Materials Development and Research- Making the Connection
Jack C. Richards
Paper presented at a colloquium on research and materials development, at the
TESOL Convention, San Antonio, March 2005.
Within applied linguistics the activities of those involved in developing instructional
materials and those working in second language learning research and the moretheoretical areas of applied linguistics are often seen to have little connection.
Traditionally there has been relatively little cross over between those working ineither domain, as seen in the very different issues written about in journals such as
TESOL Quarterly as compared to journals such as Applied Linguistics. Practitioners
in one domain seldom work in the other, (although people like myself, David Nunan,and Michael McCarthy might be considered exceptions). In this paper I want to
explore some of the kinds of interaction that are possible between research/theory
and materials design and illustrate such connections from my own experience as amaterials’ developer who is also interested in research and theory.
Effective instructional materials in language teaching are shaped by consideration of
a number of factors, including teacher, learner, and contextual variables. Teacher
factors include the teacher’s language proficiency, training and experience, cultural
background, and preferred teaching style. Learner factors include learners’ learning
style preferences, their language learning needs, interests, and motivations.
Contextual factors include the school culture, classroom conditions, class size, andavailability of teaching resources in situations where the materials will be used. In
planning a new textbook or course book series the publisher will normally provide
the writer with a profile of the target teachers, learners, and teaching context toenable the writer to tailor the materials to the target audience. In curriculum
planning this phase is part of situational analysis. (See appendix 1 for an example ofthe sort of information that might be provided). Two other factors play a crucial rolein determining what the materials will look like and how they will work. One is thetheory of language and language use reflected in the materials, and the other is thetheory of language learning on which the materials are based. These two sources of
input provide the necessary links between theory and practice. But how does thisactually work out in practice?

1

The theory of language and language use
In developing materials for any aspect of language learning, whether it be a skillbased course in listening, speaking, reading or writing or an integrated-skills basic
series, the writer’s understanding of language and language use will have a major
impact on material’s design, since it will play a role in determining the goals thewriter sets for the materials, the focus of the materials themselves and the activities
within them. I will refer to this level of conceptualization as the writer’s theory oflanguage and language use. In planning materials for the teaching of writing forexample, the materials developer could start from any of a number of views of thenature of writing or of texts. He or she could start from a view of written languagethat focuses on writing-modes, i.e. the organizational modes underlying paragraphs
and essays, such as definition, comparison-contrast, classification, or cause-effect.
Alternatively the materials’ developer might start from a genre or text-based view of
written language in which texts such as news reports, business letters, or academic
articles are seen to reflect their use in particular contexts. Or the writer could begin
from a process perspective in which written texts are seen to reflect the cognitiveand composing processes that go into their creation, such as prewriting, planning,drafting, composing, reviewing, revising, and editing. If on the other hand one werepreparing a listening course the materials developer would need to clarify his or her
understanding of the nature of listening. Is it viewed largely as a process of decoding
input? Is it viewed in terms of the mastery of discrete listening skills and sub-skills?
Or it is seen as a blend of top-down and bottom-up processing? For a speaking
course likewise a starting point is selecting an appropriate theory or model of thenature of oral interaction. Will it be based on a model of communicative competence
and seek to address grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse
competence and strategic competence? Or is oral communication viewed more interms of speech act theory focusing on utterances as functional units incommunication and dependent upon the performance of speech acts?
While the preparation of instructional materials might appear to be an essentiallypractical activity, materials will inevitably reflect a theory of the nature of language,
communication, or language use. And as my former colleague Ted Plaister used toremind me, “There’s nothing so practical as a good theory”! Typically the writer will2

be encouraged to adopt the theoretical flavor of the month, so to speak, whether
that be genre theory, an interactionist view of second language learning, a systemic
approach to grammar, an interactive model of reading, a task- based orientation to
instruction, or whatever, in order that in the publisher’s promotional literature thematerials can claim to be “based on current theory and research”.

