2.

Materials
2.1 What do we mean by 'materials'?
If you ask 100 English language teachers who are teaching learners of
different ages, wi th differen t needs and in differenr contexts what materials
they use in their teaching their ind ividual answers will va ry considerably.
Some lists may contain only one item; others will be much mo re extensive.
Certain items will appear in most lists; others may be m uch less freq uent.
The master list, containing all the items from the individua l lists, will
a lmost certainl y include:

• A textbook, produced by a commercia l publisher (i .e. for profit),

a M inistry of Education or a lar ge institution (e.g. university
language centre, pri\fa te language school chain); this w ill norma ll y
be acco mpanied by some combination of the following: teachers'
notes, a student workbook, tests, visua l aids (e.g. wallcharts,
flashcards), a reader, audio and video material I computer-based
(CALL) exercise material I Smarrboard software I web-based
materia ls.
Commercial materials that are not provided as part of the textbook
package: for example, reference material (dictionaries, grammar
books, irregu lar ve rb charts) a nd practice materi al (supplementa r y
skill s books, readers) .
• Teacher-prepared materi als, selected by or devised by the teacher or
a group of teachers work ing together:
authentic print materials (e.g. newspaper and magazine articles,
literary extracts, advertisements, menus, diagrams a nd other
print materials downloaded from the internet which were nor
designed for language teaching)
authentic recordings (e.g. songs, off-a ir recordings, recordings of
academic lectures; Internet sources such as YouTube)
worksheets, quizzes and rests downloaded from the internet or
photocopied from other sources
teacher-developed materials (e.g. oral or written activities
developed co accompany aut hentic or textbook materia ls,
 INT RODUCTION 3

self-standing tasks and exercises, rests, overhead projector

transparencies, PowerPoint presentations, CALL ma teri als)
games (board games, Bingo, etc.)
realia (real objects, including classroom items) a nd
representations (photos, drawi ngs, including drawing on the
board).
Some teachers will also enlist the aid of learners to supply or create
mate rials. Indeed, we might broaden the notion of materials to include
all use of th e target la nguage by learners and the teacher in that this is a
potential input t o learning, especia lly w hen it is captu red by a recording
or takes a w ritten form. If we stretch the notion of materials still
further, we might also add any other v isua l or auditory means (e.g. facial
expression, gesture, mime, demonstration, sounds) u sed by the teacher or
learners to convey meaning or stimulate language use. Tom linson (2001 )
takes this kind of broad view of materials, defining them as 'anything
which can be used to facilitate the learning of a language. They can be
linguistic, visual, auditor y or kinaesthetic, and they can be presented in
print, through live performance or display, or on cassette, CD-ROM,
DVD or the internet' (p.66) .

2.2 Some distinctions

The list above has been organized in such a way that certain distinctions
are immediately apparent: between, for example, textbook packages, other
(supplementary) commercial materials and materials prepared by teachers
themselves; between reference material and practice material; and between
various types of teacher-prepared materials. McGrath (2002: 7), writing
specifically about text materials, differentiates between four categories of
material:

those that have been specifica lly designed for language learning and
teaching (e.g. textbooks, worksheets, computer software); authentic
materials (e.g. off-air recordings, newspaper articles) that have been
specially selected and exploited for teaching purposes by the classroom
teacher; teacher-written materials; and learner-generated materials .

We might also w ish to distinguish on the basis of ·where materials were

produced ('global' vs 'local' textbooks), their intended audience (General
English - sometimes dubbed Teaching English for No Obvious Reason
(TENOR) - or English for Specific Purposes (ESP)) or their linguistic focus
(on a language system such as grammar or phonology, or a language skill
such as listening or speaki ng) .
 However, there are other distinctions which a re p erhaps more important
because they concern the roles that materials play: that between non-verbal
a nd verbal materials, for instance, that between materia ls-as-content and
materials-as-language, and the four-way distinction made by Tomlinson
(2001) between m aterials which are 'instructional in that they inform
learners about the language, ... experiential in that they provide exposure
to the lang uage in use, ... elicitative in that they stimulate language use, o r
... exploratory in that they facilitate discoveries abou t language use' (p.66,
emphases added).
Non-verbal materials such as r epresentations can help to establish direct
associations between words and objects and clarify meanings; they can
also be used to stimulate learners to produce language, spoken a nd written.
However, fo r language learning purposes they are much more limited than
verbal (or text) materials: spoken lang uage in the form of classroom talk or
recordings, materials containing written lang uage and multimedia materia Is
{literally, anything combining more than one medium). The form in w hich
ideas are expressed in these materials may ser ve as examples of language
use - and, indeed, of discourse structure; this lang uage also carries content,
ideas to w hich learners may react and from wh ich they may learn.
The impo rta nce of m ateria ls-as-content should not be underestimated.
One of the beliefs which links the commu nicative approach to methods
of a century and more earlier, such as the Direct M ethod, is that learning
to speak a language is a natural capacity which is stimu lated by three
conditions: 'someone to talk to, something to talk about, a nd a desire to
understand and make yourself understood' (H owatt, 2004: 210, emphasis
added). In lang uage classrooms, that 'som ething to talk about' may be a
subject selected by the teacher or initiated by a learner, including some
aspect of the language itself, or it may be a topic, text or task in the
materials. In language learning terms, what matters is that it sho uld trigger
in learners the 'desire' to understand and m a ke themselves understood. The
implication is clear: the more engaging the content, the mo re likely it is to
stimulate communicative interaction. Lea rning thus takes place through
exposure and use - or in Tomlinson's (2001) terms - through experiencing
the lang uage or responding to elicitation. Content selected for its relevance
to learners' academic or occupatio na l needs can, of course, a lso fulfil
broader learning purposes, and content a nd language integrated learning
(CLIL) has aroused much interest in recent years.
In reference m aterials such as dictionaries and grammar books, language
is the content; and explicit informatio n about the lang uage, plus exercises,
a lso forms the bulk of studenc workbooks and some textbooks. Tomlinson
refers to this as the ' instructional' role of materials. Helpful though this
approach to the language may be for analytically inclined learners, it needs
to be complemented by text-level examples of language in use. T hese tex ts,
spoken and written, together with all instructions and examples, must
illustrate language which is accura te, up-to-date and natura l. They can then
serve both as language samples in which rules of use can be 'discovered' by
learners - Tomlinson's 'exp loratory' role for materials - and as a model
for learners' own production. We might describe this way of looking at
materials as a materials-as-language (ra ther than materials-as-content)
perspective.

