor of
the author of the declaration of Independence? There is not a
sentiment in that paper which had not been voted and resolved in
the assemblies, and other popular bodies in the country, over and
over again.
But the honorable member has now found out that this gentleman,
Mr. Dane, was a member of the Hartford Convention. However
uninformed the honorable member may be of characters and
occurrences at the north, it would seem that he has at his elbows, on
this occasion, some highminded and lofty spirit, some magnanimous
and true-hearted monitor, possessing the means of local knowledge,
and ready to supply the honorable member with every thing, down

PDF Developing Materials For Language Teaching Brian Tomlinson Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

PDF Developing Materials For Language Teaching Brian Tomlinson Ebook Full Chapter

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

PDF Developing Materials For Language Teaching Brian Tomlinson Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Materials for Language

Teaching Brian Tomlinson

Developing materials for language teaching Second

Teaching and Developing Reading Skills: Cambridge

Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language Techniques for

Literacies and Language Education 3rd Edition Brian V.

Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills Judith

Negotiating Identity in Modern Foreign Language

Foreign Language Teaching in Romanian Higher Education

Practical Teaching Skills for Driving Instructors

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

Bloomsbury is a registered trademark of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published 2013

© Brian Tomlinson and Contributors, 2013

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Typeset by Newgen Knowledge Works (P) Ltd., Chennai, India

List of Contributors viii

Preface Brian Tomlinson ix

Introduction: Are Materials Developing? Brian Tomlinson 1

Part A Evaluation and Adaptation of Materials 19

1 Materials Evaluation Brian Tomlinson 21

2 Adapting Courses: A Personal View Claudia Saraceni 49

3 Publishing a Coursebook: The Role of Feedback

Part B Principles and Procedures of Materials

10 Demystifying Blended Learning Freda Mishan 207

Part C Developing Materials for Target Groups 227

11 Authors’ Knowledge, Rationales and Principles – Steady

Part D Developing Specific Types of Materials 335

16 Materials for the Teaching of Grammar Jeff Stranks 337

17 Materials for Teaching Vocabulary Paul Nation 351

18 Materials for Developing Reading Skills Hitomi Masuhara 365

19 Materials for Developing Writing Skills Ken Hyland 391

20 Developing Materials for Speaking Skills Dat Bao 407

21 Coursebook Listening Activities David A. Hill and

Part E Materials Development and Teacher Training 479

24 Materials Development Courses Brian Tomlinson 481

25 Simulations in Materials Development Brian Tomlinson and

Conclusion Brian Tomlinson 541

Copyright Acknowledgements 544

Dat Bao, Monash University, Melbourne

●● Harwood (2010) has focused on the principles and procedures of materials

to contribute to the development of materials which can facilitate the acquisition of

What is materials development?

What are materials?

(Cives-Enriquez) focuses on live materials and Chapter 18 (Masuhara) focuses on a

What are the issues in materials development?

The situation is complicated in the case of materials produced by publishers for

Who should develop the materials?

How should materials be developed?

How should materials be evaluated?

Should texts be authentic?

ll Do learners need a coursebook? In the eighties Allwright (1981) put

ll Should materials be learning or acquisition focused? Most published

ll Should materials cater for learner expectations or try to change them?

What are the current trends in

Part B Principles and Procedures of Materials