The theory of language learning
In addition to selecting a theory of language and language use to support theapproach the writer will take to his or her task, the writer will also need to consider
the complementary question of the theory of language learning underlying thematerials, since this will determine how the syllabus is implemented in the form of
exercises, tasks, activities and learning experiences. Particular language models areoften linked to particular views of learning. For example a text-based approach to
the teaching of writing is often linked to a Vygotskian view of learning based on thenotion of scaffolding. The teacher and the learners are viewed as engaged incollaborative problem-solving activity with the teacher providing demonstrations,
support, guidance and input and gradually withdrawing these as the learnerbecomes increasingly independent. Models of good writing are shamelessly
employed and writing (or more correctly, text construction) is taught through aprocess of deconstruction, modeling, and joint elaboration and reconstruction as
students create their own texts. The theory of learning underlying approaches to theteaching of conversation might be based on a somewhat different view of learning. It
could reflect an interactionist view of language acquisition based on the hypothesisthat language acquisition requires or greatly benefits from interaction,communication, and especially negotiation of meaning, which happens wheninterlocutors attempt to overcome problems in conveying their meaning, resulting inboth additional input and useful feedback on the learners’ own production.
Second language learning theory has been a ripe field for speculation in the last 20
or so years, and consequently the writer has a rich source of theories to draw fromin deciding on a learning model to adopt. The changing state of theory and3understanding in relation to language and language use is responsible for paradigm
shifts in language teaching and for the ongoing need to review what our assumptions
are and sometimes to rethink how we go about developing materials. Let me give an
example from materials development for second language listening, an area in which
I have written several classroom texts and in which I am currently engaged.
The traditional approach to the teaching of listening sees listening comprehension as
the focus of listening materials. The assumptions underlying this approach are:•••Listening serves the goal of extracting meaning from messages.
In order to do this learners have to be taught how to use both bottom up and
top down processes to arrive at an understanding of messages
The language of utterances, i.e. the precise words, syntax, and expressions
used by speakers, represents temporary carriers of meaning. Once meaning
has been identified there is no further need to attend to the form of
messages.

In classroom materials a variety of techniques have been employed to practicelistening as comprehension. These include:•••

Predicting the meaning of messages
Identifying key words and ignoring others while listening
Using background knowledge to facilitate selective listening

These assumptions and practices have served me well in developing successful
listening texts. But as a result of changing theoretical perspectives on the nature oflistening in language learning I have recently been exploring the implications of adifferent but complementary view of listening, one that looks at the role of listening
in facilitating language acquisition. Schmidt (1990) and others have drawn attention
to the role of consciousness in language learning, and in particular to the role ofnoticing in learning. His argument is that we won’t learn anything from input wehear and understand unless we notice something about the input. Consciousness offeatures of the input can serve as a trigger which activates the first stage in theprocess of incorporating new linguistic features into ones language competence.
Schmidt distinguishes between input (what the leaner hears) and intake (that part ofthe input that the learner notices). In order for listening to lead to language
acquisition and not simply to comprehension, it is argued that learners need to bothnotice features of the input as well as have opportunities to try to incorporate new
language items in their linguistic repertoire. This involves processes variously
referred to as restructuring, complexification, and producing stretched output.

4

This view of the role of listening has important implications for teaching listening andfor materials development. We can distinguish between situations wherecomprehension only is an appropriate instructional goal in teaching listening andthose where comprehension plus acquisition is the focus. Examples of the former
would be situations where listening in order to extract information is the primary
focus of listening, such as listening to lectures, listening to announcements, listening
to sales presentations and service encounters such as checking into a hotel. In othercases, however, a listening course may be part of a general English course or linked
to a speaking course, and in these situations both listening as comprehension andlistening as acquisition should be the focus. Listening texts and materials can thenbe exploited first as the basis for comprehension, and second as the basis foracquisition. This suggests to me a two-part cycle of activities in listening lessons andmaterials: a comprehension phase and an acquisition phase. The comprehension
phase would focus on extracting meaning as described above. The acquisition phasewould include noticing activities and restructuring activities. Noticing activities
involve returning to a listening text that has served as the basis for comprehension
and using them as the basis for language awareness. For example students could
listen to a recording again in order to:••••

Identify differences between what they hear and a printed version of the text
Complete a cloze version of the text
Complete sentence stems taken from the text
Check off from a list, expressions that occurred in the test.

Restructuring activities are oral or written tasks that involve productive use of
selected items from the listening text. Such activities could include:••••

In the case of conversational texts, pair reading of the tape scripts
Written sentence-completion tasks requiring use of expressions and otherlinguistic items that occurred in the text
Dialog practice based on dialogs that incorporate items from the text
Role-plays in which students are required to use key language from the text

Anyone who sets out to write instructional materials for language teaching will startout with either some implicit or better still, explicit understanding of the issues
discussed above, namely the theory of language and of language learning thematerials will be based on. Here the writer’s familiarity with current trends andtheory in language teaching, applied linguistics, second language learning orwhatever, will be helpful. But in order to make use of this knowledge, a) it has to be
operationalized in the form of a syllabus and b) a set of instructional principles has
to be extrapolated which will inform the pedagogical strategies used in the materials.