2.3 Coursebooks and their advantages

As far as language learning is concerned , then, the importance of
materials-as-content lies primarily in their value as a stimulus for
communicative interaction, a nd of materials-as-language as the provision
of information about the target language and carefully selected examples
of use. T he modern textbook, now normally referred to as a 'coursebook'
because it tends to be used as the foundation for a course, is des igned to
combine these functions.
It is easy to u nderstand why coursebooks a re so popular. Their advantages
include the following:

1 They reduce the time needed for lesson preparation. Teachers who
are teaching full -t ime find coursebooks inva luable because they do
not have enough time to create original lessons for every class.
2 They provide a visible, coherent programme of work. Teachers
may lack the time and expertise to design a coherent programme
of work. The coursebook writer nor only selects a nd orga ni zes
language content but a lso provides the mea ns by which this can be
taught and learned: 'the most fundamental task for the professional
writer is bringing together coherently the theory, practice, activities,
explanations, text, visuals, content, formats, and all other
elements that contribute co the finished product' (Byrd, 1995b: 8).
Coursebooks are a lso reassuring for the parents of younger learners
who are keen to know what their children are doing and to offer
their help if it is needed.
3 They provide support. For teachers who are untrained or
inexperienced, textbooks (and the Teacher's Books that normally
accompany them) provide methodological support. Those who
lack confidence in their own la nguage proficiency can draw
on linguistically accurate input and examples of language use
(Richards, 2001b). At times of curriculum change, coursebooks
offer concrete support for the inexperienced a nd experienced alike
(Hutchinson & Torres, 1994).
4 They are a convenient resource for learners. The visible coherence -
or sense of purpose a nd direction - referred to above is also helpful
for learners. Because coursebooks enable a learner to preview or
 review what is done in class, they can promote 'feelings of both
progress a nd security' (Harmer, 2001: 7). In short, they provide
a framework for learning as well as for teaching - 'A learner
without a coursebook is more reacher-dependent' (Ur, 1996: 184).
Compared to handouts, coursebooks are also more convenient.
5 They make standardized instruction possible. If learners do
the same things, at more or less the same rate, and are tested on
the same material (Richards, 2001b), it is easy to keep track of
what is done and compare performance across classes. From this
perspective, coursebooks are thus a convenient administrative tool.
6 They are visually appealing, cultural artefacts. The attraction
for learners of the modern global coursebook lies in no small part
in its visual appeal - the use of colour, photographs, cartoons,
magazine-style formats. Cultural information is conveyed by these
means as well as through the words on the page (Harmer, 2001).
7 Coursebook packages contain 'a wealth of extra material' (Harmer,
2001: 7). Beyond the student book, the modern coursebook package
makes available a range of additional resources for both classroom
use and self-access purposes.

This last point is graphically illustrated in McGrath's (2007) ana lysis of

eight global coursebook packages (see Table 1.1). The materials surveyed
were as follows:

Cambridge face2face (1) Interchange (3rd edn) (2)

Longman Cutting Edge (3) Total English (4)

Macmillan Straightforward (5) Inside Out (6)

Oxford New English File (7) New Headway (8)

As McGrath (2007: 347-8) notes, one feature of such packages is that they
provide integrated resources for teachers. For example, Teacher's Books (or
resource packs) may now contain photocopiable activities, supplementa ry
materials offering 'extra support/challenge' for mixed groups and warm-up
activities (New English File), and further resources for teachers include:

• Teacher's Video Guide (Inside Out contains guidance and

worksheets)
• customizable texts (face2face)
Table 1.1 Content of coursebook packages

C L M 0

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Student's book ..j ..j ..j ..j ..j ..j ..j ..j

Teacher's book ..j ..j ..j ..j ..j ..j ..j v

Teacher's resource pack v ..j v v
Workbook (various versions) v ..j ..j v ..j v v v
Audiocassettes ..j v v ..j ..j v v ..j
Audio CDs ..j v v ..j v ..j

Lab audio CDs ..j

Videocassettes ..j ..j ..j ..j

DVD ..j v
Teacher's Guide to video v
Tests ..j ..j ..j ..j

CD-ROM ..j ..j ..j ..j

Linked website ..j ..j ..j ..j ..j v v

Other website resources (T) ..j ..j v ..j ..j ..j

Other website resources (S) ..j ..j

!McGrath, 2007: 347-8)

• customizable tests on CD (Inside Out)

• publishers' websites linked to specific courses (Oxford sites include

articles, downloadable worksheets and activities, and discussion
groups)

• publishers' websites ava ilable to any teachers (e.g. Macmillan's

onestope nglish. com).

Additional materials for lea rners are also provided - for example:

• aworkbook
CD-ROM to accompa ny the student's book (face2face) or
(that for New English File includes video extracts
a nd activities, interactive grammar quizzes, vocabulary banks,
pronunciation charts and listen and practise audio material; the
 workbook for Inside Out comes with either an aud io cassette or an
audio CD)
e publishers' websites for students linked to specific courses (e.g. New
English File)
e publishers' websites available to any learner.
Linked resources which can be used in combination with specific courses
are also available. These include specially designed supplementary materials
and stand-alone resources . Examples include:

e business Resource Books (New English File)

e pronu nciation course; interactive practice material on CD-ROM
(Headway)
e bilingual (Du rch/French/German) 'Companions' containing
listing of words/phrases with pronu nciation, translation and
contextualization (Inside Out).

Such developments are impressive: '25 years ago, who would have dreamed
of website resources linked to courses or freely available general website
resources for teachers and learners? And more is being offered a lmost da ily. For
instance, whiteboard software is available to accompany the two Cambridge
titles, and learners can register for free e-lessons with Macmillan' (McGrath,
2007: 348). At the rime of writing, e-books and e-readers have begun to have
an impact on ELT publishing. Macmillan's Dynamic-Books software w ill
reportedly a llow teachers to edit e-book editions of Macmillan coursebooks
in order to tailor them to the needs of their students (Salusbury, 2010). In a
few years' rime, other innovations will no doubt have been introduced.

