Donovan (1998), Amrani (2011), and Aitchison (2013) provide publishers’ accounts of how global coursebooks are developed based on their extensive experience of working in different roles on various projects for different publishers. Their testimonies reveal remarkable changes in international ELT publishing from the 1980s, through the late 1990s, to the present. Amrani (2011, p. 267) points out, updating what is reported in Donovan (1998) regarding publishing practices around the late 1990s, that “…in 1998, the world of ELT and specifically ELT publishing was a very different place.” For example, Aitchison (2013) describes how severe the competition has now become:
These days, as the ELT industry has matured, there are hundreds, maybe thou- sands, of ELT products available—the vast majority of them well-made, attractive, and effective products. Competition between publishers to sell their products has become fierce and the inevitable outcome of this crowded marketplace is that each individual product sells less than it would have done a few years ago. One of the consequences of this competition is the need for new courses to be launched in their entirety. When customers have dozens of equally effective coursebooks to choose from, they are not prepared to wait for all the levels and supporting components to dribble out from the publisher over the course of many months or even years. They want them all now, ready for the first day of class. (Aitchison, 2013, Section 4: “Getting Paid for your Writing”)
Publishers not only have to get all the levels for a course, including supplementary materials, ready at the same time, but the time available for development cycles is short- ening. Donovan (1998) commented on the increasing speed with which writers and pub- lishers had to work. Fourteen years later, Amrani (2011) describes how:
Most ELT publishers now develop new materials every year. Whereas in the early 1990s a development time of seven years for a course from concept to launch was not unheard of most publishers are now working to development cycles of only two or three years. (Amrani 2011, p. 268)
Competition, a short development period for all the components and huge investment costs significantly influence the publishing of global coursebooks and their challenges seem to influence every production stage.
Materials Development for Language Learning Global Coursebooks—Stage 1: Planning
Both Aichison (2013) and Amrani (2011) agree that publishers plan and control projects very carefully because an error of judgement “for a publisher it is…likely to be a sig- nificant loss of revenue and, potentially, jobs” (Amrani, 2011, p. 271). Aitchison (2013) explains:
Publishing companies typically decide years in advance what type of materials they want to publish, and by when. These decisions are primarily based on fulfill- ing the company’s strategic and financial goals. All the established ELT publishing companies, even the not-for-profit university presses, are run as businesses with all the financial analysis and strategic planning that any multimillion dollar com- pany requires to operate effectively. Exactly what they choose to publish to fulfill their goals and meet the requirements of their shareholders or owners will be based upon a number of factors such as strategic decisions about which regions or educational sectors they are going to focus on, the results of research into edu- cational trends, predictions about changes in educational legislation made by gov- ernments around the world, and so on. Likewise, publishers keep a close eye out for rising trends in pedagogy or classroom practice, such as the current interest in corpus-informed materials or in content-based instruction commonly known as CLIL (content and language integrated learning) and may decide they need to publish materials that respond to the trend. (Aitchison, 2013, Section “Making a Contact with a Publisher”)
In short, publishing “is about developing materials which offer the highest possible return on investment without compromising essential minimum customer expecta- tions” (Amrani, 2011, p. 273).
What motivates publishers? What comes through from the literature (Aitchison, 2013;
Amrani, 2011; Donovan, 2011; McGrath, 2013) is that publishers seem to want a course- book that:
r
responds to current and future market trends;r
promises the highest possible returns;r
helps them to attract or maintain their reputations as leaders in materials develop- ment;r
matches the needs and wants of the widest possible number of users;r
is versatile enough to be adapted easily;r
offers quality in terms of language learning;r
offers the right balance between familiarity and innovation;r
competes well against existing publications.The list above seems to carry inherent conflicts. For example, if a coursebook is written to match the needs and wants of the widest possible users, then there is a risk of trying to please everyone and satisfying no one (e.g. the content may be perceived as safe, bland and irrelevant for specific users). On the other hand, if a coursebook tries to cater for particular types of learners in specific contexts, it may achieve a high satisfaction rating in a narrow market but could cause financial problems because the market is not large enough to be made profitable.
6 The Process of Publishing Coursebooks
Who are the Stakeholders at this Planning Stage?