5Developing a syllabus for the materials
One of the first applications of the theory of language the instructional designer has
selected is the deciding on the type of syllabus the materials will be based on. Thus
to continue with some of the examples already cited, a writing course might be built
around a functional syllabus, a text-based syllabus or a process syllabus. A listening
course might be built around a skills syllabus, a text-based syllabus, or a topicalsyllabus. And a conversation course might be built around a functional, a task, or askills syllabus. The different syllabus types may also be combined in different ways.
Syllabus design is an activity that can draw on a considerable body of relevant
research. Since the field of language description (e.g. as seen in register analysis,
discourse analysis, corpus studies) is well established there is a substantial researchbase a materials’ developer can consult in order to make decisions about the
linguistic content of instructional materials etc. In the case of reading materials there
are a large number of corpus studies that can provide relevant information. In
developing the series – Strategic Reading for example( a three-level reading series)- one issue was the vocabulary level of the reading texts. Here, particularly for theadvanced level in the series, my co-author and I were able to consult not only
standard word lists but also research on the most frequently occurring words inacademic reading (see Coxhead 2000). Likewise the syllabuses I have developed formy listening comprehension texts have been based to a large extent on my own andothers research on listening skills and the sub-skills that are assumed to contributeto fluent listening. In a listening-skills project I am currently working on one of thefirst tasks my co-author and I did at the planning stage was to develop an updated
taxonomy of listening skills, which we are referring to as we develop the scope andsequence plan for the materials as well as the activity types (See Appendix 2). In
the area of conversation texts, in my first classroom texts in the area of oral skills I
drew on sources such as Threshold Level (Van Ek and Alexander, 1980) to identify asyllabus of basic functions. Whether Threshold Level can be regarded as researchbased, of course, is a matter of opinion. In Person to Person (Richards and Bycina
1984), for example, the functional syllabus underlying the syllabus is based largelyon Threshold Level, supplemented by other sources on essential functions andspeech acts. In another series, Springboard, (Richards 1999), a topical syllabus isused, the topics being derived from research on students’ interests and preferences.

6

The grammatical syllabi found in my course books (such as Interchange andPassages) likewise used the Cobuild corpus-based grammar as a source for items toinclude in the syllabus, though other factors also played a role in determining thesyllabus. These were the kinds of factors referred to earlier: contextual factors (thekinds of grammatical items specified in national syllabuses in countries where thecourses were to be marketed), as well as teacher factors (information from teachersand consultants on grammatical items they would expect to see included at different
levels).
Today corpus research is providing invaluable information that can serve as a source
for items in course syllabi, although corpus data based on native speaker usage is
not necessarily the only relevant source in many cases. Why is this the case?
Perhaps an example from the field of lexicography will serve to clarify here. If you
look at one of the many learner dictionaries on the market, such as the Longman,
Oxford, or Cambridge learner dictionaries, you will see that the definitions in these
dictionaries are not based on native-speaker usage. The definitions are written
within a specially determined defining vocabulary, a 2000 word corpus of words thathave been selected according to what Michael West called “definition power”. Take aword such as “container”. Although this might not be a high frequency word, it is aword that can be used to define many other words. A vase is a container for holding
flowers; a bucket is a container for carrying water, and so on. The definition
vocabularies used in learner dictionaries have been developed pragmatically bylexicographers who have tried to find the minimum number of words with the
maximum capacity for definition. The syllabus underlying a basic series (such as
Interchange) can likewise be constructed according to similar principles.
This principle was well stated by Jeffery, who in the preface to West’s General
Service List (1953 v) stated:
To find the minimum number of words that could operate together inconstructions capable of entering into the greatest variety of contexts has
therefore been the chief aim of those trying to simplify English for thelearner.

7

A similar principle has recently been proposed by Jennifer Jenkins in her book The
Phonology of English as an International Language, in which she argues that inteaching English in Europe, the traditional native-speaker based RP-referenced
phonological syllabus is not necessarily a suitable target for foreign language
instruction. She proposes a simplified phonological syllabus as a basis for EFL
instruction.

