What do lve want teaching materials for?1 R.

L Allwright

The question "What do we want teaching materials for?' is premature until we establish what there is to be done in teaching and who should do it. Starting with a unified conception of language teaching and learning as 'the management of language learning', this paper proposes a management analysis which establishes a necessarily limited role for teaching materials, given the great complexity of the management problem revealed by the analysis. This leads to a diagnosis of teacher 'overload' and learner 'underinvolvement', with implications for teacher-training and 'learner-training'. (Training is probably necessary if learners are to become productively involved in managing their learning.) 'Learner-training' has further implications for course design and for teacher-training, and raises the question of how teachers can best put their expertise at the disposal of 'trained' learners. Returning to materials, the paper then makes specific suggestions in support of a switch of emphasis from 'teaching' materials to 'learning' materials. Finally the conclusion is drawn that questions of materials should generally be related to the conception of the whole of language teaching and learning as the co-operative management of language learning. The question In this paper I will focus on the sorts of publications we might want publishers to promote, in terms of the sorts of jobs we might want teaching materials to do. To ask 'What do we want teaching materials for?' is unfortunately a premature question. To say "What do we want materials to do?' may clarify the problem, because it may remind us that, if we are thinking about the role of teaching materials in the whole teaching/learning operation, then we ought first to ask 'What is there to be done?' This question deliberately avoids reference to teaching or to the teacher, because I wish, at this stage, to leave 'who should do what' in the management of language learning an open question. T o be done' suggests action, but in fact there are three phases in management, rather than one. There are things to decide, actions to be taken on the basis of those decisions, and a process of review to feed into future decision-making. Figure 1 should help reinforce this point, widi its circularity and overlapping segments indicating the dynamic interrelationships involved. After a decision has been takensay, to use a particular texdjook for a particular coursesome organization is necessarynamely die purchase and delivery of an adequate quantity of the books to the classroombefore the decision can be fully implemented. The use of the textbook, for a sensible review to be possible, has dien to be monitored to permit evaluation of its use and
ELTJournal Volume 36/1 October 1981 5

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013

Fig. 1. Decision, Action, Review. effectiveness, and the result can then go forward to inform subsequent decisions. In addition it seems necessary to take a preliminary look at two different approaches to the question of die role of teaching materials. On the one hand there is die DEFICIENCY view. According to this view, we need teaching materials to save learners from our deficiencies as teachers, to make sure, as far as possible, diat die syllabus is properly covered and that exercises are well diought out, for example. This way of thinking might lead, at one extreme, to die idea diat die 'best' teachers would neidier want nor need published teaching materials. At die odier extreme we would have 'teacherproof materials diat no teacher, however deficient, would be able to teach badly widi. On die odier hand, diere is die DIFFERENCE view, which holds diat we need teaching materials as 'carriers' of decisions best made by someone odier dian the classroom teacher, not because die classroom teacher is deficient, as a classroom teacher, but because die expertise required of materials writers is importandy different from that required of classroom teachersthe people who have to have die interpersonal skills to make classrooms good places to learn in. For some diis conception may seem to 'reduce' die teacher to die role of mere classroom manager. For odiers, it 'frees' die teacher to develop die expertise needed for dealing widi practical and fundamental issues in die fostering of language learning in die classroom setdng. Bodi die DEFICIENCY and die DIFFERENCE views have enough trudi in diem to be worth holding in mind simultaneously as we move towards a management analysis. Bodi views are based on die assumption diat decisions are best taken (and 'acted upon', and 'reviewed') by diose widi die relevant expertise. Aldiough diis must, at first sight at least, seem entirely reasonable, it does ignore die important possibility diat, at least in some not very improbable circumstances, die question of who takes die decision, etc., might be more important dian die quesdon of whether or not die 'best' decision is always taken. We shall need to return to diis issue later. Now it is dme to introduce an analytical answer to die question 'What is to be done?'

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013

The analysis

This analysis of die issues involved in die management of language learning is simplified for die sake of exposition. (See Appendix 1 for die same analysis elaborated into 27 separate points.) It is not intended to be especially radical or controversial in its division of language teaching and learning into four main areas. It may be surprising to see 'Guidance' given a section to itself, but odierwise die content should be familiar and, I hope, generally uncontroversial. The novelty, if diere is any, consists mainly in R. L. AUwright

presenting the analysis without reference, at this stage, to 'who should do what', or 'what should be covered by teaching materials'. Goals Four main points need to be made about goals: 1 Points of view In considering goals, at least four different points of view need to be taken into account.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013

Fig. 2. Points of view.