2.4 Doubting voices

Given these potential benefits, it is hardly surprising that, despite occasional
warnings of the demise of printed coursebooks in t he face of technological
development, coursebooks continue to be published and, particularly in
contexts where English is taught as a foreign language by non-native English
speaking teachers (NNESTs), 'whether we li ke it or not, represent for both
students and teachers the visible heart of any ELT programme' (Sheldon,
1988: 237). Yet Sheldon's interpolated 'whether we like it or not' is telling.
Despite their obvious appeal, coursebooks have attracted a number of
criticisms, most of which are aptly captured by R involucr i's (2001) phrase
'a human, cultural and linguistic disaster' (cited in Harmer 2001 : 5).
Coursebooks do not cater for the whole person; nor do they do take
adequate account of differences in learning preferences. Underlying the
humanistic approaches of the 1960s was the belief that, to be effecti ve,
 teaching must engage the learner on a n affective level as well as a cognitive
level, and the same belief underpins one line of criticism of coursebooks.
Tomlinson (2003 b: 162) notes that many of the coursebooks he has used
'concentrated on the linguistic and ana lytical aspects of learning and
.. . made insufficient use of the learners' a bility to learn through doing
thmgs physically, to learn through fee ling emotion, to lea rn through
experiencing things in the mind', a nd the same criticism is implicit in the
title of Rinvolucri's (2002 ) resource book Humanising the Coursebook.
Tomlinson (201 lb: 18) a lso claims that a lthough 'most current coursebooks
.. . favour learners with a preference for studial learning [i.e. foc ussed
on linguistic form and correctness] and an apparent ass umption that all
learners are capable of benefiting from this style of learning' such learners
are actually in a minorit y, and that other learning styles (or preferences),
such as the auditory and experiential, also need to be catered for. A similar
point in relation t0 the need to cater for multiple intelligences is made by
Botelho (2003).
Global coursebooks (i.e. those produced for an internationa l market)
derive from an anglocentric view of the world and cultural rea lities
th at have little relevance for the majority of learners studying English
outside English-speaking countries; nati ve speaker norms predominate.
The transmission of 'western' values is a form of cultural imperialism.
The charge of anglocentrism is typica lly voiced by teachers working
outside Britain, Australasia and North America (abbreviated to BANA
by Holliday, 1994) or those representing their views (see, for example,
Canagarajah, 1993; Alta n, 1995; Gray, 2000). It d raws attention tO the
fact that when marketing materials UK and US publishers tend tO blur ver y
real differences between the learning environments and lea rnin g purposes
of those studying English within BANA - who comprise both immigra nts
and long-term/short-term student visirors - and those outside BANA
(Mas uhara & Tomlinson, 2008). While it is perfectly logica l for materials
intended for use w ithin BANA tO be oriented towards interaction w ith
native speakers and fam iliarization with the culture of a specific BANA
region (and this is appreciated by students - see, for example, Crawford,
2002), it is difficult to justify such an emphasis in materials intended fo r
use in contexts where most English use is between non-native speakers
of English . Specifically on the level of la nguage, the debate on the role
of English (as a lingua franca/incernational language) may rage over the
question of appropriate models and exposure to relevant varieties, but the
issues are complex (see, for example, Gilmore, 2007} and how this might
translate into textbooks is as yet uncertain. Two recent stud ies of the
accents used in recordings accompanying Finnish textbooks for English
language learners (Kopperoinen, 2011; Kivisto, 2005 ) sugges t that in the
meantime native spea ker norms continue tO dominate.
T he issue is not simply one of relevance. Global textbooks originating
in 'the west' inevitably embody western values, which a re reflected in
 both their content and their underlying pedagogical approach. Seen from
the perspective of societies where such values are not simply alien but
potentially malign in their influence, they have been characterized as a
vehicle for cultural imperialism (see, for example, Alprekin & Alptekin,
1984; Dendrinos, 1992; Phillipson, 1992; Canagarajah, 1999). Pennycook
(1994) has argued forcefully that globa l textbooks, through both their
content and their recommended reaching practices and implied classroom
role relationships, represent a belief in and 'advocacy for a particular way
of life, a particular understanding of the world' (p.178). He concludes,
nevertheless, that 'there are ... possibilities ... for resistance, appropriation
and change' (p.179). T his may rake the form of teachers encouragi ng learners
ro engage critically w ith textbooks and other sources of materials (see, for
example, Pa ran, 2003; Haig, 2006) or an instinctive learner response. Altan
(1995) observes: 'When both the materials we use and the way we use them
are culturally adverse, then inevitably learners switch off and retreat into
their inner world to defend their own integrity' (p.59). Retreat may not be
the only strategy. In some contexts, learners may resist more overtly. For
instance, the Sri Lankan students described by Canagarajah (1993) not only
demonstrated a relucta nce to participate in the role plays and conversation
activities that featured in the global textbook they were using but also
showed what they expected of the teacher by moving the chairs he had
placed in a circle before the lesson back into the more traditional rows.
Though the global textbook may have been the focus for such criticisms,
it is important to note that ideology may a lso be explicit in 'national'
textbooks, which deliberately promote national values and culture to
further the aim of social cohesion (see, for example, Lund & Zoughby,
2007) - and one could, of course, envisage more sinister aims. Moreover,
nationa l textbooks are no different from other materia ls in embodying, in
their rubrics and activities, implicit messages about the nature of language
learning and the relationship and roles of teacher and learners. Graves
(2000: 202) suggests a number of questions to be asked when analysing
the hidden curriculum of a textbook. See also Jazadi (2003) and Littlejohn
(2007, 2011) on wha t task analysis can reveal.
Coursebooks do not reflect the findings of research into language,
language use or language acquisition; and their representation of cultural
rea lities is limited, biased or inaccurate. Critics of the language content
in coursebooks have argued that coursebooks do nor represent authentic
language use, illustrating this view w ith reference to reported speech (Barbieri
& Eckhardt, 2007), the language of modality (Holmes, 1998), suggestions
(Jiang, 2006), complaints (Boxer & Pickering, 1995), conversation strategies
(McCarten & McCarthy, 2010), closing conversations (Bardovi-Harlig,
Hanford, Mahon-Taylor, Morgan & Reynolds, 1991), telephone
conversations (Wong, 2001) and differences between spoken and written
grammar (Cullen & Kuo, 2007); Harwood (2010b) provides a useful
overview of such content ana lyses. Other w r iters have looked at whether
the treatment in coursebooks of a specific skill appears to take account
 of applied linguistic research. McDonough and Shaw (2003: Chapters
6-10), for example, summarize research on each of the main skill areas and