According to Aitchison (2013), Section 8 “Editorial Job Titles and Main Responsibili- ties”), those that are involved in the decision making of ELT projects seem to include the publishing director, publishers and development editors. The publishing director sets “the publishing strategy for the company or division, and oversees the entire edito- rial department” as well as managing a list of products, overseeing conceptualization of major courses and managing teams of publishers and development editors. Note here that actual writers and end users are not included in this very first stage of planning.
Market Research
Market research seems to have become an important aspect of decision making in the planning stage as Aitchison (2013) explains:
Most ELT publishers have market research departments and employ up-to-date research techniques to better understand what to publish and how to promote their products. The investment required to produce today’s ELT courses is too great to do without the type of thorough and comprehensive understanding of customers that market researchers can provide. (Aitchison, 2013, Section 9: “Sug- gested Response to Tasks”)
McGrath (2013, p. 31) summarizes what market research is for:
Broadly speaking, then, market analysis indicates whether there is a large enough potential market for a book to make its publication potentially profitable and what the nature of that market is likely to be. The wider that potential market is, the better, of course. (McGrath, 2013, pp. 31–32)
What does market research reveal? According to Amrani (2011, p. 271), “Publishers have access to information about the learning context, class sizes, the syllabus and other hard facts from education ministries, exam boards, local teacher training colleges and local sales offices, who have built up market profiles over many years.”
What the statistics and hard facts do not reveal, however, seems to be finer details of the end users (i.e. teachers and students). We have had experience of undertak- ing confidential research for a major publisher in 12 countries around the world on what students and teachers want from coursebooks. Our findings were very different from those of the market researchers and sales teams, so our findings were basically ignored when a new coursebook was developed. Which, of course, raises the inter- esting question of who are more reliable, those stakeholders who tell the publishers what they want from coursebooks or those who tell independent researchers what they want?
Amrani (2011) describes the challenges in developing materials for unknown users:
A publisher is normally preparing materials for unknown classes of students… In fact, in many cases these will be lots of different types of classes with different expectations and different previous knowledge of language, culture and technol- ogy. The materials will be used in different educational contexts, from those where the teachers always leads from the front to those where the approach is student- centered and student autonomy is encouraged. However, publishers do not have
Materials Development for Language Learning
the same level of information about students as individuals. Even when materi- als are evaluated for a specific narrow market, such as the state sector version in a small country, the students still represent an anonymous end user. The pub- lisher can only make educated guesses as to student likes and dislikes. Particularly with schoolbook materials developed for specific ages, this can be a highly com- plex area. What works with a 14-year-old in one country may well not work in another; not because the linguistic aim and task are intrinsically wrong, but sim- ply because the local cultural approaches to literacy or skills development may be valued differently; or the artwork proposed is considered too adult or child- ish. This can impact on student motivation and engagement with the materials.
(Amrani, 2011, p. 271)
Amrani (2011) says that market research of materials has evolved and dialogue with teachers has increased in importance, and describes a number of research methods that publishers use at different stages of materials production. She claims that at least three different methods are used to assess the same materials or feature and the results are triangulated or cross-referenced to establish the main issues. In this way, she points out, publishers can retain wider perspectives and are more likely to identify recurrent issues that need prioritizing. The kinds of market research described in Amrani (2011) are as follows (see pp. 274–295 for a detailed explanation of procedures and for insightful critiques):
1. Piloting. Piloting involves trialing parts of the draft materials in actual classrooms in collaborating institutions (see Donovan, 1998 for interesting discussions and obser- vations; Amrani, 2011, pp. 274–276 for a more up-to-date account). This is an infor- mative way of evaluating materials through use. There is also a possible bonus for promotion by gaining trust and establishing links with prospective buyers. Amrani (2011) explains, however, that due to the time constraints of the short development period and other logistical problems, piloting is no longer a major method of gaining feedback on global coursebooks.
2. Reviewing. This is a method extensively used currently by most publishers at dif- ferent stages of a materials development project for different purposes with differ- ent reviewers (e.g. experienced teachers, experts, academics). The reviewers are sent samples of the material and questions for them to respond to.
3. Focus groups. A facilitator (e.g. a market research professional or an experienced edi- tor) conducts a face-to-face small group meeting with selected people with a specific profile.
4. Questionnaires. This is a popular method as it is the easiest and most cost effective.
It can be undertaken in a short time and yields the largest number of responses (see Masuhara, 2011 for discussion of the pros and cons of such questionnaires). An online survey such as SurveyMonkey.com is often used.