Figure 2 attempts to show, by means of the one-way and two-way arrows, that language teaching institutions and sponsors may interact and negotiate goals for particular courses, but that language teaching institutions may impose goals on teachers, and sponsors may impose goals on learners. Teachers and learners then meet and may also get involved in negotiation of goals. 2 Types of goals At least two types need to be distinguished here: goals for oneself and goals for others. All four 'points of view' represent people or institutions who must be expected to have personal goals. Teachers wish to develop their teaching careers, language teaching institutions want to survive financially and with enhanced prestige, sponsors want to further their own interests, and learners, we hope, want to learn the language. The first three, however, have goals for the learners as well as for themselves. They not only have goals, they may seek to impose those goals on the learners. Hence: 3 Probability of conflict Given these complications, it is not surprising if a conflict of goals is found. Teaching materials, of course, are chosen at least partly because of the learning goals they embody, but these, we know, are not the only goals involved in the whole management of language learning. This brings us to: 4 Materials may contribute in some way, but they cannot determine GOALS. The role of teaching materials must then be relatively limited. No matter how comprehensively the materials cover learning goals, they can never even 'look after' everything to do with goals, let alone actually determine them. Content There are three main points to be made about content, and then four categories of content to be described (but see Appendix 1 for a more detailed analysis). 1 Input We have got used to the input/intake distinction (c.f. Corder, 1967) in recent years but only in terms of input from the teacher. Learners in classrooms, however, listen to each other as well as to the teacher, and are exposed, potentially, to much more language than is focused on in teaching. I wish to distinguish between 'what is taught' in the classroom, and 'what is available to be learned' there, as a result of the interactive
What do we want teaching materialsfor? 7

nature of classroom events. If, for example, the teacher explains something in the target language, the language of that explanation is available to be learned. It constitutes potential 'intake'. Similarly, all the things that get said when errors are being corrected constitute potential intake, as do all the things said in the target language by other learners. 2 'Emergent' content If we define 'content' as the sum total of'what is taught' and 'what is available to be learned', then it becomes clear that 'content' (potential intake) is not predictable. It is, rather, something that emerges because of the interactive nature of classroom events. 3 Materials may contribute in some way, but cannot determine CONTENT. Again we find that the role of teaching materials is necessarily limited. Even what learners learn is in an important way independent of die materials used. This notion of content needs further analysis (see Appendix 1) but here I can simply indicate four main types of content: a. The target language itself b. Subject-matter content This may include knowledge about language in general, about target language culture, literature, etc. In die ESP (English for specific purposes) context, subject-matter may be an important part of'what is taught', or it may be simply die 'carrier' of all the language content. c. Learning strategies Part of the content of instruction (bodi diat which is 'taught' and diat 'available to be learned') may be learning strategies, diat is, ways of dealing widi language input to turn it into intake, or means of generating input (see Seliger, 1980). Aldiough die learning of learning strategies has not, traditionally, been an explicit goal of language instruction, it has become, recently, much more usual to give it emphasis, as in 'study skills' courses for foreign students, for example. But all courses, not just diose labelled 'study skills', could well aim to help learners widi learning strategies, as an obvious part of die management of learning. Learners diemselves, of course, may well want to become better language learners. We shall return to this issue under die heading 'learner-training' later. d. Attitudes It is well accepted diat one of die goals of school language instruction is to improve die attitudes of speakers of different languages to one anodier. However seldom this may be achieved, die development of positive intercultural attitudes remains important, but it is not often discussed as part of die content of instruction. Even where atutudes are not being explicitly 'taught', however, diey are almost certainly 'available to be learned' in any language classroom, from die teacher and from everyone present. They include atutudes to learning, of course, and not just language or intercultural atutudes. To summarize, anyone involved in die management of language learning has necessarily to deal widi atutudes as part of what learners may learn. This analysis of CONTENT has pointed to some of die many complexities involved: enough, I imagine, to reinforce my contention diat not too much can be expected of teaching materials. Method Here diere are diree main issues that have to be attended to (decided, acted upon, reviewed) in die management of language learning.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013