integrated skills and examine how far this research is reflected in teaching
materials. Studies of ESP textbooks have revealed a similar divide between
the findings of linguistic research and teaching materials. Ewer and Boys
(1981) drew attention to the fact that textbooks, particularly in ESP, were
based on shaky linguistic foundat ions. Twenty years on, Candlin, Bhatia
and Jensen (2002: 300), searching for suitable materials to teach legal
English writing, concluded that of the 56 books they studied 'few, if any, are
premised on any type of research-based linguistic analysis of legal texts and
language' (cited in Harwood, 2010b: 10). Harwood's (2005) review of EAP
textbooks found only one book (Swales & Feak, 2004) based on corpus
research (see also Hyland, 1994 and Paltridge, 2002 on writing in EAP).
Angouri (2010: 373) found 'a discrepancy' between the language used in
Business English materials concerned w ith meetings and that used in real
contexts (see also Williams, 1988 and Chan, 2009). Gilmore (2007), who
provides a usefully wide-ranging review of studies comparing authentic and
textbook discourse, distances himself a little by arguing that authenticity
should not be seen as inherently 'good' and contrived examples/discourse
as 'bad'; instead, the basis for judgement should be 'fitness for purpose'
(Hutchinson & Waters, 1987: 159).
The language syllabuses in coursebooks and such aspects of their
pedagogy as task design have a lso been a focus of critical attention.
Auerbach and Rogers (1987, cited in Graves, 2000) drew attention to the
fact that the language functions in US 'surviva l' textbooks for adult learners
emphasized an acquiescent role as regards the status quo rather than one
which involved questioning, ana lysis and problem-solving, and therefore
represented a 'hidden curriculum'. More recently, a major impetus has
been research in the field of second language acquisition (SLA), which has
called into question the validity of the traditional grammatica l syllabus
and the presentation-practice-production (or 3 Ps) approach on which
the coursebooks of the late 1960s and many of their 'communicative'
successors were based . Thornbury and Meddings (2001: 12), for example,
comment: 'Unfortunately, there is not a lot of research evidence to suggest
that grammar mcnuggets are internalized in the order and at the pace that
they are delivered', and Tomlinson and Masuhara (2010b), surveying the
results of 23 research projects, conclude that 'none of the researchers seems
to provide any evidence supporting either the typical textbook approach
of Practice/Presentation/Production or the typical textbook procedures
of listening and repeating, dialogue reproduction, filling in blanks or
answering comprehension questions' (p.399). This may have been because
their focus was not so much on evaluating the effectiveness or otherwise
of such procedures but rather on researchi ng, for example, the effect on
motivation of using authentic texts, of exposure to extended language
use through reading and listening or of discovery learning. While all the
research described appears to have achieved positive results, these fa ll short
 of a clear cause and effect relationship between procedure and evidence of
acquisition. A recent review of the effects of SLA theorizing and research
on grammar teaching (Ellis, 2010) is similarly inconclusive. While arguing
that the design of communicative tasks and techniques for grammatical
consciousness-raising have been influenced by work in SLA, Ellis concedes
that little else of this research can be applied directly ro language reaching.
The 'typical' textbook approach and procedures may now seem questionable,
bur as yet no clear research-based alternative has emerged.
A further very common criticism is that coursebooks perpetuate gender
and other stereotypes and misrepresent reality - for instance, by excluding
minorities and by depicting a world that is free of problems and sanitized
(see, for example, Littlejohn & Windeatt, 1989; Thornbury, 1999, 2010;
Gray, 2002; McGrath, 2004; Arikan, 2005; Lund & Zoughby, 2007).
Global textbook publishers try to counter stereotypes in their guidance
notes for authors, but their whitewashing approach to textbook content,
reflected - as Gray (2002) notes - in what has been called PARSNIP
(avoiding reference to politics, alcohol, religion, sex, narcotics, -isms - such
as communism, and pork), is clearly pragmatic rather than principled. This
is not only an issue for global textbooks, of course.
Underlying many of these criticisms is the feeling that in the world of
textbooks little changes. As Sheldon (1988) observed, in the course of a
wide-ranging critique, 'textbooks merely grow from and imitate other
textbooks and do not admit the winds ofchange from research, methodological
experimentation, or classroom feedback' (p.239). The development of large
language corpora means that as far as language research is concerned this is
perhaps less true now than at the time Sheldon was writing (see, for example,
Stranks, 2003; Richards, 2006; and papers in Harwood, 2010a). However,
complaints of bland content in textbooks persist (Masuhara, Haan, Yi &
Tomlinson, 2008) and researchers are still finding evidence of stereotyping
(e.g. Mukundan & Nimehchisalem, 2008).
Coursebooks marginalize teachers. Coursebooks should be replaced by
resource books. All external materials are an obstacle to real communication.
On the face of it, the variety of resources offered by a modern global
coursebook package is one of its major strengths. However, concerns about
this ever-increasing provision have also been expressed. Writing more
than 20 years ago, Rossner (1988) commented: 'Current materials tend to
overburden the user with an embarrassment of riches ... [andl create more
work for the teacher, who is forced to spend more time coming to grips
with these materials' (p.214). One result of this increased complexity is that
'the structure of the textbook is becoming much tighter and more explicit -
more like a prepared script. Less and less appears ro be left to the teacher
to decide and work out' (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994: 316), a point echoed
by Littlejohn (2011): 'The extent to which materials may now effectively
structure classroom time from a distance has ... increased considerably'
(p.180). According to this view, teachers risk being marginalized.
 The argument, then, is not simply about the expansion in the resources
available. More fundamentally, it is about the roles of textbook and teacher.
Brumfit (1979: 30) ex presses the view that 'even the best textbooks take away
initiative from teachers by implying that there is somewhere an "expert"
who can solve problems' for teachers a nd learners. The consequence of
taking away (or lost) initiative is 'de-skilling' (Shannon (1987), cited in
Richards 1993, 1998a). If teachers hand over responsibility for decision-
making to textbooks, the argument goes, this reduces their role to that of
mere technicians. When the selection of a textbook is the starting-point
for course planning, ra ther than a stage which follows consideration of
aims, learners' needs and teachers' capacities and preferences, the reacher
(or whoever else takes decisions for course-planning) has abdicated from
a key responsibility: there is now a rea l danger that it is the coursebook
which determines course aims, language content and what will be assessed .
In effect, the book becomes the course and the teacher teaches the book.
Swan (1992) warns against the resulting false sense of security:

... textbooks ... can seem to absolve teachers of responsibility. Instead

of the day-to-day decisions that have to be made about what to teach a nd
how to teach, it is easy just to sit back and operate the system, secure in
the belief that the wise and virt uous people who produced the textbook
knew what was good for us. Unfortunately this is rarely the case. (Swa n,
1992: 33, cited in Hutchinson & Torres, 1994: 315)

All wright (1981) presents two contrasting perspectives on the role of

materials and the teacher-textbook relationship. If teachers are seen as
deficient, the textbook becomes a form of insurance against their deficiencies
(limitations). Materials therefore need to be teacher-proof. From the di(ference
perspective, the teacher is seen as having expertise which is different from
but complementary to that of the materials writer. Materials are therefore
seen as a resource. Siding with th is latter perspective, he concludes that 'the
management of learning is fa r too complex to be satisfactorily catered for by
a pre-packaged sec of decisions embodied in reaching materials' (p.9).
As alternatives to the textbook, Brumfit and Allwright make rather
similar proposals. Brumfit (1979: 30) envisages 'resource packs, sets of
materials with advice co teachers on how to adapt and modify the contents',
while Allwright (1981 : 9) conceives of a 'guide tO language learning' for
learners and 'ideas books' and 'rationale books' for teachers, supported
by lea rner tra ining and an appropriate focus within teacher training, all
within a framework of rhe cooperative ma nagement of learning by learners
and teachers - effectively a process syllabus.
In essence, these are arguments for replacing a textbook by other types of
materials. A more extreme view dispenses altogether w ith what might normally
be thought of as materials. In a short and undated paper in which he traces the
shifts in his own use of and attitudes to coursebooks, Underhill writes: 'I have
 ... found that materials, especially coursebooks, can come between me and
my students ... If I'm not careful l reduce myself to a "materials operator'',
separated from my students by a screen of "things to do'". Acknowledging
this paper as an influence, Thornbury published in 2000 the first of several
papers on 'dogme' in ELT (the term 'dogme' comes from the manifesto Dogme
95 published by a Danish film collective, which called for a return to basics in
film-making). Pointing to the vast array of published resources now available,
Thornbury (2000) asks, 'Where is the inner life of the student in all this?
Where is real communication?' Questions such as these led him to call on ELT
colleagues to join him in 'a vow of EFL chastity' enshrined in the dictum that
'Teaching should be done using only the resources that teachers and students
bring to the classrooms - that is, themselves - and whatever happens to be
in the classroom' (Thornbury, 2000). Although the burning of textbooks,
following the example of Sylvia Warner, seemed to be advocated at one point
(Thornbury & Meddings, 2001), a later paper accepts that textbooks might
be among the resources that teachers or learners bring to the classroom and,
indeed, offers a number of interesting ideas for exploiting coursebooks:

A 'Dogme' approach doesn't necessarily exclude the use of a coursebook

... The idea is to use the coursebook, but sparingly ... It does not mean,
however, propping up the book's weaknesses by bringing in yet more
materials in the forms of photocopied exercises, for example ... The idea
is tO include activities that provide optimal exposure, attention, output
and feedback, thereby maximising the chance of language emergence.
(Thornbury & Medd ings, 2002: 36-7, original emphasis)

The occasional use of coursebooks might be tolerated, but technology is a

definite taboo, and this 'pedagogy of bare essentials', to use the strapline
from the group's archived website, now tends to be promoted as 'Teaching
Unplugged'. The website, at http://www.thornburyscott.com/tu/sources.htm,
offers convenient access to a variety of the ea rly papers, including that by
Underhill, and a number of resources; a discussion group can be accessed at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dogme; and the book 'Teaching Unplugged'
(Meddings & Thornbury, 2009) has developed the argument. Edwards (2010)
concludes her review of this book with the comment that it is unlikely to lead
to the disappearance of the coursebook or to affect the growth of technology,
but points out in support of the underlying Dogme concerns: 'As a teacher,
one of my major worries is the fact that far too many institutions seem to
view materials and equipment as being more important than students and/or
teachers ... We are, after all, teaching students - not materials' (p.73).
Given all these criticisms, it is perhaps surprising that, as Hutchinson
and Torres (1994) put it, 'the textbook not only survives, it thrives' {p.316).
Undoubtedly, one of the reasons for this is, as noted earlier, its convenience.
As Hutchinson and Torres point our, textbooks provide 'the structure that
the teaching-learning system - particularly the system in change - requires'
(p.3 17). We also need to disringuish, of course, berween rhe first three of
rhese criricisms, which relare ro rhe coursebook as a product, and the final
criricism, which relates to the way in which the coursebook is perceived and
used. Harmer argues that fears of teachers being led by the nose have been
omewhat overstated:

Coursebook critics, it seems to me, focus on unthinking coursebook

use to make their case - as if all teachers used them in th is way all the
time. Yet that is to suggest that all teachers see coursebooks in the wrong
lighr - as monolithic manuals which have to be followed to the letter, li ke
playscripts. But coursebooks are not like that and never have been. Like
any lesson pla n or succession of plans, they a re proposals for action, not
instructions for use. Teachers look at these proposals and decide if rhey
agree with them, if they want to do things in the way the book suggests,
or if, on the contrary, they are going ro make cha nges, replacing things,
modifying activities, approaching texts differently, or rackling a piece
of grammar in a way which they, rhrough experience, know ro be more
effective than the exercise on page 26. You can use a rexrbook without
slavishly following every word; you can love a friend without agreeing
. with everything they say or doing everything in the same way they do. Jn
the hands of engaged teachers, coursebooks, far from being stra itjackets,
are spurs to creativity, somewhere to start, something fo r teachers ro work
with and react with or against. (Harmer, 2001: 8, original emphases)

Many teachers do, as Harmer claims, make changes to coursebook materials

based on their beliefs or experience, and engaged teachers may simply use
rhe marerials as a springboard. As we shall see in later chapters, however,
there are also teachers who, for one reason or another, treat a coursebook
as a manual or playscripr to be followed.
Rather than simply condemning this as inappropriate, we mighr ask
why this is, and who is responsible if teachers do treat coursebooks as
playscripts. Where elements of a coursebook package, including technology,
are closely integrated this may be a factor (McGrath, 2007), but there are
a lso implications for institutional management and teacher education.

