Materials Development for Language Learning
classroom materials. One book that does both is Van den Branden (2006). It includes chapters on developing task materials for beginners (Duran & Ramaut, 2006), for pri- mary and secondary education (Van Gorp & Bogaert, 2006), and for science educa- tion and vocational training (Bogaert, Van Gorp, Bultynck, Lanssens, & Depauw, 2006).
Another book that reports the development and use of task-based materials is Thomas and Reinders (2015), which contains chapters on the use of task-based materials in many countries in Asia. Foster and Hunter (2016) and Mackey, Ziegler and Bryfonski (2016) consider applications of SLA research to materials for task based learning. However, we know of no currently available coursebook that features task-based materials, despite claims to the contrary. See Mishan (2013) for a critique of a global coursebook claiming to be task based and also for reference to a coursebook that is task based (Widgets—
Benevides & Valvona, 2008).
Another approach that is popular both in the literature and on projects nowadays is CLIL, an approach in which the learners focus on learning content knowledge and skills (e.g. geography, playing a sport, cultivating crops) while gaining experience of using English. Again, there are many publications focusing on the principles and procedures of CLIL but very few proposing procedures for materials development. One publication that does focus on materials development for CLIL is Coyle, Hood, & Marsh (2010), which includes a chapter on “Evaluating and creating materials and tasks for CLIL classrooms.”
Our own preference, you will not be surprised to discover, is the text-driven approach in which a written or spoken text selected for its potential for affective and / or cognitive engagement drives a unit of materials in which readiness activities activate the learners’
minds in relation to the text, initial response activities stimulate learner engagement whilst experiencing the text, intake response activities encourage the development and articulation of personal responses, input response activities involve exploration of lin- guistic or pragmatic features of the text, and development activities invite learners to use language for communication in relation to the core text (Tomlinson, 2013b). Admittedly there is, as yet, little empirical evidence to prove the effectiveness of this and of other experiential approaches, just as there is no published empirical evidence that we know of to prove the effectiveness of PPP or of other typical coursebook approaches, despite Hadley’s (2014) claim to the contrary. There are, though, research indications of the effectiveness of text-driven approaches in relation to student engagement, motivation and performance, such as Al-Busaidi and Tindle (2010); McCullugh (2010); Troncoso (2010); Heron (2013, 2016); Darici and Tomlinson (2016). What we need is research to find out which pedagogical approaches to materials development best facilitate language acquisition in the classroom. This would be very challenging because of the difficulty of controlling learner variables, teacher variables, and out-of-class experience of the lan- guage but we believe that attempts to achieve it could be very informative, especially if undertaken on a large scale in many different learning contexts.
2 Issues in Materials Development
alcohol, pork, balloons), plus guidelines on how to avoid any risk of sexism and racism.
Their caution is understandable but unfortunately it often leads to the proliferation of safe, sanitized, and anodyne texts. A number of authors have objected to what they see as sometimes excessive caution (e.g. Wajnryb, 1996; Tomlinson, 2001a) and “they have complained about the unengaging blandness of commercially published materi- als” (Tomlinson, 2012a, p. 162). Tomlinson (1995) has compared materials in current commercial coursebooks unfavorably with materials published on national projects and especially with the Namibian coursebookOn Target (1995), in which such provoca- tive (and potentially engaging) topics as marital violence, tourism and drug abuse are included with the permission of the Ministry of Education in response to student requests for such controversial topics in a preliminary questionnaire. Banegas (2011) describes a syllabus being used at a secondary school in Argentina. Syllabus 1 follows a conventional coursebook while Syllabus 2 is “a negotiated syllabus driven by such teacher suggested topics as gay marriage and child abuse and such student suggested topics as divorce and single parenting” (Tomlinson, 2012a, p. 162), which is imple- mented by making use of a teacher-developed sourcebook of controversial and poten- tially engaging listening and reading texts. Gray (2010) investigates publishers’ docu- ments that prohibit their authors from using dangerous topics such as politics, alcohol, religion and sex which could be offensive, and he also reports interviews he held with publishers in which they defend their censoring of materials in order to match the sen- sitivities of their potential markets. Gray comments on how the topics that they do per- mit represent a successful, materialistic, and aspirational EFL world. Waijnryb (1996, p. 291) complains that the EFL world portrayed in coursebooks is too “safe, clean, har- monious, benevolent, undisturbed.” Tomlinson (2001a, p. 68), whilst appreciating the need for publishers to be cautious, points out how affective engagement is a vital factor in learning and says “it is arguable that provocative texts which stimulate an affective response are more likely to facilitate learning than neutral texts which do not.” This is our position and we have both run many courses in which we have stimulated materials developers (including groups from Iran, Oman and Turkey) to make use of provocative topics and texts that would be both acceptable in their cultures and have the potential for stimulating affective engagement.