R. L. Allwright

1 Learning processes The fundamental question is 'What learning processes should be fostered?' This is dearly central for all concerned, from curriculum developers to the learners themselves. 2 Activities The next question is 'What activities, or what learning tasks, will best activate the chosen processes, for what elements of content?' A less deterministic version of this question might be 'What activities or learning tasks will offer a wide choice of learning processes to the learner, in relation to a wide variety of content options?' This amendment suggests, I think correctly, that we can neither predict nor determine learning processes, and therefore perhaps should not try as hard to do so as we usually do in our teaching materials. 3 Activity management The third basic question is 'How can we manage these activities (set up group work, run simulations, etc.) so that they are maximally profitable?' (i.e. minimizing the management risks discussed in Allwright, 1978): for example, who will work best with whom, how long can be allowed for any particular activity. Such questions may be the subject of suggestions in teaching materials, but detailed local decisions are clearly beyond the scope of publications. Again we come up against die fact diat teaching materials are necessarily limited in scope. They can, and do, contribute to the management of language learning, but cannot possibly cope widi many of the important decisions facing the 'managers' working in their various situations. Guidance I am using the term 'guidance' to refer to all those things that can be expected to help people understand what they are doing and how well they are doing it. The scope of die term dius ranges from the provision of a fullscale grammatical explanation, to die mere nod from a teacher to signify acceptance of a learner's pronunciation. It also covers, of course, guidance about mediod (e.g. instructions for a simulation) as well as about content, and guidance about appropriate standards of attainment. These are major issues in die management of language learning, involving decisions, for example, about die most helpful type of explanadon to offer for given aspects of die language, and about die type of error treatment diat will help an individual learner. Clearly, in die circumstances, there is again a limit to what teaching materials can be expected to do for us. This analysis has quite deliberately been presented widiout raising the important quesdon of'who should do what'. That we can cover in die next section. Meanwhile, die analysis should have reinforced any doubts diere might have been about the viability of 'teacher-proof teaching materials! The whole business of die management of language learning is far too complex to be satisfactorily catered for by a pre-packaged set of decisions embodied in teaching materials. This is obvious if we recognize that, while teaching materials may embody decisions, diey cannot diemselves undertake the action and die review phases of die management process. Of course very few writers actually claim diat dieir teaching materials can do everything, but a surprising number do state diat dieir materials are entirely suitable for the learner working neidier widi a teacher nor widi fellow learners, and diis implies strong claims for what die materials can do. In turn it suggests a possible need for a 'learner's guide' to language learning, of which more What do we want teaching materialsfor* 9

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013

later. Meanwhile, the main point is that the management of language learning is inevitably complex. Implications So far I have delayed answering the question in my title and have preferred instead to consider a more fundamental question: 'What is diere to be done in the management of language learning?' In this section I shall deal with implications for teacher-training, then with those for what I will call 'learner-training', and finally with implications for materials themselves.

Implications for The main implication is clear: if we subscribe to the 'deficiency' view of the teacher-training role of teaching materials, then we are forced to admit that teaching materials cannot possibly make up for all our possible deficiencies as teachers. Perhaps teacher-training, then, should be based on a 'management of language learning' analysis, and should concentrate on those areas of teacher expertise (like die action and review phases, for example, or the practical business of classroom interaction management) drat cannot be safely left to materials. This is hardly a new idea for teacher-trainers, but it does seem worth emphasizing here. If that was the only implication for teacher-training of die analysis presented above, little would have been gained. The analysis, by highlighting die complexity of die teacher's job, also sheds light on a common problem found almost every time diat teachers are observed or observe diemselves. It is die problem of teacher 'overload'. Teachers, it appears, seem to do 'all die work', and exhaust diemselves in die process. As Telatnik noted in die diary she kept as a teacher (Telatnik, 1980) 'I'm working harder dian they are'. This might not matter, if teachers could keep up die pace widiout running into trouble, but die evidence (mosdy informal, but see Allwright, 1975, McTear, 1975 for specific examples) suggests diat teachers who do so much work in die classroom run foul of a number of management risks (see Allwright, 1978 for a fuller analysis) and typically fail to present the language to be learned as clearly as they had intended (because diey may offer off-die-cuff explanations diat are faulty, or treat errors inconsistendy, or leave die learners in doubt about what diey are supposed to be doing, etc.). The obvious answer would be to offer more training to produce more efficient classroom teachers who could cope widi die inevitably large workload widiout falling foul of die risks. If, however, we entertain die possibility diat teachers are not just doing 'too much' work, but doing work diat die learners could more profitably be doing for diemselves, die immediate implication for teacher-training must be diat teachers need to be trained not to do so much work, and trained instead to get die learners to do more. Hence die concept of'learner-training', since it is unlikely diat learners will be able to share die burden widiout some preparadon. Implications for Teacher 'overload' often entails learner 'underinvolvement' since teachers learner-training are doing work learners could more profitably do for diemselves. Involvement does not just mean 'activity', however. It is not just diat learners are not busy enough. 'Involvement' means somediing more akin to Curran's 'investment' (Curran, 1972 and 1976), which suggests a deep sort of involvement, relaung to die whole-person. This sort of 'whole-person involvement' should be related not simply to 'participation in classroom activities' but to participation in decision-making, and in die whole
10 R. L. Aliwright

