We have been involved in numerous international, national, regional and institutional coursebooks development projects. The most successful project from our point of view so far is the Namibian Project in whichOn targetwas developed by 30 teachers from all over the country in 6 days in a room in Windhoek (see Tomlinson, 1995 for his account of the Namibian project; see also the Recommendations for Developing Materials section in Chapter 5). We think that the following factors contributed to its success and that they could be applied to other coursebook projects.
Factors that Contributed to the Success ofOn target:
1. Meeting the interests of all the stakeholders. The Namibian project was initiated by the Ministry of Basic Education and Culture. The stakeholders were the government, learners, teachers from all over the country, language specialists, assessors, sponsors (e.g. NAMAS the Namibia Association of Norway), consultants and publishers.On targetwas literally a coursebook for the country. It served the government’s educa- tional, political, social and economic agenda in an open and thought-provoking way.
Learners’ needs and wants analyses were conducted before the writing began and their findings were fully incorporated into the materials. The teachers and learners had a direct say during the piloting stages. Assessors, inspectors and publishers as well as teachers collaborated during the writing of the materials. It made commercial sense to the publisher because the book would be sold to all the secondary schools in Namibia.
2. Coherence between the coursebooks and examinations. One of the main reasons that teachers refuse innovation is because they feel that they need to prepare the stu- dents to pass their exams. Often exam questions involve conventional testing tech- niques such as gap fill and completion exercises. If examinations routinely require task completion (Ellis, 2009; Van den Branden, Bygate, & Norris, 2009; Masuhara, 2015), teachers are likely to request more task-based activities in coursebooks. A lot of assessors were in the writing team in the Namibian case and correspondence was achieved between the coursebook and the examinations, as it was in Vanuatu where a task-based primary school leaving examination was introduced and a coursebook of sample tasks was developed by teacher trainers and teachers (Tomlinson, 1981).
3. Teacher education through materials development and use. On theOn targetproject, teacher development was achieved through materials development (see Popovici &
Bolitho, 2003). The teacher writers understood the learning principles that informed the units and therefore they could use the materials well and explain or demonstrate the materials to other teachers back in their regions.
Materials Development for Language Learning
4. International and local collaboration.On target was developed as a collaboration between the Ministry of Education in Namibia, the British Council, a local branch of a major international publisher (Gamsburg Macmillan) and a number of overseas consultants. A considerable number of other countries have also been involved in developing their own new English textbooks (see Tomlinson, 1995; Bolitho, 2008) to meet the contemporary needs of the country, the teachers, and the learners.
This is also the case with a number of large institutions. (See Al-Busaidi & Tindle, 2010 for a report of the development of a new textbook in the English Language Centre in Sultan Qaboos University; Stoller and Robinson, 2014.) What those coun- tries and institutions request is theoretical and practical co-leadership in materials development. Bolitho (2008), in reflecting upon various national textbook projects in Central and Eastern Europe, suggests collaboration between local and UK pub- lishers: Partnerships between local and British publishers can be mutually beneficial if handled sensitively. Local publishers for example, get access to authentic mate- rial, photo libraries, copy right clearance and native-speaker desk-editor expertise, while UK publishers can draw on in-country expertise in graphic design, market knowledge and distribution, and can benefit from low printing costs. Where this kind of partnership has worked well as in Russia, for example, production stan- dards have been raised, to the advantage of everyone concerned (Bolitho, 2008, p. 221).
Zacharias (2005) provides a list of reasons why Indonesian teachers prefer interna- tionally published materials. It includes professional finish (e.g. no spelling mistakes), reliable availability because of strong distribution networks, and a strong presence on the Internet.
5. No divisions or distance between materials producers and users. On the Namibian project, a team of 30 teachers, specialists, assessors, and publishers wrote the first draft of the materials in a one-week workshop led by Brian as an invited consultant.
The participants found participation in the development process to be very stimulat- ing and receiving feedback from peers and experts to be extremely educational (see Popovici & Bolitho, 2003, for similar reflections). The writer teachers then went back to their schools in all the districts and piloted the materials. Students and teachers provided feedback and revisions were made by a team of editors.
6. Acknowledgment and support from the government. Government-led materials development has the advantage that the materials developers can consult government representatives during the writing process. This is what happened on the Namibian project with Ministry of Education officials present throughout the writing work- shops.
7. Universal and local relevance. The Namibian government wanted the materials to provide opportunities to explore issues and to develop critical thinking skills. The stu- dents in their questionnaire responses wanted to discuss such locally relevant topics as tourism, pollution, AIDS and drug abuse and the Ministry of Education officials were happy to allow such normally taboo topics to be included as part of their hid- den agenda of educational development. The writing team was mixed in terms of age, nationality, first language, experience and tribe and their materials presented differ- ent views and perspectives using a text-driven approach in cognitively and affectively engaging ways—a different approach in dealing with a hidden agenda from the more prescriptive approach in Malaysia (Mukundan, 2008).