Humanizing Materials
Many theorists and practitioners have pointed out how language learning materials focus on the target language and tend to neglect the learner as an individual human being with interests, wants, and talents unrelated to the language being learned. Many of them have stressed the need to humanize language-learning materials, both in their development and in their use in the classroom (e.g. Arnold, 1999; Arnold & Brown, 1999;
Maley, 2003, 2008, 2011; Rinvolucri, 2003; Masuhara, 2006, 2007; Tomlinson & Avila 2007a, 2007b; Masuhara et al., 2008; Tomlinson, 2008b, 2013a, 2013c, 2016b; Mukun- dan, 2009; Hooper Hansen, 2011; McDonough, Shaw & Masuhara, 2013; Ghosn, 2013;
Mishan, 2013; Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2013), and there is a popular web journal, orig- inally started by Mario Rinvolucri, which publishes articles proposing ways of human- izing materials development and other aspects of language teaching (Humanising Lan- guage Teaching: www.hltmag.co.uk). Most of the above authors refer to the literature on learning, on classroom learning, and on SLA, as well as to their own experience in the classroom, and they emphasize the need to help learners of all ages and levels to
Materials Development for Language Learning
personalize, to localize, and to make meaningful their experience of the target language, as well as the need for materials to be affectively and cognitively engaging whilst cater- ing for all learning styles. Arnold and Brown (1999), for example, refer to researchers who demonstrate the value of whole-brain learning and they quote Gross (1992, p. 139) who asserts that “We can accelerate and enrich our learning, by engaging the senses, emotions, imagination.” Canagarajah (1993) gives examples of the revision of textbook comprehension questions so as to stimulate localized and personalized responses. Tom- linson (2013a) agrees with Berman (1999, p. 2), who says, “We learn best when we see things as part of a recognized pattern, when our imaginations are aroused, when we make natural associations between one idea and another, and when the information appeals to our senses.” Tomlinson also calls for humanistic coursebooks that engage affect through personalized activities and which feature imaging activities, inner voice activities, kinesthetic activities and other multi-dimensional activities. Like many other authors, Mukundan (2009, p. 96) is critical of the excessive control imposed by course- books and he says that the classroom should be like a jungle “where chance and challenge and spontaneity and creativity and risk work in complementary fashion with planned activity.” Hooper Hansen (2011, p. 107) is in favor of helping learners to achieve “a state in which the mind is optimally relaxed and fully expanded” and suggests, for example, using paintings as texts, something we have seen done to great effect in the Norwegian course- bookSearch 10(Naustdal Fenner & Nordal-Pedersen, 1999). Masuhara (2006) and Tom- linson (2001b, 2013a) propose and exemplify multi-dimensional approaches to language learning in which the learners are encouraged to make use of sensory imaging, motor imaging and inner speech reflection, as well as personal associations, connections and emotions in order to humanize their language-learning experience. You can probably get a sense of what is meant by humanizing from the quotations above. Tomlinson (2013a, p.
139) defines a humanistic coursebook as “one which respects its users as human beings and helps them to exploit their capacity for learning through meaningful experience”
and “to connect what is in the book to what is in their minds.” He provides many exam- ples of his own efforts to humanize coursebooks and makes suggestions for humanizing without the coursebook, for partial replacement of the coursebook, for humanizing with the coursebook, for localizing coursebooks and for developing humanistic coursebooks.