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013

business of the management of language learning. (It is, after all, their learning that is being managed.) But we should not expect the learners to be already expert at the sorts of decision-making (and action and review) involved in the management of language learning. We must therefore consider ways of conducting learner-training. Before doing that, however, there is a further point to be made about the possible benefits of greater learner-involvement. One of the 'management risks' is 'spoonfeeding', and this shows up most obviously in the treatment of error: teachers seem to prefer supplying the correct answer to asking the learner to think again (see Lucas, 1975; Fanselow, 1977; see Cathcart and Olsen, 1976, for evidence that learners, as things are, prefer it too). If learners could be trained to take much more responsibility for identifying and repairing their errors, for developing their own criteria of correctness and appropriateness, then we could expect a direct improvement in their language learning. At least in this area, then, and no doubt in others as well, the investment of time in training learners to assume a greater share of management responsibilities should bring dividends in the short term as well as in the long, both direcdy and indirectly. But what ideas do we have for 'learner-training'? Of course, very many teachers practise 'learner-training' already, but I wish to give ideas for learner-training the prominence I believe they deserve. Thus, rather than attempting a comprehensive review of learner-training as currently practised, I shall instead report on personal experience with a course designed to foster learner-training and English-language training simultaneously. In 1978 I was asked, through the British Council, to direct the Polish Academy of Science's annual three-week 'English seminar' for their research scientists (who work in the Academy of Science's various research institutes across Poland). From the outset it was agreed that the course (repeated in 1979) should be aimed at learner-training, at helping the participants become the sort of learners who could effectively go on with their language learning after the course was over, even if no further courses were available to them. At the same time it was of course agreed that we should direcdy help the learners with their English. We could not offer the 'futureorientation', as we called it, while neglecting the present need. In planning the course, the first essential was to think of ways of getting the learners to accept the innovationa preliminary, but fundamental, problem of learner-training. What has developed over die two years is firstly a 'warm-up system' whereby prospective course-members receive, a few weeks in advance, a letter describing die intended nature of the course and asking them to come to it having thought about their learning priorities and their preferred ways of learning English, and some introductory activities for die start of die course, consisting of 'workshops' at which participants are given die task of producing personal profiles of their learning needs, and of dieir preferred language learning strategies (see Appendices for copies of die profile sheets). These profiles dien constitute die paper input to interviews of each learner by two of die tutors (one of whom, for die sake of die less confident learners, is a speaker of Polish). At diese interviews die priorities emerging from die profiles are discussed, to make sure we know what die learner intended and to make preliminary decisions about die learner's learning. At diis stage we tutors only have an outline structure for die course, in die form of a suggested daily timetable. The learners are asked if diey can already see how diis structure might facilitate or frustrate pursuance of dieir personal priorities, and we discuss
What do we want leaching materialsfor* 11

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013

what adaptations might be possible on either side. For example, a person who wished to get much more writing practice than was allowed for in the timetable was invited to use Private Consultation Time (described below) for this purpose. From these workshops and interviews we hope learners emerge with a clearer idea of what they want from the course and how to get it (within our necessarily imposed 'future-oriented' scheme). On the other hand, we tutors emerge ready to meet and take decisions about grouping the learners, assigning tutors to groups and planning the first lessons. One of the course-members (the one chosen to be studentrepresentative) is present at our meeting to help in the important decisionmaking.2 The second essential element in our course-planning was to find a course-structure that would offer us and the learners a framework which was clear enough to satisfy our need for order, and yet which would be flexible enough to take into account die fact'that we would not know much about our learners' needs until die course-members actually assembled. The structure we developed consisted of three main timetabled elements: 1. Class Time. 2. Self-Access Time. 3. Private Consultation Time. (There was a fourth element, die writing workshop, which was important in its own right but less importandy structurally; see below.) These three elements were given equal time (90 minutes each in a 6 x 45 minute timetable) in the order in which diey are listed above. To meet die demand for writing work and simultaneously to reduce die demand at any one time on die self-access facilities, die Self-Access Time alternated daily widi a writing workshop, so diat half die participants (25 to 30 people) worked on dieir writing while die remainder used die self-access facilities. These comprised four rooms: a listening centre, a 'communication room', a 'language workroom', and a 'reading/writing room'. (The self-access facilities were also available at untimetabled times in die early afternoons and diroughout die evenings and weekends.) There were also social activities each evening, if only films to watch. The diree timetabled elements were allotted equal time to reflect dieir equal potential, and also to avoid die implications of die usual bias in favour of class time. The intention was diat die diree modes of learning should complement and feed into each odier. 'Class Time' was dierefore used not only for familiar language learning activities but also as a training ground for decision-making. (For example, learners were asked as part of dieir 'homework' to study in groups available texdjooks and select appropriate exercises to propose for use in class.) In diis way Class Time was used to help learners learn how to make best use of Self-Access Time. Individual or small-group problems diat could not be appropriately dealt widi in class could be dealt widi by die learners in Self-Access Time, or in Private Consultation Time, when time could be booked for private discussions widi die tutors. Our monitoring of what learners chose to do in Self-Access Time and of what sorts of problems diey brought to us in die Private Consultation Time fed into our decisions about die best ways of spending Class Time. It was particularly interesting diat often die learners brought learning problems radier dian language problems to diese Private Consultations. For example, diey wanted advice on how to deal widi a listening comprehension problem after diey had exhausted listening comprehension materials in our listening centre.
12 R.LAUwright