2.5 Teaching without a coursebook

Not all teachers use a coursebook. Confident, experienced teachers working
in environments which give them freedom to use whatever materials they
like may prefer to draw on materia ls from a wide variety of commercial and
authentic sources, and create their own. Teachers involved in specific-purpose
teaching, and especially 1:1 courses, who feel that no suitable textbook exists
may find themselves in the same situation through necessity rather tha n choice.
Other teachers, who are working towards a specific examination, may base
 their teaching largely on previous examination papers. Yet other teachers
may be using an approach or method which is not based on a textbook. In
Singapore, for example, the Ministry of Education has been phasing out the
use of English language textbooks in primary schools in favour of a n approach
based on the shared reading of Big Books. The books provide a context for
target language items and a stimulus to discussion and writing; and additional
resources are supplied by the Ministry. In effect, this is a rejection not only
of textbooks but also of teaching based on a textbook. Further examples
would be three of the innovative 'humanistic' methods that emerged during
the 1960s. For instance, Community Language Learning (CLL- also known
as Counseling Learning) is based on the language produced by learners,
recorded by the teacher, and then written up for analysis. The early stages of
both Total Physical Response (TPR) and Silent Way are purely oral: in TPR
learners follow oral instructions; and Silent Way makes use of Cuisenaire rods
(the small coloured wooden sticks originally designed for mathematics) and
other materials specifically designed for this method, such as sound/colour
charts, which contain blocks of colour representing phonemes. (For further
discussion of these methods, see, for example, Stevick, 1980; Richards &
Rodgers, 2001.) Richards (1985) makes the interesting point that the lack of
a textbook has limited the spread of these methods.
In some contexts, traditional resources of all kinds may be non-existent.
Gebhard (1996) cites a personal communication from Ed Black: 'I was teaching
English to Chinese immigrants in Jamaica. There was no cha lk, no paper, no
books. Me, no Chinese. They, no English' (p.107). Gebhard comments:

I am very familiar with such settings .. . it is often difficult co obtain

materials and media through which to teach. But . .. I enjoy the challenge
of creating materials out of everyday things. For example, we can reach
students to write in the air and on the earth, make use of clouds (what do
you see? I see a horse) and of folded leaves a nd sticks (e.g. to form a town
to practice giving directions), and use our fingers to practice counting.
(Gebhard, 1996:107-8)

He adds:

I believe that those who are fortunate enough to teach in difficult settings
have an advantage. They are challenged to reach deep within their
creative selves and observe everyday things as possible teaching materials.
This is an education within itself, one that provides a n awareness that
teaching first of all concerns what goes on between people, as well as an
awareness that at our fingertips there is an infinite number of materials
that are possible resources for teaching. (Gebhard, 1996:108)

Gebhard's enthusiasm is infectious. He is right, of course, that teaching is

essentially an interaction between people and teachers need to exploit fully
whatever means are available to make chat encounter as useful and memorable
as possible. He is no doubt also right that difficult circumstances, which
include large classes as well as limited or non-ex istent resources, bring out the
best m responsible and creative teachers, and in this way contribute to their
professional development. W hether teachers working in such circumstances
or their less resourceful colleagues feel themselves to be 'fortunate' is much
less certain. Faced with a choice between a book and no book, most teachers
would probably choose the book, on the grounds that it is another resource,
at least. Sadly, this section was omitted from the second edition (2006) of
Gebhard's book, thus giving the impression at least that such difficult settings
no longer exist. Two short papers by J. Hadfield and C. Hadfield (2003a,
2003b) offer not only a corrective but also a range of practical suggestions
for teachers working with 'almost nothing' (defined as paper, pens and
blackboard) or nothing at a ll in the way of provided resources. The papers
also raise interesting questions about teachers' wants and needs as far as
technology is concerned - questions that wi ll be taken up in Chapter Four.
There are, then, situations in which for one reason or another teachers
are not using a textbook as the basis for a course. Ultimately, of course,
what is important is not what kinds of materia l are used but whether they
h~lp to accomplish the desired learning outcomes; a nd this will depend in
part at least on how they are viewed and used.

3. Teachers and learners

3.1 Teachers' relationships with

materials and learners
Drawing on his discussions with teachers, Bolitho (1990) outlines four ways
of representing symbolically the relationship between teachers, learners a nd
materials. Slightly reorganized, these are illustrated below:

(i) The most common representation, Bolitho notes, is of a line fro m

materia ls through teacher to learner (Figure 1.1):

This suggests, he adds, not only that the reacher has a mediating role between
materia ls and learners but a lso that learners cannot access the materials
directly - they can do so only through the med iation of the teacher. W hat
Materials - - - -- • Teacher - - - - -• Learner
FIGURE 1.1
(Bolitho, R . 1990. 'An eternal triangle? Roles for teacher, learners and teaching materials in a
communicative approach'. In Anivan, S. (ed.) Language Teaching M ethodology for the Nine-
ties (pp.22-30). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. © SEAMO RELC, reprinted
with permission. )
 the diagram also im plies, of course, is that materia ls are a form of external
provision, given to the teacher rather than selected by the teacher.

{ii) In Figure 1.2, the relationship between teacher and materials has
changed. The teacher now has equal status with materials:

Materials

Learner
FIGURE 1.2
(Bolitho, R. 1990. 'An eternal triangle? Roles for reacher, learners and teaching materials
in a communicative approach'. In Anivan, S. (ed.) Language Teaching Methodology for the
Nineties (pp.22-30). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. © SEAMO RELC,
reprinted with permission.)

Bolitho comments: 'the teacher and the materials are seen as superordinate,
conspiring {as one teacher put it only half-jokingly) to make the learner's life
difficult' {p.23). Notice that there is no arrow between learner and materials.