Identifying instructional principles to support the materials
The relevance of research and applied linguistics theory to syllabus design is fairly
easy to establish, however its relevance to the notion of instructional principles isless straightforward. Before the writer can make decisions on the kinds of exercises,
tasks and activities to be employed in materials, an overall instructional frameworkhas to be agreed on. What is the rationale for the kinds of activities employed andtheir sequencing within the materials? What does research have to offer here? Anaïve view of the role of research would be to assume that researchers agree on
what the implications of research are for the language teaching and that one can liftfrom research, validated exercise types for use in teaching materials. This view has
sometimes been supported by researchers, themselves. If you read some of theliterature on task-based instruction for example, you get the impression that the roleof teachers’ and materials’ developers’ is to apply the findings of SLA research (e.g.
Beglar and Hunt 2004). Indeed there is a fairly long tradition in our field of
researchers or theoreticians offering prescriptions to teachers and materials writerson what to teach and how to teach it. After all, now discredited methodologies suchas audiolingualism or the cognitive code approach in their day had widespread
support from researchers and theoreticians at that time.
Today however researchers are much more cautious about the kinds of advice theygive. The most one can extrapolate from research are sets of principles that can beused to support particular pedagogical approaches. Kanda and Beglar (2004, 107)for example observe:
Because second language acquisition pedagogy cannot yet be based on awell-accepted, detailed theory, and many current proposals for task-based
instruction are still in an early stage of development, we believe that one
fruitful alternative is for researchers and teachers to utilize instructional
principles to guide their work.

8This has always been my own approach in materials development. The first task I
have to solve in planning a set of materials is to identify an acceptable set ofprinciples to support the instructional design process. In some cases these principles
can be derived from the methodology of the day. The overarching principles ofcommunicative language teaching as it was elaborated in the 1980s for example canbe summarized as follows.
•
•
•
•
•
•

make real communication the focus of language learning
provide opportunities for learners to experiment and try out what they know
be tolerant of learners' errors as they indicate that the learner is building up
his or her communicative competence
provide opportunities for learners to develop both accuracy, and fluency
link the different skills such as speaking, reading and listening, together,since they usually occur together in the real world
let students induce or discover grammar rules

These are the principles underlying many of the mainstream communicative course
books that were published in the 1980s and 1990s, including my own. The difficultywith principles, however, is that they mean different things to different people. That
great philosopher Groucho Marx summed up this existential dilemma in the following
words:“Of course I have principles. And if you don’t like these ones, I have others.”
Current interpretation of the underlying principles of contemporary versions ofcommunicative language teaching might lead to the following specifications ofunderlying principles:
1. Second language learning is facilitated when learners are engaged ininteraction and meaningful communication
2. Effective classroom learning tasks and exercises provide opportunities forstudents to negotiate meaning, expand their language resources, notice how
language is used, and take part in meaningful intrapersonal exchange
3. Meaningful communication results from students processing content that isrelevant, purposeful, interesting and engaging
4. Communication is a holistic process that often calls upon the use of several
language skills or modalities
5. Language learning is facilitated both by activities that involve inductive or
discovery learning of underlying rules of language use and organization, as
well as by those involving language analysis and reflection
6. Language learning is a gradual process that involves creative use of language
and trial and error. Although errors are a normal product of learning theultimate goal of learning is to be able to use the new language bothaccurately and fluently
7. Learners develop their own routes to language learning, progress at different
rates, and have different needs and motivations for language learning

98. Successful language learning involves the use of effective learning andcommunication strategies
9. The role of the teacher in the language classroom is that of a facilitator, who
creates a classroom climate conducive to language learning and provides
opportunities for students to use and practice the language and to reflect on
language use and language learning
10. The classroom is a community where learners learn through collaboration andsharing
The challenge for materials writers is to turn these principles into lesson plans andteaching materials. In a recent secondary school series I co-authored, Connect,(Richards 2004), we spell out the principles underlying the course in the teacher’sbook. These are stated in the following way:
Course principles
Connect is based on the notion that generating and maintaining motivation isessential for successful learning. This is incorporated in the series in thefollowing ways:
Motivational strategies

Features1. Generate and maintain interest

Connect units are built around current,
contemporary topics
Connect students can relate all task totheir own interests and experiences

2. Promote successConnect students are provided withadequate preparation and support for
tasks throughout the learning process
Connect tests assess only language thatstudents know and do not assume thatstudents know more

3. Promote fun in learning

Connect tasks are varied
Connect games and game-like activities
make learning fun

4. Provide opportunities for students toConnect personalization tasks offer

speak about themselvesopportunities for students to use target
language to speak about themselves.

10At the same time it must be recognized that any set of working principles so derived
must be compatible with the local context. Principles derived entirely from researchand theory might not always fit well with the school teaching and learning culture.
Here situation analysis (see Richards 2001) is needed to identify constraining factorsthat might hinder the application of theory-driven principles. Both top down andbottom source of information are needed, or in publishing terms what can be called
product-driven as well as market-driven factors.
A useful exercise for teachers doing courses on materials’ development involves
examining classroom texts and teacher’s manuals to try to identify assumptions
about language and language learning underlying materials and how these lead toparticular decisions about syllabuses and exercise types in classroom materials.