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013

Halfway through the course we interviewed the learners again to discover whether they felt that their learning priorities (in terms either of language or of learning strategies) had changed, whether they found current course activities profitable, and whether they felt die course was helping or hindering in any way their pursuance of dieir priorities. Thus we continued to involve learners in the decision-making, die action based on diose decisions (aldiough we tutors accepted die greater share of responsibility for die organization and implementation widi respect to class time and to die course as a whole) and in die reviewing of bodi decisions and action. We were asking die learners to monitor continuously and evaluate before taking more decisions. The mid-course review did all diis in a reladvely formal way, but the decision-action-review cycle was of course more often handled informally, whenever tutors and learners discussed die selecdon of materials during Self-Access Time, for example.3 The diird essential task in our planning was to diink ahead to possible follow-up activities. We could not hope to make our 'future-oriented' course credible if we gave die future no diought ourselves. In practice, however, diere was litde we, as visiting tutors, could directly plan. We could only hope to persuade the Polish Academy of Science and die British Council of die potential value of making provision for learners who might be ready to make much greater demands on dieir facilities and supporting services. No persuasion was in fact needed, and it is good to be able to report progress in die development of year-round self-access facilities and die creadon of an English 'club' for Polish Academy scientists wishing to condnue dieir learning of English in a non-class setdng.4 Widi more money more could be done, of course, particularly for learners away from the main centres. We have also evolved a follow-up quesdonnaire (distributed several mondis after die end of die course) to help us find out what learners diemselves are doing to build on die diree-week course, and to get their advice for future courses and follow-up activities. This Polish Academy of Science course has been described at some lengdi (diough still very sketchily) to reinforce die point diat learnertraining is a concept widi implicadons diat go well beyond die classroom. Of particular importance, I believe, are die implications for course structure, since widiout such changes 'learner-training' may uldmately lack credibility.5 Also of obvious importance, however, are die implications for teacher-training, to which I will now return. Further implications Learner-training is not going to be done well by teachers who believe diat, for teacher-training since only diey have die necessary expertise, only diey can be allowed a responsible role in die management of language learning. Teachers need to be trained to help learners develop dieir expertise as learners. Apart from die practical problems diis involves, diere is also die problem of what die teacher is to do widi whatever pegagogic expertise he or she already has. How can we put our expertise in die business of language learning 'at the disposal o f die learners, so diat it is neither imposed upon the learners nor devalued by diem (in dieir new-found independence)? We call teachers 'masters' radier dian 'servants', and yet, in the best traditions of domestic service, it is servants who have die expertise, as cooks or valets, and so on, and dieir problem is identical to die teacher's problem as I have outlined it: how to make dieir expertise available widiout imposing it (because diat would be presumptuous), and widiout having it devalued (because then diey would not get the rewards their expertise merited). It may help, then,
What do we want teaching materialsfor? 13

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013

(and it may be salutory for other reasons) to see teachers as 'servants' rather than as 'masters'. Of course, it is not in the best interests of domestic servants to train their employers to do without them, but in education the situation is different: in education, since courses are necessarily finite, there is an obvious need for teachers (servants with expertise) to help their learners become independent of them (to develop their own expertise as learners) so that they can continue to learn efficiently after the course is over. In order to achieve this, without either imposing dieir expertise or having it devalued, I suggest that teachers, in addition to dieir role as 'activities managers' in die classroom, need to accept the roles of: 1. 'ideas' people, ready widi practical advice about language learning strategies and techniques, both for classroom and for outside use; and 2. 'rationale' people, ready to discuss language learning and justify their opinions and advice. These are certainly the qualities we needed as tutors in Poland, especially during Self-Access and Private Consultation sessions. Somehow, we need to encourage die development of such qualities in teacher-training. At the same time we should explore the possibility that there might be a role for materials writers in all this. Implications for In the type of language learning described above, we are not going to want, materials I suggest, materials diat pre-empt many of the decisions learners might be trained to make for themselves. We are going to need learning materials radier than teaching materials. The most obvious and radical form for 'learning materials' to take would be that of a learners' guide to language learning. It is difficult to find many examples in publishers' lists at the time of writing, although there is work in progress. The research so far is by no means conclusive, but any such guide could profit from die work of Rubin, and of Naiman and his colleagues (see Rubin, 1975, and Naiman et al, 1977), on die characteristics of die 'good language learner'. One possibility would be a guide to 'independent' language learning, for learners widiout teachers. Such a guide could include advice on how to establish one's priorities, advice on die most productive ways of exploiting native speakers and other useful people (like off-duty teachers), and also advice on die sorts of exercises a learner might devise for personal use, or perhaps for use with friends. It is too early to know what problems diere might be in writing such a guide (aldiough we can predict some, of course) but diat should not prevent us from exploring die concept. An alternative learners' guide might be produced for classroom language learning. Such a guide could include much of the same material as for independent learners, but would focus on how to exploit die classroom as a language learning situation widiout making it more difficult for odier learners to do die same, and widiout antagonizing die teacher; on how to make full use of die teacher's expertise widiout becoming dependent upon it, and on how to develop your own expertise as a learner. At its simplest diis may involve suggesting die sorts of diings learners might do to obtain repetitions or clarifications of diings said in die classroom. The difficulties widi such learning materials as commercial publications might be considerable, if we aimed diem primarily at die 'captive' learner (who, by definition, has not chosen to study a language) in our state school systems. It would seem more sensible to aim them at die 'non-captive' learner, die sort of learner who, in Britain, might buy a 'teach-yourself' 14 R.L. Allumghl