(iii) The third representation (Figure l. 3), with arrows going in both
directions between the three points on the circle, differs from the
first two most obviously, as Bolitho observes, in that it recognizes

Materials

Learner

FIGURE 1.3
(Bolitho, R. 1990. 'An eternal triangle? Roles for teacher, learners and reaching materials
in a communicative approach'. In Anivan, S. (ed.) Language Teaching Methodology for the
Nineties (pp.22- 30). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. © SEAMO R ELC,
reprinted with permission.)
 the importa nce of learners being a ble to access materia ls directly
as well as th rough the teacher's mediation.

We might also comment on four further aspects of this particular

representation. First, the materials a re not shown as deriving from an externa l
source; they might therefore include not only commercial materials bur a lso
materials created by teachers or supplied by learners. Second, materials are
represented as a source for both teacher a nd learners on one side of the
diagram, but on the other, teacher and lea rners are free of a ny influence
of externa l materials - implying that such materials do not determine
all classroom interaction. Third, if we ta ke a broad view of materia ls as
anything which contributes to learning, we might wish to see that unfettered
interaction between teacher a nd learners (or between learners) as resulting
in co-constructed materia ls, and assign these mater ia ls their own place
on the empty side of the diagram. Fina lly, this circular representation also
takes account of the fact that materials do not have to be treated in a serial
fas hion ("We've done Unit 3. Let's go on to Unit 4."). Both learners and
teachers may w ish to review what has already been 'done'; learners may
a lso wish to preview what will be done in future lessons.

(iv) On the face of it, the tria ngle depicted below (Figu re 1.4) says
exactly the same as the circle in (iii).

Materials

Teacher - - - -- - - - - - - - -.. Learners

FIGURE 1.4
(Bolirho, R. 1990. 'An eternal tria ngle? Roles for reacher, lea rners and teaching marcnals
m a com mun ica rive approach'. In Anivan, S. (ed .) Language Teaching Me th odology for the
N ineties (pp. 22-3 0). Singapore: SEA MEO Regional Language Centre. © SEAMO RELC,
reprinred with permission .)

However, not a ll triangles are equilatera l. If the base were shorter than
the two sides, this might imply that both teacher and learner were distant
from the materia ls, either because they are too difficult or, perh aps, not
used very much. If the side linking materials a nd teacher were short, on
the other hand, that might imply that the teacher identifies closely with the
materials. The teachers surveyed by Bolitho also pointed out that triangles
like the one depicted have a n apex and a base, w hich suggests a hierarchy,
with materia ls dominating; one teacher felt that the diagram illustrated 'the
tendency that teachers have to blame materials (or learners) when things go
 wrong, and the similar tendency displayed by learners to blame teachers (or
materials)' (p.23).
Ac the heart of this discussion, of course, are the attitudes of teacher and
learners co materials. Richards (1998a: 131) has commented on the danger of
'reificarion' ('rhe unjustifiable attribution of qualities of excellence, authority
and validity') of textbooks by teachers, adding that in some parts of the
world chis tendency may be reinforced by cultural cond itioning: 'Teachers ..
. tend to assume that any item included in a textbook must be an important
learning item for students, and that explanations (e.g. of grammar rules or
idioms) and cultural information provided by the author are true and should
not be questioned' (ibid.). Moreover, 'they assume that they do nor have the
authority or knowledge to adapt the textbook' (ibid.). Learners, similarly,
may perceive published materials as more authoritative than those produced
by their own teachers and therefore attach more value to them.

3.2 New roles for learners

Bolitho (1990) makes a number of important points about the relationships
between materials, teachers and learners.

Let us start with materials, which means textbooks first and foremost.
Here the weight of tradition is heavy. Ever since the advent of the printed
word in the Middle Ages, textbooks in education have represented
knowledge. The handing over of a set of textbooks by a teacher to a class
is an act with symbolic significance: 'Here is your textbook. If you learn
what is in it you will succeed' is the implication. This tradition still holds
good in the overwhelming majority of educationa l contexts, worldwide.
(Bolitho, 1990: 23)

The book, in this tradition, constitutes the course. The teacher's role is to
teach - and finish! - the book. Learners know that they will be rested on
what is in the book (in some cases, not only on the la nguage but also the
content of texts). The book defines what is to be taught and learned.

Learners ... have been able to rake the book home, to revise from it
perhaps with the help of parents educated in the same tradition, and
to go into end-of-year examinations confident of having covered a ll the
materials necessary for success. Vocabulary lists and gramma r rules cou Id
be learned by heart a nd applied in tests of linguistic competence. Set
texts could be memorised and liberally quoted in literature examinations.
Learning a language had more to do with acquiri ng knowledge than
with developing skills. (Bolitho, 1990: 24)

With the advent of the communicative approach, materials changed and

expectations of te::ichers and lea rners changed. As Bolitho notes:
 . . . publishers, methodologists and textbook authors have been
encouraging teachers to see a communicative textbook as a resource to
draw on in teaching a course, even as a point of departure for classroom
activities, rather than as a convergently conceived framework for study.
Bur has anyone bothered to tell learners this? ... Learners are entitled
to know why they are asked to behave in certain ways ... and how they
can learn most effectively. Yet how many teachers go into classrooms
and simply expect learners to do as they are asked without a word of
explanation? (Bolitho, 1990: 24-5)

Bolitho is right, of course. These days, many textbooks do include sections

on ' learning to lea rn', but especially when what is expected of learners
represents a break with cultural tradition, an explanation needs to be
offered, and the teacher is in the best position to give this. This point
applies even more strongly to attempts to give learners more responsibility.
For msta nce, it has been proposed that learners should :

e be involved in textbook evaluation and selection or decisions about

which parts of a textbook should be studied
. e be shown how to make independent use of both classroom materials
and out-of-class resources
e be encouraged to interact critically with the content of textbooks
and other materia ls
e provide supplementary materials to be used in class
e generate materials that ca n be used by other learners.
(See, for example, Wright, 1987; Cla rke, 1989; Tudor, 1993; Deller, 1990;
Campbell & Kryszewska, 1992 - a nd McGrath, 2002 for reviews of these
and other sources.)
What lies behind all these suggestions is the belief that motivation is
enhanced when lea rners have some control over and investment in their
own learning, when decisions about what is done and how it is done a re not
imposed but taken with teachers or by learners themselves. For these ideas
to take root, however, teachers have to be prepared to sha re responsi bility
with learners; learners have to be willing to accept these new roles; and
both teachers and learners have to look at materials w ith fresh eyes. We
return to the topic of learners a nd materials in Chapter Seven.