5. Expert panels. “Some publishers appoint a specially selected panel of experts to review materials and advise on current trends. They may meet regularly face-to-face for mini-conferences, perhaps annually or twice a year. Panel experts would normally be selected not just for their prominence and experience in specific areas [such as grammar, examinations, adult education] but also so that a wide range of geographi- cal areas were represented…Having a panel means that a publisher can develop very specific briefs for potential authors before any materials are actually commissioned.”
(Amrani, 2011, p. 292—the addition in brackets is ours)
6 The Process of Publishing Coursebooks
6. Cooperation with academics and materials developers on research projects “…pub- lishers sometimes work in cooperation with academics or materials developers on research projects”—e.g. the use of technology with ELT materials in adult classes with the Manchester University Department of Education and the English Profile Project (www.englishprofile.org) with the University of Cambridge (both the description and the examples are from Amrani, 2011, p. 292).
7. Editorial visits and classroom observation. “Publishers send editors around the world to observe students in a cross-section of different classrooms using both their own and competitor materials” (Amrani, 2011, p. 293).
8. Desk research and competitor analysis:
Publishers regularly visit the Internet to see what is new. In particular they will look at other publishers’ web sites and analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the competition. Publishers also like to access specialist sites to monitor what is new in terms of training and materials development, such as: The British Council, JALT, IATEFL, TESOL, MATSDA, ELT Journal. (Amrani, 2011, p. 293)
Our Observations on Publishers’ Research
The list of research methods explained by Amrani (2011) is impressive. It is notice- able, however, that none of the research methods really lead to identifying Amrani’s concern about information about the end users, especially from the students. Instead, what prevails seems to be the perceptions and opinions of experts, regional representa- tives, highly motivated teachers from regular piloting institutions (e.g. the British Coun- cil schools; customer schools for the local publisher’s representatives). Both Donovan (1998) and Amrani (2011) stress how difficult it is to collect representative samples of end users. Viney (2007; see https://peterviney.wordpress.com/ for his interesting blogs) points out how the four big British ELT publishers (i.e. Cambridge University Press, Macmillan, Oxford University Press, Pearson Longman) tend to involve much the same group of people in their research, resulting in all of them reaching more or less the same conclusions. His view, based on his experience, is that:
the people who will give an articulate pilot report are an elite, and it’s near impos- sible to pilot to a broad enough base of teachers. As a result, we’ve seen twenty years of publishers competing to clone the same successful textbook. (Viney, 2007, p. 33)
Viney (2007) also provides an interesting but somewhat sobering anecdote:
A few years ago, I was talking to a director of studies in Europe who discussed the great variety of courses her school ran; early teenagers boosting their school lessons, housewives, retirees, job seekers, business people, exam preparation, first year university students, technical courses, travel and tourism etc. I asked her which textbooks she had selected. Her answer was just one (one size fits all). They used the same series for every class because teachers found it more convenient.
I asked if that one course was more suited to the more academic groups, and she said that it was. The less academic groups didn’t have the English or the confidence to complain. The more academic groups did. The tendency to “one size fits all” has got worse. It suits publishers. (Viney, 2007, p. 33)
Materials Development for Language Learning
Buying one coursebook series for all courses saves expense in institutions, creating a potential win-win situation between buyers and suppliers. Obviously, Viney’s report is an anecdote and we need tightly controlled systematic studies to make any gener- alization. It is not difficult, however, to imagine a scenario in which the same director offers piloting or reviewing. What kind of feedback would she be giving to represent what teachers and students need and want? She must be, potentially, a very good cus- tomer as she might make a considerable bulk order of one coursebook at certain inter- vals. As a regular customer, there is a fair possibility that she is recognized by the local publisher’s representative. If she is cooperative and very articulate and shows under- standing of current ELT trends and theories she might even be asked to be a regular reviewer. Both publishers and this director mean well and they are doing their best in their roles. Learners, however, seem to be left out in this hypothetical case. We have recently had experience though of learners’ views. When visiting a well-respected lan- guage school in the United Kingdom we were told by the director of studies that the stu- dents (mainly students from the Middle East preparing for examinations to give them access to UK academic institutions) preferred to use the same coursebook series as they progressed through the levels and that they preferred a coursebook that provided them with explicit presentation and practice of grammatical structures as this would help them pass their examinations. However, in a British Council series of research papers from East India, which Brian is in the process of editing, Modugala (in press) reports on feedback from 30 “seventh grade students (14 boys and 16 girls) of a gov- ernment aided school in Karnataka, India” who, in a student evaluation of their course- book, were strongly of the opinion that they “wanted activities as opposed to language practice exercises,” that they wanted a lot more opportunities for listening and speak- ing, that there was “too much grammar” in their coursebook, and that they preferred to focus on one skill at a time rather than all of them together (i.e. integrated skills).