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013

book and/or voluntarily enrol in evening classes. The captive learner is unlikely to have the strength of motivation required to purchase an extra book, and may well resent it if such a thing is imposed by the teacher. For such learners something much less ambitious, probably locally produced, would seem preferable, something that could be highly specific and therefore more directly useful to poorly motivated learners. One possibility, in such circumstances, would be to make the production of a local guide a task for one generation of learners for the sake of future generations, who would then have the task of updating the guide as and when necessary. Apart from 'learners' guides to language learning' there are other possibilities for learning materials. If, as I have suggested, the teacher needs to be an 'ideas' person and a 'rationale' person, there is a potential need for 'ideas' books and 'rationale' books. Under the heading of 'ideas books' I suggest we should first include books full of ideas for content. In circumstances where there is easy access to 'raw' data in the target language (e.g. newspapers, magazines, etc.) it may be quite unhelpful to suggest that teachers should look to specialist language teaching publications for content ideas. But in die many settings where 'raw' data in die target language is not at all easily available there is little reason to complain if teachers resort to specialist publications. There are examples on publishers' lists already6 but diere could be room for many more perhaps, if teachers demonstrated a willingness to use such collections of ideas rather than fully predetermined courses. Another need is for ideas for activities. Although language drills are 'activities' under any general definition, what I have in mind here is more restricted in scope and biased towards relatively extended activities, for which we could still use plenty of ideas. Under this heading we could ask for more published simulations, for example, more role-play ideas, and more ideas for communication games (but see die British Council work at ELTI for major contributions in these areas7). Another need is for more ideas for what I call 'filler' activities, diat is, short, easily interrupted activities diat die quicker groups can use during group work to supplement extended activities, while waiting for odier groups to catch up. In my experience such 'activities ideas materials' (for example the Canadian 'Gambits' materials by Keller and Taba Warner, 1976) can be passed to learners for them to make dieir own selections (perhaps leaving die teacher to look after the organizational problems diat arise, once die learners have made dieir decisions). Again die important point is diat such materials will flourish on publishers' lists only if teachers are willing to use them in preference to fully worked out course books. When we talk about 'rationale books' we are at our furdiest from 'normal' teaching materials, but teachers trying to share management responsibilities widi dieir learners will need not only 'ideas books' but also books diat help diem understand die thinking diat lies behind dieir teaching and dius may help diem explain it to dieir learners. Of course diere are plenty of books about die general background to language teaching* but reladvely few deal widi die most recent ideas in a manner diat is accessible to die majority of teachers.' Again I am not advocating something new: radier I am trying to draw attention to and reinforce a change of emphasis diat is already perceptible. It is a change that could perhaps be producdvely accelerated if its relation to a general change in die conception of teacher and learner responsibilities for die management of language learning was more widely accepted.
What do we want teaching materialsfort 15

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013

Summary and conclusions

I started with a question: 'What do we want teaching materials for?' I attempted to answer it through an analysis of what there is to be done in the management of language learning. This analysis, with its obvious complexity, carried implications for teacher-training that themselves led to the concept of 'learner-training' as a necessary development if learners are to share management responsibilities properly. 'Learner-training', I argued, has important structural implications for language courses, and this point was illustrated from my experience in Poland. This led to further implications for teacher-training, because of the difficulties it creates with the teacher's expertise, specifically with how the teacher can sensibly put his or her expertise at die disposal of the learners. From this I moved on to consider die implications for materials. Most obvious here was die change from 'teaching' materials to 'learning' materials, leading to support for die notion of 'learners' guides' to language learning, and for 'ideas' and 'rationale' books for teachers. Throughout this latter section I was concerned to point out that I was describing a change already in progress, and attempting to reinforce it and perhaps accelerate it. Finally, I should return to my tide. I hope I have dealt with both the straight and die ironic interpretations of my original question. If I have not dealt with them satisfactorily, I hope at least I have raised questions diat odiers will be prompted to pursue. The most important point for me is diat materials should be related to die conception of die whole of language teaching and learning as die cooperative management of language learning. Q
Received October 1980 c. the book ELT Guides No. 1 (Byrne and Rixon, eds.): Communication Games, published by NFER. For further details see the References. 8 See Corder's Introducing Applied Linguistics, for an excellent example. 9 But see Allen and Unwin's series, edited by Geddes and Sturtridge, for example.
References