The myth of authenticity
One issue in materials design that has aroused substantial debate over time is therole of authentic materials. Some have argued that classroom materials should as
far as possible mirror the real world and use real world or “authentic sources” as thebasis for classroom learning. Clarke and Silbertstein (1977:51) thus argued:
Classroom activities should parallel the ‘real world’ as closely as possible.
Since language is a tool of communication, methods and materials should
concentrate on the message and not the medium. The purposes of reading
should be the same in class as they are in real life.
But is this always the case? In the real world, people have already learned to readand may read for a variety of purposes – to get information, to relax, beentertained, aroused, or whatever. In a second language learning context students
may be reading in order to develop their reading and language skills, as well as formore general purposes. The two situations are not really compatible except in thecase of advanced readers. An extreme example of the authenticity fallacy is cited by
Allwright (1981, 173), who described a language course at a British university inwhich one of the guiding principles was “Use no materials, published or unpublished,actually conceived or designed as materials for language teaching”. One wonders if asimilar principle could apply to music education. Learning the piano would no longer
require learners to practice scales and other finger exercises and to begin playing
using specially written pieces for beginners. Perhaps instead they would plunge
straight into Bach or Beethoven!

11In many cases I would argue, the use of authentic materials (or more accurately,
authentic source materials, since some degree of selection and arrangement of suchmaterials is always required) in designing teaching materials is not always either
necessary, or realistic. In some cases (e.g. designing reading materials), authentic
source texts are relatively easy to locate and likely to have more interesting content
than specially written author-generated texts. (This is the case with the series
Strategic Reading, where all texts are taken from authentic sources). Generally suchtexts still require modification to remove low frequency lexical items and obscuresyntax or idioms and to accommodate the length of the text to the requirements of alesson or page format. It is very difficult however to find authentic texts appropriate
for use in material for beginner or low proficiency college age readers. Authentic
texts at an appropriate level of difficulty would typically be found in magazines or on
the internet but intended for very young learners, hence the content would not
generally appropriate for older learners. In addition since in the real world readers
are assumed to have a reasonably high level of reading ability and a fairly
substantial recognition vocabulary, authentic texts even for college age learners will
generally be too complex for use in materials without substantial adaptation.
In the case of speaking materials, other issues arise. For example in providing oral
texts that can serve to present new language, model speaking tasks, or provide
content to initiate discussion, texts have to meet several design criteria. There may
be constraints in terms of sentence length, exchange length, grammar etc that are
essential to the design of a task chain within a unit. Chunks of authentic discourse,
however obtained, would not meet these criteria, and as anyone who has examinedsamples of authentic conversational discourse can attest, such data has virtually novalue pedagogically. Brown and Yule (1983,11) point out that in the real world,
informal conversation often serves the purpose of maintaining social relationships
and that the primary purpose of “chat” is not to convey information but to nice tothe person one is speaking too. Typically in such discourse the speakers:…
… will tend to conduct a type of talk where one person offers a topic forcomment by the other person, responds to the other person in his [sic] topic is
successful, and, if it is not, proffers another topic of conversation. Such
primarily interactional chats are frequently characterized by constantly shifting
topics and a great deal of agreement on them.
Brown and Yule 1983, 11

12

Brown and Yule (p. 12) give the following example of typical authentic chat, an
extract in which some people are discussing a couple who used to visit the area eachsummer.
A: you know but erm + they used to go out in erm August +they used to come+you know the lovely sunsets you get +at that time and
B: oh yes
C: there’s a nice new postcard a nice _ well I don’t know how new it is + it’s
been a while since I’ve been here + of a sunset + a new one +A: oh, that’s a lovely one isn’t it
D: yes yes it was in one of the + calendars
A: yes that was last year’s calendar it was on
D: was it last year’s it was on + it was John Forgan who took that one
A: yes, it’s really lovely + this year’s erm + the Anderson’s house at Lenimore’s
in it + at
em Thunderguy I should say +D: they’ve sold their house
A: yes + the Andersons
B: oh have they
A: yes yes + erm + they weren’t down last year at all
Brown and Yule point out that in authentic exchanges of this kind there is a large
amount of unclarity and non-specificity and the listeners seem to skim the message
for gist rather than detail. The discourse has an immediate function in terms of the
speakers present at the time – it functions as interactional bonding - but little
relevance to anyone else.
Such discourse does of course differ substantially from textbook language since it
serves a very different function form a dialog in a textbook. This is not necessarily ajustification for textbook dialogs such as the following from Saslow, n.d):
A: When did you learn to sing?
B: Well, I started singing when I was ten years old, and I’ve been singing
every day since then.
A: I wish I could sing like you. I’ve never sung well.
B: Don’t worry. If you start singing today, you’ll be able to sing in no time.
A: Thank you. But isn’t singing very hard?
B. I don’t think so. After you learn to sing, you’ll be a great singer,
This textbook dialog represents one extreme. In attempting to illustrate the use of
the gerund and the infinitive it presents a parody of an authentic conversational
exchange, modeling a conversation that no-one would have in real life thus wasting
an opportunity to prepare students for real English. Sadlow contrasts the dialog
above with the following, which provides “an opportunity to contextualize the same13

grammar point while preparing the EFL students to understand real English as wellas to prepare them to use real English naturally when the time comes”.
A: I’ve got an extra ticket for the game on Friday. Do you know anyone who
might like to go?
B: Not offhand. But I’ll ask around.
A: Thanks.
B: Hey, come to think of it, I’m free. I’d love to go?
A; Great. Do you mind driving?
B: Not at all. Pick you up at seven?
The difficulties (and ultimately, futility) in attempting to use authentic spoken
discourse as the basis for teaching materials are illustrated in the series Listening
and Speaking Out (James, Whitley, and Bode 1980), a listening/speaking course
from the 1980s. The authors started out with the laudable goal of using authentic
discourse as the basis for the listenings. They obtained the listenings by having agroup of teachers chat and discuss topics in a recording studio. The teachers knew
each other well and so generated examples of reasonably authentic interactional
chat. But as with Brown and Yule’s data, the texts that resulted from theseinteractions have little classroom value. The “information” that arose from thediscussions has no relevance or interest to those who were not present, therecordings are punctuated with irritating giggles and laughter (a natural feature ofinteractional chat among friends), and the materials quickly become boring andunusable.
Textbook dialogs in conversational materials are not there to serve as models ofauthentic oral interaction but are pedagogical artifacts. Often, a requirement of suchdialogs is hat they serve to generate student interaction, through simple adaptationor personalization. Sadlow points out that a dialog such as the following, fails onthese counts since the content of the dialog is so particular that “it would be difficult
for students to do anything except memorize it”.
A: Did you know that next week is Thanksgiving?
B: really? What’s Thanksgiving?
A: Well, Thanksgiving commemorates the harvest of the early settlers. It wascelebrated with Native Americans. Would you like to come to a Thanksgiving
dinner?
B: I’d love to. What do people eat at Thanksgiving?
A: Turkey, cranberry sauce, and pumpkin pie.
B: That sounds interesting.

14

Sadlow comments that if students wanted to use the dialog above as the basis forpractice they would have to personalize it some way:“(for instance, to change Thanksgiving to another holiday), they would have tolearn a lot of additional language to do it. They would need to research anotherholiday and learn the language they would need to tell someone about it. But
most importantly, since not all holidays have specific foods associated withthem, the dialog can’t serve as a model to be applied to other holidays.
On the other hand a dialog such as the following has much more value
pedagogically, since it can easily be personalized and adapted.
A: How’s that new Indian restaurant?
B: So-so. The food’s OK, but the service is lousy. If you like Indian food, why
don’t you try Delhi Gardens? It’s a lot better.
A: That’s next to the movie theater, isn’t it?
B: Yes, you can’t miss it.
The important point about textbook dialogs is not that they model “authentic”
conversational interaction but rather that they provide a springboard for follow-up
activities. This does not mean that they need be contrived or unnatural. Here iswhere the art and craft of the writer comes into play.
Does this mean that the vast body of research generated by practitioners in the fieldof discourse analysis and conversational analysis is not relevant to those developing
language teaching materials? Sadly, much of it is not, or at least not in preparing
materials for EFL contexts. However if materials are being prepared for a very
specific situation and involve learners interacting intensively with native speakers invery specific situations, (e.g. doctor-patient interviews), data on the nature of suchinteractions in the real world is obviously relevant and usable. For most EFL learners,
however, interaction is with their teachers and with other students in the classroom
and what is important is that they acquire the tools needed to make such interaction
possible – i.e. a repertoire of essential vocabulary, grammar, functions, andcommunication strategies.
Hence when an earnest young graduate student writes to me and objects that theconversational texts in a series such as Interchange have different features fromthose found in the student’s MA research on some aspect of conversational discourse
found among café workers in coffee shops in Boise, Idaho, my answer is, of course
they do! They are designed to serve a very different function.

15

Similar issues arise with the development of listening materials. While in the realworld we are surrounded by authentic examples of listening texts such as overheard
conversations, announcements, radio broadcast etc, these are usually largely
unusable for a variety of reasons. These include a) logistical problems involved inrecording genuine interactions; b) copyright and ethnical issues that arise when one
wants to use data obtained from such sources. In addition, few texts so obtained canbe used in materials design anyway without substantial modification. The alternative
is to use simulated texts as a source for listening activities. In a series such as
Passages (Richards and Sandy, 1998), for example, the listening texts were basedon recordings of people improvising from cue cards, or in the case of interviews,
recorded interviews with people. Scripts were then adapted from these sources,
adjusted for length, difficulty, interest level, redundancy etc, and then recorded byprofessional actors.
Others (e.g. Widdowson 1987) have argued that it is not important for classroom
materials to be derived from authentic texts and sources as long as the learning
processes they activate are authentic. In other words, authenticity of process ismore important than authenticity of product. However since the advent ofcommunicative language teaching, textbooks and other teaching materials havetaken on a much more “authentic” look: reading passages are designed to look likemagazine articles (if they are not in fact adapted from magazine articles) andtextbooks are designed to similar standard of production as real world sources suchas popular magazines.

The myth of native speaker usage
An assumption that is often made in language teaching is that the goal of language
learning is to acquire a native-like mastery of the language, even if this is not apractical reality for most learners. Learner language is evaluated in terms of how
closely it approximates native speaker norms, and native speaker usage as
evidenced in corpus studies of native speaker discourse is used as a source forsyllabus items. However it needs to be recognized that for many learners nativespeaker usage is not necessarily the target for learning and is not necessarily
relevant as the source for learning items. The concept of English as an international
language recognizes the fact that localized norms for language use are becoming
increasingly recognized as legitimate targets for language learning, and that foreign16language varieties of English such as Mexican English or Japanese English marked
both by phonological features from the mother tongue as well as characteristic
patterns of lexical and syntactic choice are perfectly acceptable targets for many
learners. As I observed above, Jenkins proposes a non-native phonological syllabus
as a target for EFL learners in Europe.
In determining learning varieties for classroom use it is worth considering again theimplications of the quote cited earlier from Jeffrey, in which the goal of syllabus
design is “to find the minimum number of words that could operate together inconstructions capable of entering into the greatest variety of contexts”. If thisprinciple still holds true, and I would argue strongly that it does, then what is
important in writing materials for EFL learners is not necessarily native speaker
usage, but rather, what will provide the means of successful communication bothwithin and outside the classroom. This means providing learners with a repertoire ofwell selected vocabulary, sentence patterns and grammar, as well as a stock ofcommunication strategies. This is the rationale for the syllabus in the secondary
series Connect (Richards and Barbesan, 2004), an EFL secondary school series forcontexts where a) input consists of as little as three hours of instruction per week b)there is no opportunity for using English outside of the classroom. I contrast thiswith an example I found in the literature recently of a course designed for basic level
Korean. In order to teach the language of asking for directions, the writing team firstcollected samples of native speaker usage (English, rather than Korean,) to find out
how native speakers give directions. They then used this information to develop a
module of giving directions. The results looked remarkably similar to how directiongiving is typically presented in EFL textbooks. However my point is that how nativespeakers ask for and give directions is largely irrelevant. What is more important isproviding learners with sufficient vocabulary, grammar, and communication
strategies to enable them to make themselves understood when they ask fordirections. Similarly in the case of low-level EFL learners my goal is to give them theresources to have successful experiences using English for simple classroom
activities. Whether or not they employ native-speaker-like language to do so isirrelevant.

17

Conclusion
I have argued here that the primary relevance of language and language learning
research to materials development is through its application to syllabus design
issues and as a source for instructional principles that can inform the design of
instructional materials. The route from research to application however is by nomeans direct, since language teaching materials are also shaped by many otherfactors and constraints and the success of teaching materials is not dependent upon
the extent to which they are informed by research. It is not difficult to find examplesof widely used teaching materials that succeed despite their archaic methodology
because they suit the contexts in which they are used. Perhaps teachers and student
like them because they are easy to use, they match the exam requirements, or theyreflect teachers and learners’ intuitions about language learning. On the other handresearch-based teaching materials have sometimes been spectacular failures in themarketplace because they failed to consider the role of situational constraints.
Hopefully however, publishers and materials writers generally seek to produce
materials that are educationally sound and which also appeal to teachers andlearners. Educational publication is after all, a business, and the challenge formaterials writers is to meet educational objectives and standards while at the sametime meeting market requirements.

18

APPENDIX 1
Example of a project specification profile of a conversation series.
Market:Levels:Extent:Colors:Trim:
Starting point:
Ending point:
Components:

50% Universities
30% Private language schools and vocational colleges
20% Junior colleges
2
96 pp.
4
8.5 X 11
false beginnerintermediate
text
CDs
Audiocassettes
Placement and achievement tests; unit quizzes:
Video (tentative)

Distinguishing learner-centered syllabus based on student questionnaires;
Features:
Other features:
Art:
Balance of Skills:
Syllabus:
Length of units:
Activities per page:
Listenings per unit:
Number of units:Time per lesson:
Teacher profile:
Piloting:

student questionnaires within the text; student-centered
Activities with extensive cognitive skill development;
Conversation management strategies
task-based; extensive graphic organizers; easy to use
mix of illustrations and photos; sophisticated look foruniversities
75% speaking; 25% listening
topical4 pp,; two 2-pp lessons
2
2
20
50 minutes
80% foreign with varied levels of training
Yes

19

APPENDIX 2
Skills Taxonomy for Developing Listening Comprehension Materials
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Predict
Recognize different purposes of texts
Recognize topics
Identify the beginning, middle, and ending of e.g. stories
Recognize discourse boundaries
Understand that audio cues (volume, tone) convey meaning
Identify key sounds
Recognize word boundaries
Recognize reduced forms
Identify stressed/unstressed words
Recognize changes in pitch, tone, and speed of delivery
Recognize intonation on tag questions
Recognize question/statement intonation
Recognize sentence/clause boundaries
Recognize the vocabulary used
Recognize numbers
Recognize spellings
Recognize conjunctions
Guess meanings from context
Recognize agreement/disagreement
Recognize comparisons
Recognize questions
Recognize reasons
Recognize sequence markers
Recognize time references
Recognize attitude
Follow a set of procedures
Identify gist/main ideas
Identify information focus
Identify positive/negative opinions
Infer and draw conclusions.
Make predictions about storyline/ content, characters using contextual clues andprior knowledge
Infer/draw conclusions about meaning, intention, feeling and attitudecommunicated by the speaker, using contextual clues, prior knowledge, andknowledge of familiar cultures
Recall details at the literal level: who, what, when, where, why, how
Recall information/details: descriptions, examples, explanations, visuals, opinions
that support a main idea/point of view, recall details about characters, events,
setting, plot. Recall details in messages.
Evaluate for exaggeration
Identify facts versus opinions
Identify different varieties of English (American, British, etc)

20

REFERENCES
Allwright, R. 1981. What do we want teaching materials for? ELT Journal 36 (1): 5-19.
Beglar, David and Alan Hunt. 2002. Implementing task-based language teaching. In JackRichards and Willy Renandya (eds). Methodology in Language Teaching: an Anthology ofCurrent Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G. and G. Yule, 1983. Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Clarke, M., and S. Silberstein. 1977. Toward a realization of psycholinguistic principles in the
ESL reading class. Language Learning, 27 (1), 48-65.
Coxhead, A, 2000. A new academic word list. Applied Linguistics, 34, 213-238.
James, Gary., Charles Whitley, and Sharon Bode 1980. Listening In and Speaking Out. New
York: Longman.
Jenkins, J. 2001. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kanda, Makiko and David Beglar 2004. Applying pedagogical principles to grammar
instruction. RELC Journal 35,1 105-119
Richards, Jack C and David Bycina 1984. Person to Person. New York: Oxford University Press.
Richards, Jack C. 1999. Springboard. New York: Oxford University Press.
Richards, Jack C 2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, Jack C and Charles Sandy. 1998. Passages. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, Jack C and Samuela Eckstut-Didier 2003. Strategic Reading. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, Jack C and Carlos Barbesan. 2004. Connect. New Ypork: Cambridge University
Press.
Saslow, Joan. no date. Real language – the vitamin for the student studying English outside
the English-speaking world. unpublished manuscript
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11,2, 129-159.
Skehan, 1996. Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis
and D. Willis (eds). Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
Van Ek, J. and L.G.Alexander. 1980. Threshold Level English. Oxford: Pergamon.
West, M. 1953. A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman,Widdowson. H. 1987. Aspects of syllabus design. In M.Tickoo (ed). Language Syllabuses:
State of the Art.: Singapore: Regional Language Centre.

21