Many of the authors referred to above are critical of commercially published course- books for being insufficiently humanistic. For example, Arnold and Brown (1999, p. 5) say that we need to add “the affective domain” to “the effective language teaching going on in the classroom” in order to make language learning more humanistic. Maley (2011) points out that coursebooks typically predetermine the content, the sequencing of the content, and the procedures for using the content. He suggests using more open and unpredictable process activities such as projects, community language learning, drama, extensive reading and creative writing to give learners opportunities to decide on con- tent and language use for themselves. Masuhara et al. (2008, p. 310) criticize course- books for making insufficient use of “engaging and extensive reading and listening texts,”
for neglecting the opportunities for individual development offered by extensive writing, for not making full use of “the resources of the mind by stimulating multi-dimensional mental responses which are at the same time sensory, cognitive and affective,” for not making use of extended projects, for featuring primarily analytical activities and for not stimulating the imagination and creativity of learners. Tomlinson (2013a, pp. 139–140) criticizes coursebooks (including some of his own) for not connecting with the learn- ers’ lives and says that many coursebooks concentrate on “the linguistic and analytical
2 Issues in Materials Development
aspects of language learning” and fail “to tap the human beings’ potential for multi- dimensional processing.” He also says they make “insufficient use of the learners’ abil- ity to learn through doing things physically, to learn through feeling emotion, to learn through experiencing things in their mind.” Tomlinson and Masuhara (2013, p. 247) evaluate six recently published coursebooks and congratulate them for providing a much higher “level of personalization.” However they conclude that “there is still too much attention given to grammar at the expense of affective and cognitive engagement, not enough activities for the experientially and kinaesthetically inclined…” Mishan (2013, p. 279) puts forward arguments for humanistic approaches to materials development and refers to a number of resource books for teachers that suggest or provide human- istic approaches for the teacher to use in the classroom. However, she is very critical of coursebooks for concentrating on “bite-sized information chunks” and she says that the “holistic ethos of humanistic approaches is, on the whole, anathema to the modern coursebook culture of instant linguistic gratification.” Tomlinson (2013c, p. 17) evalu- ated a different six current coursebooks and found that “the topics are bland and safe, and are unlikely to stimulate any affective responses,” “the learners are rarely asked to think for themselves,” and “the learners are rarely asked to be creative.” Mishan (2016) criticizes coursebooks for simplifying and sanitizing texts, and thereby compromising comprehensibility, engagement, and cognitive challenge. Tomlinson (2016a) evaluates three recent coursebooks against the criteria of their potential to stimulate affective engagement and their potential to stimulate cognitive engagement and concludes that there is a very weak match with the criteria in all three coursebooks. We know of no publication that finds evidence of humanistic approaches in global coursebooks and of no publication which supports this situation. For a case study of the development and trialing of a unit of humanistic materials see Darici and Tomlinson (2016) and for sug- gestions and examples of ways of developing and of adapting materials for whole-class
“teaching” that match humanistic principles see Tomlinson (2016b). For a recent ratio- nale for the need for such essential goals of a humanistic approach as affective engage- ment, cognitive challenge, student enjoyment and student self-esteem see Mishan and Timmis (2015).
We take a very strong position on humanistic materials. We believe that, without affective and cognitive engagement, deep processing cannot be achieved and durable acquisition is therefore impossible. We also believe that deep processing is activated by personal involvement as an individual human being and that the only coursebooks that could achieve more than coverage of teaching points are those that follow a humanis- tic approach to language learning and help the learners to localize the materials and to personalize them, and in doing so to achieve confidence and self-esteem. This is a view based on our considerable experience of developing and using humanistic materials in many different countries and on our understanding of the principles of language acqui- sition. While our view accords with the similar views of many practitioners and theorists in the literature we have to concede that, as yet, there is no empirical evidence to support (or to negate) this view.