6 The Process of Publishing Coursebooks
8. Cutting down production costs without losing quality. The physical appearance of the student book and the teacher’s guide forOn targetwas very modest. This helped reduce the production costs. However, the texts, activities, and black-and-white visu- als, the layout and the design are of high quality in that they are relevant to the learn- ers’ lives and the texts and visuals were coherently connected—in contrast to some of the problem samples in Chapter 13, “Visual Layout and Design.”
The Namibian project took place a long time ago but it does not end there. One of the core leaders of the Namibian project was a Norwegian editor. She went back home and was instrumental in creating another excellent coursebook series for teenagers—the originalSearchand the revised versionSearching(Fenner & Nordal-Pedersen, 2006).
Conclusion
Coursebooks function as the curriculum in many teaching situations and the quality of coursebooks plays a significant role in determining the success of the learning experi- ence. By carefully following publishers’ accounts of the development of global course- books we have found out why global coursebooks are what they are. However, business success depends on market responses. If demands change the publishers’ products will change. If teachers and students are dissatisfied with the global coursebooks they are being obliged to use (as research and our experience seems to show) then finding ways of expressing this dissatisfaction is essential if publishers are to be made to feel that they might better satisfy market demands by making changes to their products. For us it is essential that the demand drives the market rather than the market drives the demand.
In this chapter, we have also identified the strengths of developing local materials. Tak- ing the case of the Namibian textbook project as a model, we have considered factors that may be applicable to any textbook project. For the majority of teachers globally, however, their day-to-day use of coursebooks is what matters. Not all countries and institutions are able to develop materials on their own. In this case, adaptation seems to become even more crucial in making materials more relevant, effective, and motivat- ing for our learners and there is definitely a case for publishers to develop their global coursebooks so as to achieve maximum flexibility and help teachers to adapt them (see Chapter 4, “Adaptation”).
What Do You Think?
1. Are you happy with the coursebook you are using? Why?
2. What kinds of improvement would you like to make to the coursebook? How would you make such improvements?
3. Imagine that a coursebook representative is going to visit your school. What would you like to say to the representative?
4. Imagine that you are in charge of a textbook development project. How would you go about developing the project?
5. In this chapter different kinds of textbooks are listed. Which one is most relevant for you? Why?
Materials Development for Language Learning
Task
Find some closed exercises from your coursebooks. Try to change them so they become open. For example, after reading a text, there are comprehension questions. There is a correct answer to each question. Can you change the questions so that there is no right answer and the question is so interesting that students would want to go back to the text to discover answers?
Which do you think would be more useful for the students the closed exercises or the open activities? Why do you think there are so many closed exercises in published coursebooks?
Further Reading
Clandfield, L. (2013).How to plan a book(Kindle ed.). Oxford: Teacher2Writer.
McGrath, I. (2013).Teaching materials and the roles of EFL/ESL teachers: Practice and theory. London: Bloomsbury.
Mishan, F., & Timmis, I. (2015).Materials development for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
References
Aitchison, J. (2013).How ELT publishing works(Kindle ed.). Oxford: ELT Teacher 2 Writer.
Al-Busaidi, S., & Tindle, K. (2010). Evaluating the impact of in-house materials on language learning. In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.),Research for materials development for language learning—evidence for best practice(pp. 137–149). London: Continuum.
Amrani, F. (2011). The process of evaluation: A publisher’s view. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),Materials development in language teaching(2nd ed., pp. 267–295). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Amrani, F. (2014). Ten things your editor never wants to hear you say.IATEFL Materials Writing Special Interest Group Newsletter, 1.Retrieved from http://free.yudu.com/item/
details/1801448/Building-Materials-IATEFL-Materials-Writing-SIG-Newsletter- Issue-01
Bell, J., & Gower, R. (1998). Writing course materials for the world: A great compromise. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),Materials development in language teaching(1st ed., pp. 116–129).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, J., & Gower, R. (2011). Writing course materials for the world: A great compromise. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),Materials development in language teaching(2nd ed., pp. 135–150).
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
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 (pp. 313–322). London: Continuum.
Clandfield, L. (2013).How to plan a book(Kindle ed.). Oxford: Teacher2Writer.
Donovan, P. (1998). Piloting—a publisher’s view. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),Materials development in language teaching(1st ed., pp. 149–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics,19(3), 221–246.
6 The Process of Publishing Coursebooks
Ellis, R. (2016). Language teaching materials as work plans: An SLA perspective. In B.
Tomlinson (Ed.),SLA research and materials development for language learning(pp. 203–218). Oxford: Routledge.
Feak, C. B., & Swales, J. M. (2014). Tensions between the old and the new in EAP textbook.
In N. Harwood (Ed.),English language teaching textbooks—content, consumption, production(pp. 299–319). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fenner, A., & Nordal-Pedersen, G. (2006).Searching 8, 9, 10. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag ASA.
Gray, J. (2010).The construction of English: Culture, consumerism and promotion in the ELT global coursebook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harwood, N. (Ed.). (2014).English language teaching textbooks—content, consumption, production. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hill, D. A. (2013). The visual element in EFL coursebooks. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching(pp. 174–182). London: Continuum.