All of these are views that would probably surprise the publishers of their coursebook who had presumably based their publishing plan on market research and feedback from teachers.
We have closely observed publishers’ market research (both as writers on coursebook teams and as researchers) and we appreciate the publishers’ professionalism and their efforts in trying hard to deliver quality whilst understandably pursuing their business interests. It is understandable and, in fact, in our interest that publishers sustain and develop themselves as we need publishers to produce textbooks.
From an educational point of view, however, it becomes a critical issue when business objectives do not coincide with pedagogic ones. For example, clear and valid learner specifications based on needs analyses and other measures constitute the very foun- dation of course design and materials development (Long, 2005; Masuhara, 2011)—for example, identifying aims and objectives; selecting core texts; deciding on methodology.
Such clear learner specifications, however, would be difficult to obtain by publishers who do not have direct access to learners, especially when the ELT world is diversifying and expanding (see section “Paradigm Shift 2: Global English for Multitudes of Cultures” in Chapter 4, “Adaptation”). Moreover, precise specifications of a particular group of learn- ers would result in narrowing the market, which would be counterproductive from a business point of view. However, a greater attempt to elicit feedback from learners could actually increase both the quality and the profitability of coursebooks. This could cer- tainly be achieved by publishers building feedback mechanisms into the digital add-on components of their coursebooks.
6 The Process of Publishing Coursebooks
The growing criticisms against coursebooks not fitting the learners’ social, cultural and educational contexts are noted in Chapter 2, “Issues in Materials Development”
and in Chapter 4, “Adaptation.” Such considerable expressions of dissatisfaction toward global coursebooks seem to us to stem from this very core conflict between the publish- ers’ business need to set a broad target to ensure large enough markets to sustain a huge coursebook enterprise and the educators’ need for a better fit between the materials and particular learners and contexts.
This leaves the question of “who conducts the needs analysis and decides on the aims and objectives for the users?” Our investigation of the literature in Chapter 4, “Adapta- tion,” reveals that materials users (i.e. educational administrators, teachers and students) take it for granted that systematic needs analysis and articulation of aims and objectives have been undertaken by the materials producers.
Global Coursebooks—Stage 2: Establishing Writing Team and Principles
Aichison (2013) starts her book on “How ELT Publishing Works” by emphasizing the vital role that materials writers play:
Educational content can now be effectively delivered digitally via computers, tablets and smartphones, with all the added advantages of immediate feedback, rich multimedia support, and automatic grading functionality. However, even though the delivery medium may be changing from printed pages to pixels on a screen, the principles underlying materials writing remain the same. Materi- als need to follow certain syllabuses, present language accurately and clearly, and, above all, engage and motivate students. No computer can ever be programmed to write a motivating and fun activity, nor work out how to present a complex gram- matical structure in ways that a struggling student can understand. Only writers can do this, and that is why, however much the medium of delivery may change, the writer remains an indispensable part of the publishing process. (Aitchison, 2013, “Introduction”)
How Do Publishers Recruit Writers?
McGrath (2013) provides a chapter on publisher and coursebook writer perspectives in which he summarizes publishers’ general approaches to commissioning a coursebook:
While they remain open to approaches (unsolicited proposals) from prospective writers of other types of materials, as far as coursebooks are concerned, the major publishers at least tend to play safe by commissioning new series from writers they know or—as a less expensive option—publish new editions of popular series.
(McGrath, 2013, p. 30)
From the publisher’s point of view, Aitchison (2013) explains:
Many people who have not yet been personally involved in the publishing indus- try imagine that the way to get published is to send a manuscript to all the poten- tial publishers, then sit back and wait for an editor to call you to tell you that they liked your work and their company is going to publish it. I certainly thought this was how it worked before I became an editor. Then I found out that in reality, it is