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013

Notes 1 This is based on a paper presented at the Fourteendi TESOL Convention, San Francisco, 1980. 2 See also related work at CRAPEL (Nancy, France) and at the School for International Training (Bratdeboro, Vermont). 3 Anyone who knows anything about teaching will know that reality cannot possibly have been so neat. It was not so neat, but this brief account, for all its over-simplification of what was organizationally very complex, will perhaps indicate what we were trying to do, and what we to some extent succeeded in doing. There are numerous practical problems involved in the introduction of such a course structure. We think we sorted out a lot of them, but many remain unsolved. 4 See Ruth Hok's 'Some thoughts on study circles and their potential for language teaching' in TESOL Quarterly, March 1980. 5 At the same dme, those who cannot make radical structural changes should not be discouraged from trying 'piecemeal reforms' and finding ways of making them credible to their learners. 6 Swan's Kaleidoscope and Spectrum come first to mind. 7 Of special interest are: a. the issue of ELT Documents devoted to Games, Simulations and Role - Playing (\9111 \); b . the film Communication Games in a Language Programme j 16 R. L. Allwnght

Alhvright, R. L. 1975. 'Problems in the study of the language teacher's treatment of learner error' in Burt and Dulay (eds.). New Directions in Second Language Learning, Teaching and Bilingual Education. TESOL. 96-109. Allwright, R. L. 1976. 'Putting cognitions on the map: an attempt to model the role of cognitions in language learning' in Povey (ed.). Workpapers m Teaching English as a Second Language Vol. X (June): 1-14. UCLA. Allwright, R. L. 1978. 'Abdication and responsibility in language teaching' in Studies m Second Language Acquisition Vol. 11/1:' 105-121. Allwright, R. L. 1979. "ESP and classroom management: the role of teaching materials'. Paper presented at the Second Latin American ESP Regional Conference, Cocoyoc, Mexico. Bridsh Council. 1977. ELT Documents 77/1: Games, Simulations and Role-Playing. Bridsh Council. 1979. Communication Games in a

16 Selection of learning processes to be employed/exploited. 17 Selection of learning activities/tasks to be employed/exploited. 18 Allocation of time. 19 Allocation of people. 20 Allocation of space. 21 Sequencing. D. Guidance 'Guidance' refers to information about die goals of the course, the target content, and about die learners' mastery of it all. It will also cover instructions about learning activities and tasks. 22 Explanations/descriptions of goals, all types of content, and of learning activities/tasks. 23 Cues/hints to draw attention to criterial features of target content. 24 Immediate yes/no feedback (knowledge of results). 25 Evaluations of learner progress (including tests). 26 The timing of 22- 25 (exactly when to do what). 27 The setting of standards of performance for all aspects of target content, and for classroom behaviour in general. Appendix two ++ very high + high 0 medium - low very low Name Date ...

(FREQUENCY ) , but it is very important when it does (IMPORTANCE ++). You may feel that it is necessary to be very good at English (PROFICIENCY REQUIRED ++) in order to write scientific papers, and you may feel that, at present, your own proficiency (for writing) is much lower (PROFICIENCY NOW -). You may be absolutely certain of this (CONFIDENCE ++ because you have just been trying to write a paper and have found it extremely difficult. + very high - low + high very low 0 medium Name . Date ....
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013

Learning Activity/strategy/technique

V 3

I* I

Learning activity/strategy/technique What do you actually do in order to learn ? Frequency- How often do you do it ? Enjoyment- How much do you enjoy/like doing it? Usefulness- How much does it help you ? Efficiency- How good/efficient are you at doing it? Are you getting die most out of die activity?

p 3

f.

Needs

The author Dick Allwright lectures on Applied Linguistics at die University of Lancaster. His teaching career started with EFL in Sweden, followed by study at Edinburgh University. For twelve years now he has been teaching postgraduate applied linguistics, specializing in psychological and socio-psychological aspects of What do you use English for? language teaching and learning. NeedWhat do you do with English ? He has worked on short courses and seminars in a How often do you have this pargood many countries, and spent a whole year as Frequency ticular need ? Assistant Professor in the TESL Section of die UniverHow important is it to you (proImportancesity of California at Los Angeles. He is a member of fessionally and/or personally) to TESOL's Research Committee, and co-chairperson of perform well in diis situation ? the Colloquium on Classroom-Centred Research diat Proficiency required- How good is it necessary to be at is becoming a regular feature of each TESOL National English to perform well in the Convention. situation? His research has increasingly focused on die role of How good are you already? Proficiency nowthe learner and die possible benefits of increased How sure are you about your Confidence learner involvement in managing die learning process, judgement of your own probut his interest in improving die quality of learning via ficiency? radical changes in classroom practice is rooted in die belief that understanding what goes on in classrooms For example: is in many ways more important than changing what You may need to be able to write scientific papers in goes on. English. Perhaps diis does not happen very often 18
R. L. AUwright