Loh, J., & Renandya, W. A. (2015). Exploring adaptations of materials and methods: A case from Singapore.The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL,4(2), 93–111.
Long, M. H. (Ed.). (2005).Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Masuhara, H. (2011). What do teachers really want from coursebooks? In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),Materials development in language teaching(2nd ed., pp. 236–266). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Masuhara, H. (2015). “Anything goes” in task-based language teaching materials?—the need for principled materials evaluation, adaptation and development.The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL,2, 113–127.
Masuhara, H., Haan, N., Yi, Y., & Tomlinson, B. (2008). Adult EFL courses.ELT Journal,62, 294–312.
McGrath, I. (2013).Teaching materials and the roles of EFL/ESL teachers. London:
Bloomsbury.
Mishan, F., & Timmis, I. (2015).Materials development for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Modugala, M. (in press). Listening to children’s perceptions and experiences of English language teaching material. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),Papers from the British Council English Language Teaching Research Partnership Award Project.New Delhi: British Council.
Mukundan, J. (2008). Agendas of the state in developing world English language textbooks.Folio,12(2), 17–19.
On target. (1995). Grade 10 English Second Language Learner’s Book. Windhoek:
Gamsburg Macmillan.
Popovici, R., & Bolitho, R. (2003). Personal and professional development through writing:
The Romanian textbook project. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),Developing materials for language teaching(1st ed., pp. 505–517). London: Continuum.
Prowse, P. (1998). How writers write: Testimony from authors. In B. Tomlinson
(Ed.),Materials development in language teaching(1st ed., pp. 130–145). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Prowse, P. (2011). How writers write: Testimony from authors. In B. Tomlinson
(Ed.),Materials development in language teaching(2nd ed., pp. 151–173). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Materials Development for Language Learning
Richards, J. C. (2014) The ELT textbook. In S. Garton, & K. Graves (Eds.),International perspectives on materials in ELT(pp. 19–36) Palgrave Macmillan.
Santos, D. (2015). Revising listening materials: What remains, what is changed and why.The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL 4(2), 19–36.
Singapore Wala, D. A. (2003a). A coursebook is what it is because of what it has to do:
Editor’s perspective. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),Developing materials for language teaching(1st ed., pp. 58–71). London: Continuum.
Singapore Wala, D. A. (2003b). Publishing a coursebook: Completing the materials development cycle. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),Developing materials for language teaching(1st ed., pp. 141–161). London: Continuum.
Singapore Wala, D. A. (2013). Publishing a coursebook: The role of feedback. In B.
Tomlinson (Ed.),Developing materials for language teaching(2nd ed., pp. 63–87).
London: Bloomsbury.
Stoller, F., L., & Robinson, M., S. (2014). An interdisciplinary textbook project: Charting the paths taken. In N. Harwood (Ed.),English language teaching textbooks—content,
consumption, production(pp. 262–298). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Timmis, I. (2014). Writing materials for publication: Questions raised and lessons learned.
In N. Harwood (Ed.),English language teaching textbooks: Content, consumption, production(pp. 241–261). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (1981).Talking to learn. Port Vila: Government of Vanuatu.
Tomlinson, B. (1995). Work in progress: Textbook projects.Folio,2(2), 26–31.
Tomlinson, B. (2003). Developing principled frameworks for materials development. In B.
Tomlinson (Ed.),Developing materials for language teaching(1st ed., pp. 107–129).
London: Continuum.
Tomlinson, B. (2010). What do teachers think about EFL coursebooks?Modern English Teacher,19(4), 5–9.
Tomlinson, B. (2013a). Developing principled frameworks for materials development. In B.
Tomlinson (Ed.),Developing materials for language teaching(2nd ed., pp. 95–118).
London: Bloomsbury.
Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (2013b).Applied linguistics and materials development. London:
Bloomsbury.
Tomlinson, B. (2015). Key issues in EFL coursebooks.ELIA,15, 171–180.
Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (2016).SLA research and materials development for language learning.
New York: Routledge.
Tomlinson, B. (in press). Making typical coursebook activities more beneficial for the learner. In D. Bao (Ed.),Creative concerns in ELT materials development: Looking beyond the current design. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Tomlinson, B., Bao, D., Masuhara, H., & Rubdy, R. (2001). Review of adult EFL courses.ELT Journal,55(1), 80–101.
Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2013). Adult coursebooks.ELT Journal,67(2), 233–249.
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. M. (2009).Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Viney, P. (2007). Featured writer questions: Peter Viney.Folio,11(2), 32–33.
Zacharias, N. T. (2005). Teachers’ beliefs about internationally-published materials: A survey of tertiary English teachers in Indonesia.RELC Journal,36(1), 23–37.
Zemach, D. (2006). Working with an editor.Folio,10(2), 37–39.
Zemach, D., & Viney, P. (2007). Author test.Folio,11(2), 25–27.