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.
4 Developing Materials for Language Teaching

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
6 Developing Materials for Language Teaching

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).
8 Developing Materials for Language Teaching

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.
10 Developing Materials for Language Teaching

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
12 Developing Materials for Language Teaching

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 ([email protected]) and anybody who would like more
information about MATSDA activities should contact the President, Brian Tomlinson
([email protected]).

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.
14 Developing Materials for Language Teaching

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:
Cambridge University Press.
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.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
16 Developing Materials for Language Teaching

— (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:
Cambridge University Press.
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:
Cambridge University Press.
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:
Cambridge University Press.
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
 Introduction 17

Materials Development in Language Learning; Evidence for Best Practice. London:

Continuum, pp. 103–20.
Van den Branden, K. (2006), Task-Based Education: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wajnryb, R. (1996), ‘Death, taxes and jeopardy: systematic omissions in EFL texts, or life
was never meant to be an adjacency pair’. Paper presented at the Ninth Educational
Conference, Sydney.
Widdowson, H. G. (1984), Explorations in Applied Linguistics 2. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
— (2000), ‘On the limitations of linguistics applied’, Applied Linguistics, 21 (1), 3–25.
Willis, J. (1998), ‘Concordances in the classroom without a computer’, in B. Tomlinson
(ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 44–66.