I mi l

Language Programme. Film and Notes for Teacher A. Goals Trainers. Materials may or may not embody a fixed set of aims Bryne, D. & S. Rixon. 1979. ELT Guides No. 1: Com- and objectives. Some materials serve highly specific aims and are difficult to use for other purposes. Other munication Games. British Council/NFER. Cathcart, R. L. &: J. W. B. Olsen. 1976. Teachers' and materials are much more flexible and consist of ideas students' preferences for correction of classroom that can be exploited for a variety of purposes. The conversation errors' in Fanselow and Crymes (eds.). teaching, whether helped by the materials or not, must reflect the relative weightings assigned to the aims, and On TESOL 1976. TESOL. Corder, S. Pit. 1967. The significance of learners' also attend to the sequencing of objectives. errors' in International Review of Applied Linguistics 1 Long-term aims. 5/4: 161-170. 2 Short-term objectives. Corder, S. Pit. 1973. Introducing Applied Linguistics. 3 Relative weightings. 4 Sequencing. Penguin Modern Linguistics Texts. Curran, C. A. 1972. Counseling-Learning: A Whole-Person B. Content Modelfor Education. Grune and Stratton. Curran, C. A. 1976. Counseling-Learning in Second What we teach is of course the 'language' but this needs a lot of further analysis, because we may also Languages. Illinois: Apple River Press. want to teach (and/or learners may want to learn) Fanselow, J. 1977. The treatment of error in oral features of target language discourse, and features of work' in Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 10/4. Geddes, M. & G. Sturtridge (eds.). 1980. Practical the target culture. Also we may include subject-matter Language Teaching Series. Hemel Hempstead: Allen from other disciplines (as in ESP). Some of the subject-matter we use may be there just to carry the and Unwin. language practice, and not to be learned (e.g. conHok, R. 1980. 'Some thoughts on study circles and versation topics, or the content of drill items). their potential for language teaching'. TESOL 5 Target language content. Quarterly Vol. 14/1: 117-119. Keller, E. & S. Taba Warner. 1976. Gambits (three 6 Target discourse content. volumes: Openers, Links and Responders and Closers).7 Target cultural content. 8 Target subject-matter content. Public Service Commission, Ottawa. Lucas, E. 1975. Teachers' Reacting Moves following 9 'Carrier' content. Errors made by Pupils in Post-primary English-as- What we teach may also include selected learning a-Second Language Classes in Israel'. Unpublished strategies and techniques, because we may want our learners to be better learners after whatever course we M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University. McTear, M. F. 1975. 'Potential sources of confusion in are giving them, so that they can carry on learning foreign language lessons: the rules of the game'. effectively, perhaps even without a teacher. 10 Target learning strategies to be developed. Paper presented at the Fourth International 11 Target learning techniques to be developed. Congress of Applied Linguistics, Stuttgart. What we teach may also include attitudes, in the sense Naiman, N., M. Frohlich, H. H. Stern, and A. Todesco. 1977. The Good Language Learner. OISE, that we would hope our learners would develop positive attitudes towards both their current learning Toronto. Rubin, J. 1975. 'What the "good language learner" and their future use and learning of the target language, etc. can teach us'. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 9/1: 41 -51. Seliger, H. W. 1980. 'Second language acquisition: the 12 Target attitudes. question of strategies'. Paper presented at the Third Lastly, after selection, matters of weighting, of timing, and of sequencing have to be attended to. Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum. Swan, M. 1979. Kaleidoscope. Cambridge: Cambridge 13 Assignment of weightings to all elements of content. University Press. Swan, M. 1979. Spectrum. Cambridge: Cambridge 14 Assignment of time to all elements of content. 15 Sequencing. University Press. Telatnik, M. A. 1980. The intensive journal as a tool C. Method to identify and illustrate ESL teacher/teaching Determining how all the various elements of content variables in the classroom'. Paper presented to the are to be learned is obviously a complex matter and Third Annual Colloquium on Classroom-Centred involves thinking about the learning processes to be Research, at the TESOL Convention, San Francisco. employed, the activities or tasks that will draw upon those processes, and about how to relate content, in all Appendix one its complexity, to the activities or tasks. Then the The twenty-seven point management analysis aaual performance of the activities or tasks has itself to be thought about: the amount of time needed, the Language teaching analysis The role of the teacher and the role of the teaching materials nature of the groupings, etc. What do we want teaching materialsfor? 17

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Leeds Metropolitan University on August 18, 2013