Ideology in Materials
Since the mid-1990s, critical theorists and socio-cultural theorists have attacked the role of English language teaching in a globalization process which they say promotes Western, capitalist, materialistic values. Ferguson (2003) uses the term
Materials Development for Language Learning
“Angloglobalisation” to claim that there is a positive connection between the British Empire, English, and globalization but Phillipson (1992), Pennycook (1994, 1998), Gray (2002) and Block (2006) have been scathingly critical of the apparent link between English and empire. Gray (2010, pp. 16−17) agrees with them and points out how English has become “a form of linguistic capital, capable of bringing a profit of distinction to those speakers with the ability to access it (or more accurately, its socially legitimated varieties), and as an increasingly commodified dimension of labour-power.” He draws attention to the global coursebook as an “artefact,” a “commodity” that promotes socio- economic norms through its texts, its activities, its values and its illustrations. He ana- lyzes four commercially successful British coursebooks and, for example, concludes that they all celebrate success, individualism, pleasure, social mobility, and material- ism. He also examines publishers’ guidelines, he interviews publishers, and he concludes that a standardized product is being “delivered through the standardized methodology embodied in the coursebook into the global marketplace—in which all are assumed to want and need exactly the same thing” (p. 138). This he sees mainly as a result of the publishers’ tabooing of controversially inappropriate topics and of their insistence on discrete-item approaches in which linguistic content is “made deliverable for teachers in manageable portions and finally made testable by examinations” (p. 137).
Other writers have also written about how the coursebook has become a commodity to be consumed. Tickoo (1995, p. 39) sees textbook writing in a multilingual and multi- cultural society (such as the one in Singapore) as being determined by different sets of criteria. “Some of them arise from such a society’s need to teach the values it wants to foster. Some arise in the desire to make education a handmaiden of economic progress and social reconstruction.” Toh (2001) reports and comments on his research findings that the content of coursebooks developed for use in Singapore schools reflects confor- mity to Western socio-cultural norms. Singapore Wala (2003) considers the coursebook to be a communicative act, “a dynamic artefact that contributes to and creates meaning together with other participants in the context of language teaching” (p. 59). She ana- lyzes coursebooks developed for Singapore and concludes that “a coursebook is not just a collection of linguistic items—it is a reflection of a particular world-view based on the selection of resources” (p. 69).
Holliday (2005) argues that language education is becoming increasingly commodi- fied and that students have become recast as learners and consumers, Bolitho (2008) asserts that textbooks have acquired iconic status as symbols of what is to be aspired to, and Mukundan (2009) talks about the “declared agenda” of the classroom, which involves the teacher being directed by the textbook writer to create a “zoo-like envi- ronment, where learners behave like caged animals, performing planned tricks for the animal trainer…” (p. 96). See also Adaskou, Britten, & Fahsi (1990), Alptekin (1993), Zhang (1997), Cortazzi and Jin (1999), Gray, J. (2000, 2010), Gray, F. (2002), and Curdt- Christiansen (2015) for discussion of issues relating to culture and materials develop- ment. For a detailed and very useful survey of the literature concerning cultural issues see Mishan and Timmis (2015); for a review of the literature on cultural mismatches between coursebook producers and coursebooks as well as reports of personal experi- ences of students welcoming potentially engaging innovative methodologies see Tom- linson (2005); and for critical reviews of textbooks used in different areas of the world see Tomlinson (2008a).
In our opinion, it is inevitable that a coursebook will communicate a view of both teaching and learning, a view of the target language and the culture(s) it is used to represent, and the worldview(s) of its producers. This is potentially dangerous as the
2 Issues in Materials Development
coursebook is revered in many classrooms as the ultimate authority and there is a risk of its users uncritically accepting the world it portrays as a world to aspire to. However, our experience throughout the world is that teachers and learners are much more critical than they are given credit for and they often find ways to resist the commodity they are being asked to consume. It is also our experience that textbook publishers and writers do not conspire to convert textbook users to their view of the world. They simply (and inevitably) portray the world as they know it and are often unaware of the potential conflict between their views of teaching, of learning, of the target language, and of the target culture, and the views of the textbook users. What we would like to see is activities in coursebooks inviting learners to compare the views represented by the coursebook with those held by their culture and by themselves. This could enrich their experience rather than impoverish it.
This chapter has focused on a number of issues in relation to materials development that divide both theorists and practitioners. For further discussion of these and other issues see Harwood (2010), Mishan and Timmis (2015), Tomlinson (2010a, 2011, 2012a, 2012b) and Azarnoosh et al. (2016). For discussion of the very important issues concern- ing approaches to the principled development of materials, to the evaluation of mate- rials, to the adaptation of materials, and to the effective development and use of digital materials see the relevant chapters in this volume.
Conclusion
To sum up our position we would like to conclude this chapter by stating what we believe and by inviting you to think about your position in relation to the issues focused on.
We believe that: