名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

Compromise in Materials Development

Nicholas BRADLEY

Introduction
In the field of TESOL the term ‘materials’ does not refer to anything usedin class (pens, monitor etc.) but is a term exclusively used for text materials.
These materials can be those designed for language learning or authentic /real world materials specially selected for language learning (McGrath,2002). In most instances these come in the form of a textbook (termed acourse book should it form the basis of a course).
In the Japanese teaching context, textbooks are popular among Japaneseteachers, and big business. However, the forces that impinge upon school
and classroom life in Japan, most notably the preparations for the university
entrance examination (UEE) and directives from The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), make it difficult tobelieve that materials exist that accurately represent this complex situation.
Irrespective of the educational context, Japanese or otherwise, a variety
of factors impact what is taught and how it is taught. It is, therefore, nosurprise that several writers argue TESOL materials represent an inevitable‘compromise’ (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994: Bell and Gower, 1998; Harmer,― 51 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

2001, Islam & Mares; 2003). That compromise is both positive and inevitable, however, is not a view shared by all (Breen, 1984; Saraceni, 2003;
Thornbury & Meddings, 2001).
This paper will firstly examine the issue of compromise in TESOL materials
and consider whether compromise is inevitable. To illustrate this, I will also
provide examples from a context in which I taught and assess the impact
these compromises had (and continue to have) on language teaching andlearning within that context.
Materials as Compromise
The debate on textbooks has raged for many years with some writers
highlighting their value and calling for their continued use (Hutchinson& Torres, 1994; Dubin & Olshtain, 1986; Bell & Gower, 1998; Gray,
2000), while others focus on their negative impact (Swan, 1992). Somego even further and call for an end to their use (Thornbury & Meddings,2001). The pros and cons of these materials are examined in a number ofpublications (Graves, 2000; Tomlinson, 2001; Richards, 2001; Woodward,
2001; McGrath, 2002) with the final verdict remaining elusive. However,the continued use of these materials by most does seem to indicate thatthey are of value to teachers.
The debate surrounding materials as a compromise, though by no means
unanimous, does seem to be less divisive than that on their inherent value.
The compromise that TESOL materials represent, however, would seem toexist in two main ways: creation and use.

― 52 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

Materials Creation
There are many stages and considerations in material development andcompromise can exist at the earliest possible stage of creation: conceptualization. Tomlinson (2003a:8) suggests that materials writers “underestimate
learners linguistically, intellectually and emotionally” with Cives-Enriquez(2003:78) adding that material developers assume learners “are linguists
and have linguistic knowledge”. Despite such views showing the abilityof materials writers to ‘get it wrong’ on assumptions about learners, albeit
at different ends of the spectrum, they show that at some point an actualassumption was made.
Assumptions about learner ability are not the only issues one must consider
when planning the creation of materials. Tomlinson (2001), for example
suggests writers question whether materials should:
 Be learning or acquisition focused?
 Be contrived or authentic?
 Be driven by theory or practice?
 Aim for language development only or also aim for educational
development?
Ultimately, as Singapore-Wala (2003:142) suggests, there are “different
influencing factors when designing an appropriate course book-(a) the syllabus, (b) learner roles in the system, (c) teacher roles in the system and (d)instructional materials types and functions”. The answers to the questions
posed by Tomlinson and Singapore-Wala will depend in large part upon
the context at which the materials are aimed; if they are aimed at a wide/― 53 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

global audience or at a local context.
Materials Created for a Global Context
Global materials are usually the creation of large publishing houses andprofit margins are paramount in their thinking. The writers employed by
the publishers to create the materials may wish to address the mismatch
between TESOL theory and textbook structure (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994)
or create materials based on updated pedagogical principles (Bell & Gower,1998) but such materials may represent a step too far from the norm forconservative publishers.
Publisher conservativism results largely from the buying habits of consumers
whose choice of materials is based on the principle of “better the devil
you know than the devil you don’t” (Stranks, 2003:330). Publishers areoften reluctant to offer radically different materials to non-native-speakerteachers, untrained teachers or very busy teachers as there is a high riskof rejection (Mares, 2003). Change may challenge the values and beliefsof target customers and result in a ‘conservative impulse’ in which change
is resisted (Torres & Hutchinson, 1994). As a result, “publishers generally
feel more comfortable with material that is the same but different” (Mares,
2003:135).
However, change within ELT has been described as ‘endemic’ (Hutchinson& Torres, 1994) and new materials need to be seen as offering something
new despite buyer conservatism. A compromise between ‘innovation andconservatism’ is required which allows the materials to provide the familiar
alongside something new. This results in global materials adopting a largely― 54 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

eclectic approach (Bell & Gower, 1998).
The production of global materials then appears partly a compromise between
writers and publishers. The publisher’s view is largely based on the demandsof customers. Yet on a global scale, the contexts in which these customers
exist would likely differ greatly, as would the customers themselves.
This may be due partly due to the market they wish to cover. When one
is creating materials aimed at a global market, one cannot realistically takeon board the characteristics of the numerous types of learners, teachers,classrooms, institutions and cultures that are unique to each educational
context. To try to capture as many customers about whom writers know
neither the curriculum, syllabus or learning objective, it pays to adopt aneclectic approach.
However, pedagogical approach and objective are not the only compromises.
The choice of content and its presentation will also require compromise as
photos and text theme must be culturally appropriate for the target learners.
Such compromises make the production of truly global materials seem
impossible and it has been suggested that materials will fail if they try to
be relevant to everyone (Bell & Gower, 1998). However, the popularity of
global materials demonstrates that an acceptable compromise can be foundfor materials targeting a wider audience.
Materials Created for a Local Context
Developers of materials for a local audience often have much more information on the context in which the materials will be used, for example, the― 55 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

culture and level of learners, proficiency of teachers, the education system,
and curriculum. However, like global materials writers, writers for the local
audience rarely create materials on their own and free of influence. Local
materials are often commissioned by a national educational body such as aministry of education or a board of education, or for a publisher producing
materials for a local (often national) customer base. The ideas of the writers
and the sponsor will not be identical and so a compromise will be needed.
One of the interesting compromises faced in the creation of local materials is the dilemma of cultural content. Local materials writers will likely
know the students’ culture very well and one can assume that all materials
created will be relevant to the interests of learners. However, local culturalcontent may be relevant to learners but not represent authentic English use(Dubin & Olshtain, 1986). Local material writers must assess the benefits
and drawbacks of local cultural content and that of authentic English use
and reach a compromise hopefully informed by their educational principles.
Realities of Materials Creation
Although different compromises are required in creating materials for local
and global audiences, there are some issues that are relevant to both. Most
importantly, materials are not only a result of compromise between writerand sponsor but also between writers. Typically, the number of writers isoften much more than one. Tomlinson (2001), for example, found that writing teams for local materials in Romania, Bulgaria and Namibia consistedof seven, five and thirty people respectively. With more than one writercompromise surely follows. Writing teams also work within certain budget
and time constraints which may also demand compromise, for example,― 56 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

on the amount of preparatory research.
Additionally, materials writers will likely have to answer to an editor anda designer. From these two sources, the writer(s) will alter the materials
based on feedback. More editing and alteration will be carried out following
the results of a pilot test and can result in the end product differing greatly
from the original brief of the sponsor or the idea in the mind of the writer.
Materials in UseBell and Gower (1998:118) suggest that “With international materials it isobvious that the needs of individual students and teachers, as well as the
expectations of particular schools in particular countries can never be fully
met by the materials themselves”. Such a view would suggest a compromiseand supports the notion of materials as “proposals for action” (Harmer,
2001:8) and as a “stimulus or instrument for teaching” (Graves, 2000:175)
rather than directions of use to be followed exactly. This is the case not
only for global materials but also for more specific, local context materials.
No textbook is written for just one class, it will have to be adapted.
It is this adaptation of materials that constitutes another compromise. Depending on the circumstances the adaption maybe minimal or extensive,
spontaneous or planned and conscious or unconscious (Islam & Mares,
2003) and may be required for a number of reasons such as:Excessive/insufficient guidance

Questions are too difficult/easyContent is not culturally acceptable/inappropriate for age/level― 57 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

Authenticity issues

Too heavily weighted in favour of one or more skills



Too few practice drills



Dialogues too casual/formal



Excessive/insufficient variation in activities



Inappropriate grading order

Such factors are in addition to more practical considerations such as classsize, if students must share materials, and if the classroom contains necessary audio-visual equipment.
Teachers will often try to humanize materials by “adding activities which
help to make the language learning process a more affective experienceand finding ways of helping learners connect what is in the book to what
is in their minds” (Tomlinson, 2003b:163). The resulting compromise isinformed by the needs and wants of students. The needs of students thematerials are adapted to meet are usually those envisioned by the teacher
and, therefore, materials adaptation is a compromise in which the teacher’s
input is dominant (Saraceni, 2003).
Ultimately, with so many factors in which the materials and context canmismatch, materials adaptation has been described as “the only realisticallyfeasible option for the practicality and limitations of the classroom reality” (Saraceni, 2003:73). Adaptation of materials represents a compromise
between the original notion of use at creation and the actual classroom
requirements. Actual classroom use is also itself a compromise between
different forces, mostly between teacher and learners but also between
forces outside the classroom such as educational institutions and parents.
― 58 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

An Inevitable Compromise?
Some writers suggest discarding materials pre-prepared for the consumption of multiple classes and call for an end to materials driven classes
proposing instead the use of real living texts in individual classes (Thornbury & Meddings, 2001). Although such an end seems desirable, if not
somewhat idealistic, it does not necessarily mean that compromise canbe avoided. Saraceni (2003:73) suggests that “The simple fact of using
a piece of teaching/learning material in the classroom inevitably means
adapting it to the particular needs or the whole classroom environment by
the very process of using it”. Such a view would suggest that materialsof any sort, even those created by an individual teacher for his/her own
class, will involve compromise and leads many writers to conclude thatcompromise is inevitable (Islam & Mares, 2003: Hutchinson & Torres,
1994: Saraceni, 2003: Harmer, 2001; Breen, 1984). Ultimately, one cannot
accurately predict students response to materials and some compromise
will be required (Richards, 2001). Teaching is a dynamic interaction andleads to compromise not only being inevitable but also being “beneficial”(Bell & Gower, 1998:129).
Compromise in a Japanese Context
Perhaps the most noticeable example of a compromise in the Japanese highschool context, and one I have personal experience of, is an example ofa compromise that is perhaps not inevitable. Education in Japanese highschools occurs in the shadow of “examination hell” (Tsukada, 1991). The
university entrance examinations (UEE) wield huge power over high school
teaching (Fujimoto, 1999; Horio, 1991) and teachers across Japan fever― 59 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

ously prepare students for such tests, which has been termed a “nationalobsession” (Shimahara, 1991:126). Such descriptions of the UEE are notexamples of hyperbole but accurate descriptions of a system which willplay a huge role in determining the future lives of Japanese students due
to Japanese university and employment recruitment preferences.
The UEE itself places great emphasis on grammatical knowledge and assesses students through reading and writing with a short listening section
introduced in 2006. Speaking remains conspicuous through its absence.
In response, teachers focus on reading and writing with emphasis upongrammatical knowledge and accuracy rather than fluency (Fujimoto, 1999).
However, MEXT (2002, 2003, 2004) have prioritised communicative language teaching as a means to “cultivate Japanese with English abilities” as“the English-speaking abilities of a large percentage of the population are
inadequate, and this imposes restrictions on exchanges with foreigners andcreates occasions when the ideas and opinions of Japanese people are notappropriately evaluated” (MEXT, 2002). Upon graduation from high school
MEXT expect students to have an “Ability to hold normal conversations(and a similar level of reading and writing) on everyday topics” (MEXT,
2002). Herein lays the dilemma; how do Japanese teachers resolve thedemands of a university entrance examination that demands grammaticalaccuracy and features reading and writing almost exclusively, with therequirements of the Ministry of Education to develop speaking and fluency?
Different ends will require different approaches to teaching. MEXT encourages more Communicative language teaching (CLT) in class in an
attempt to meet their communicative ends as opposed to the more traditional― 60 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

grammar-translation methods favoured by teachers preparing students for
the UEE. However, many have suggested caution when introducing CLT
into EFL state-sponsored contexts (Holliday, 1994: Liu, 1998; Bax, 2003).
Such methods are created with small private multi-lingual classes of highly
motivated learners in native-speaker countries. In contrast, Japanese statehigh school classes are large (usually over 30 students) and poorly equipped.
The students themselves are overwhelmingly mono-lingual with their English
ability and motivation differing wildly.
The ideal student for CLT classes also differs to that of the stereotypicalJapanese student of English. Japanese learners are often described as having
difficulty in expressing opinions or debating (Allen, 1996) and like to relyon dictionaries and texts (Dorji, 1997). In addition, research among teachers
found that Japanese students expressed difficulty with learner centred activities favoured in CLT (Dorji, 1997). Personal experience and the literature(Fujimoto, 1999: Dorji, 1997) also suggest that teacher-centred classes arefavoured by the teachers who, like students, hold a belief that ‘teachers
are to teach’ (Azuma, 1998).
The odds seem stacked against CLT yet one cannot simply dismiss thewill of MEXT. In addition to a greatly increased inclusion of CLT, MEXT
(2003) have indicted a preference for materials with the following three
key points given special importance:A) Usefulness in enhancing the understanding of various ways ofthinking, cultivating a rich sensibility, and enhancing the ability
to make impartial judgements.
B) Usefulness in deepening the understanding of the ways of life
― 61 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

and cultures of Japan and the rest of the world, raising interest in
language and culture, and developing respectful attitudes to theseelements.
C) Usefulness in deepening international understanding from a broad
perspective, heightening students’ awareness of being Japanesecitizens living in a global community, and cultivating a spirit ofinternational cooperation.
A compromise must be sought and this compromise is visible in the materials
produced. This can be seen in an examination of a unit in Expressway:
Oral Communication (Kairyudo, 2004), a textbook used at a Japanese highschool. A PPP (Presentation, Practice, Production) methodology is favoured
and is representative of the conservatism of materials creators (Bell &Gower, 1998). The presentation stage in this ‘speaking’ class is a reading
exercise, and the practice stage is a written gap fill which is then spoken
in pairs. The production stage activity is semi-controlled as students needto describe travel pictures and then discuss the value of each method oftransport with a two sentence example of a correct sentence provided. The
final activity is a reading and listening exercise.
The materials here do not correspond to a grammar-translation approach butneither do they correspond to a CLT approach. The result is a compromisethat would seem to satisfy neither UEE nor MEXT. The communicative
aspirations of MEXT would surely be disappointed given that this is aspeaking class yet still strongly emphasises accuracy with limited opportunity for oral communication and fluency development. However, thetheme (discussion) and subject of exercises (comparing Japanese and global
transport) of the unit seem to be more in line with MEXT preferences― 62 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

for materials. This being the case, the compromise in the production ofmaterials seems to lean more towards the UEE in the linguistic focus but
more towards MEXT in choices of theme and topic.
The compromised use of materials is similar to that of their creation. Twothirds of Japanese high school teachers said they needed to prepare theirstudents for the UEE (Sakui, 2004) and high school students, especiallythose in the third (final) year of high school, want to study more reading
and writing in preparation for the UEE (Fujimoto, 1999). Personal experience has shown that the end result is a compromise in materials use whichpays only token attention to the communicative demands of MEXT andfocuses much more on adapting materials towards preparation for the UEE.
Research carried out tends to support this observation suggesting that theJapanese “curriculum privileges fostering communication skills as a primarygoal, with linguistic content such as grammar and vocabulary playing asubordinate role” but in actuality:“In overall actual classroom teaching, grammar instruction wascentral, and far more foregrounded than CLT. The language of instruction was Japanese. Teachers spent most of their time involvedin teacher-fronted grammar explanations, chorus reading, and vocabulary presentations” (Sakui, 2004:157).
Though compromise in some area and to some degree may be inevitable,
this particular conflict, resulting in an unsatisfactory compromise, can be
avoided, or at least reduced, by legislation to introduce communicative
elements to the UEE.

― 63 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

Conclusion
Compromise within English learning materials can be found during theirconceptualization, production and use. Classrooms are dynamic environments and one cannot completely predict how students will respond tomaterials, making compromise inevitable. Compromise in use will depend
on numerous factors in the classroom, mainly the belief and values theteacher brings with them and the needs of their students, but also factors
outside the classroom such as the expectations of parents or institutional
standards/priorities.
In the Japanese high school context, as elsewhere, institutional demands
often contrast sharply with the educational beliefs and preferences of manyteachers and their firm commitment to prepare students for the UEE. The
gulf between teachers’ preference and the demands of MEXT results in acompromise, though one weighted in favour of teachers and preparations
for the UEE. The Japanese context shows us, therefore, that compromise
may be inevitable but, as the point of contact, the balance is in favour of
the teacher.

References
ALLEN, K. (1996). Interference from Japanese: A Positive View. The Japanese
Learner. 10, 23-41.
AZUMA, H. (1998). Japanese Collectivism and Education. Washington, American
Psychological Association.
BAX, S. (2003). The End of CLT: A Context Approach to Language Teaching. ELT
Journal. 57(3), 278-287.
BELL, J & GOWER, R. (1998). Writing Course Materials for the World: A Great― 64 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

Compromise. IN TOMLINSON, B (Ed). Materials Development for Language
Teaching. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BREEN, M. P. (1984). Process Syllabuses for the Language Classroom. IN BRUMFIT,
C.J.(Ed). General English Syllabus Design. Oxford, British Council.
CIVES-ENRIQUEZ, (2003). Materials for Adults: ‘I am No Good at Languages!’- Inspiring and Motivating L2 Adult Learners of Beginner’s Spanish. IN TOMLINSON,
B (Ed), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London, Continuum.
DORJI, L. (1997). A Comparative Analysis of Japanese Students’ Learning Styles
and British TEFL Teaching Styles. The Japanese Learner. 11, 12-19.
DUBIN, F & OLSHTAIN, E. (1986). Course Design: Developing Programs andMaterials for Language Learning. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
FUJIMOTO, H. (1999) The Examination Backwash Effect on English Language
Education. The Japanese Learner. 19, 101-110.
GRAVES, K. (2000). Designing Language Courses. Boston, Heinle & Heinle.
GRAY, J. (2000). The ELT Coursebook as Cultural Artefact: How Teachers Censor
and Adapt. ELT Journal. 54(3), 274-283.
HARMER, J. (2001). Coursebooks: A Human, Cultural and Linguistic Disaster?
Modern English Teacher. 10(3), 5-10.
HARMER, J. (2003). Popular Culture, Methods, and Context. ELT Journal. 57(3),288-294.
HOLLIDAY, A. (1994). The House of TESEP and the Communicative Approach: The
Special Needs of State English Language Education. ELT Journal. 48(1), 3-11.
HORIO, T. (1991). A Japanese Critique of Japanese Education. IN FINKLESTEIN,
B, IMAMURA, A & TOBIN, J. Transcending Stereotypes: Discovery Japanese
Culture and Education. Yarmouth, Intercultural Press.
HUTCHINSON, T & TORRES, E. (1994). The Textbook as Agent of Change. ELT
Journal. 48(4), 315-328.
ISLAM, C & MARES, C. (2003). Adapting Classroom Materials. IN TOMLINSON,
B (Ed), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London, Continuum.
KAIRYUDO (2004). Expressway: Oral Communication. Tokyo, Kairyudo.
LIU, D. (1998). Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher Education and the Neglected
Needs of International TESOL Students. ELT Journal. 52(1), 3-10.
MARES, C. (2003). Writing a Coursebook. IN TOMLINSON, B (Ed), Developing― 65 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

Materials for Language Teaching. London, Continuum.
MCGRATH, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching.
Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.
MEXT (Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology).
(2002) Developing a strategic plan to cultivate “Japanese With English Abilities”.
Accessed online at http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm.
MEXT (Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology).
(2003). The Course of Study for Foreign Languages. Accessed online at http://
www.mext.go.jp/english/shotou/030301.htm
MEXT (Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology).
(2004). English Forum 2004: Regarding the Establishment of an Action Plan to
Cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities”. Accessed online at http://www.mext.
go.jp/english/news/2004/03/04031201.htm
RICHARDS, J.C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
SAKUI, K. (2004). Wearing Two Pairs of Shoes: Language Teaching in Japan. ELT
Journal. 58(2), 155-163.
SARACENI, C. (2003). Adapting Courses: A Critical View. IN TOMLINSON, B(Ed), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London, Continuum.
SINGAPORE-WALA, D. A. (2003). Publishing a Coursebook: Completing the Materials Development Circle. IN TOMLINSON, B (Ed), Developing Materials for
Language Teaching. London, Continuum.
SHIMAHARA, N. (1991). Examination Rituals and Group Life. IN FINKLESTEIN,
B, IMAMURA, A & TOBIN, J. Transcending Stereotypes: Discovery Japanese
Culture and Education. Yarmouth, Intercultural Press.
STRANKS, J. (2003). Materials for Teaching Grammar. IN TOMLINSON, B (Ed),Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London, Continuum.
THORNBURY, S & MEDDINGS, L. (2001). Coursebooks: The Roaring in the
Chimney. Modern English Teacher. 10(3), 11-13.
TOMLINSON, B. (2001). Materials Development. IN CARTER, R & NUNAN, D(Eds). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
TOMLINSON, B. (2003a). Introduction. IN TOMLINSON, B (Ed), Developing― 66 ―

名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要第51号（2016.8）

Materials for Language Teaching. London, Continuum.
TOMLINSON, B. (2003b). Humanizing the Coursebook. IN TOMLINSON, B (Ed),Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London, Continuum.
TSUKADA, M. (1991). Student Perspective on Juku, Yubiko and the Examination
System. IN FINKLESTEIN, B, IMAMURA, A & TOBIN, J. Transcending Stereotypes: Discovery Japanese Culture and Education. Yarmouth, Intercultural Press.
WOODWARD, T. (2001). Planning Lessons and Courses. Cambridge. Cambridge
University Press.

― 67 ―