3.3 Teacher roles

3.3.1 Choice
In situations where more than one textbook is available, o r a course is
based on materials other than a textbook, there is a need to choose. Choice
is generally held to be a good thing, but it is not always simple. Even when
there was much less choice than there is now, the selection of a textbook
might be influenced by a variety of factors, as the following quotation from
an American educator makes clear:

The color of a salesman's necktie a nd the crease in his trousers, the

beauty of binding and illustrations, and the opinions of officious
administrative officers have all been potent factors in choosing books.
More consequential have been the prestige of author and publisher, and
the influence of wide cur.rent use.
(McElroy, 1934: 5)

Almost half a century later, British commentators were still warning about
teachers being taken in by skilful marketing (Brumfit, 1979) and jazzy covers
(Grant, 1987: 119); and popularity, as evidenced by sales figures (Sheldon,
1988), and the reputations of the major publishers and writers of best-selling
textbooks continue to be seen as guarantors of textbook quality. McElroy
himself is in no doubt, however, that 'whether the author be great or small,
the publisher powerful or unknown, the final determina nt should be the
book itself: what it conta ins and how the material is presented' (ibid.).
M uch rests on the choice of book, a nd care therefore needs to be taken
over the selection process. As McElroy points out:

To experiment haphazardly with new books is expensive. In former

times the Board of Education took sole responsibility for selecting
books. In larger school systems today, the Superintendent, the High
School principal, or a supervisor exercise practically final authority.
Preferred practice delegates this authority to a small textbook committee
representing not only those who are responsible to legal authorities but
classroom teachers as well. (McElroy, 1934: 5-6)

The financial implications of a bad decision referred to in the first part of this
quotation are certainly one consideration. Where institutions or parents are
buying textbooks in the expectation that they will be reused, they are seen
as a kind of investment. However, the choice of an inappropriate textbook
w ill a lso affect teachers. Whenever a new book is adopted, teachers spend
time fam iliarizing themselves w ith it; and the less appropriate it proves to
be the more time will be needed to compensate for its inadequacies. For
lea rners, moreover, an inappropriate textbook has limited value as a learning
resource. T he consequences are Jess serious when courses a re not based on
a single textbook, but time has still been wasted a nd learning opportunities
lost, and the search for suitable materials has to begin again.
Bad decisions can, in theory at least, be avoided if proper processes a re
in place. As can be seen from the quotation above, 'preferred practice' in
America in the 1930s delegated textbook selection to a small committee
on which classroom teachers were represented. These days, materials may
be selected by an institutional manager, a group of teachers, or the teacher
teaching a particular class. In the latter case, the impact of a bad decision
may affect fewer people, but it will be just as great on those it does affect.
Teachers therefore need to be able to make or contr ibute to informed
selection decisions. We return to textbook selection processes and materia ls
eva lu ation more generally in Chapter Three.

3.3.2 Control
Commercial coursebooks are written to appeal to as wide a population as
possible and even national coursebooks have to cater for some degree of
va riation in learners, teachers and learning environments. If we therefore
accept that the perfect coursebook for a particular teacher and group of
lea rners not only does not but cannot exist, and that a coursebook should
be seen primarily as a resource book, then it follows that the responsibility
for deciding what to use from the coursebook and how to use it lies with
the teacher:

The coursebook should never be allowed to assume an authority it does

not merit and consequently be blamed for failing to 'work', but rather
seen as a friendly guide, suggesting areas of study and approaches, but
always open to manipulation by the teacher who ultimately will have the
best opportunity to 'know' his/her students and their partic ular needs.
(Acklam, 1994: 13)

In short, it is the teacher and not the coursebook who should control or
ma nage what happens, and one of the ways in which that control can
manifest itself is through creative use (or 'manipulation', in Acklam's terms)
of the coursebook.

3.3.3 Creativity
Dudley-Evans & St John (1998), writing about ESP, state that 'practitioners
have to be ... good providers of materials' (pp.172- 3). A good provider, for
them, needs to have the abi lity to:

1 select appropriately from what is available

2 be creative with what is available
3 modify activities to suit learners' needs and
4 supplement by providing extra activities (and extra input} (D udley-
Evans & St John , 1998: 173).
 24 TEACHING MATERIALS AND ROLES OF EFL/ESL TEACHERS

This list of abilities is applicable nor just to ESP but to all forms of
English language teaching, of course, and corresponds very closely ro the
teacher roles identified in earlier sections: (1) may be understood as both
selecting from material that has been provided (e.g. a textbook) and the
process of selecti ng a suitable textbook, where this is possible; (2) refers
to exploitation - that is, getting something extra out of the material; (3)
ro adaptation; and (4) to supplementation which is designed to provide
more exposure to the language or more opportunities for practice, which,
at its least adventurous, may involve no more than borrowing from other
published materials. However, point 4 cou ld extend to selecting authentic
texts and designing su itable exploitation activities or creating wholly original
practice materials such as worksheets or tasks. A curriculum documenr for
Hong Kong secondary school teachers cited in Samuda (2005: 236) states
that: 'All English teachers must take on the responsibility for selecting
and adapting suitable tasks from different materials or designing tasks for
their own learners' (Curriculum Development Council, H ong Kong, 1999:
48). Samuda (ibid .) notes: 'The clear expectation is that both redesign and
original design work w ill be incorporated into a second language teacher's
"norma l" professional repertoire'. There is no explicit reference in Dudley-
Evans and St John's list of roles to crea ting original materials; indeed, they
state exp!icitly that 'one of the myths of ESP has been that you have to w r ite
your own materials'. Nevertheless, aspects of creative des ign run through
the set of roles they specify; even the decision not to use certain elements
of a textbook can be seen as an act of reshaping or redesign. As Madse n &
Bowen acknowledge:

Every teacher is in a very real sense an adapter of the textbook or

materials he uses .... He adapts wht>n he adds an example not fouud
in the book or when he telescopes an assignment by having students
prepare 'only the even-numbered items'. He adapts even when he refers
to an exercise covered earl ier, or when he introduces a supplementary
picture, song, realia or report. (Madsen & Bowen, 1978: vii)

\Vith experi ence, all teachers will instinctively adapt materials in many
or a ll of the ways described by Madsen and Bowen. However, if we wish
them to go beyond such low-level adaptation and supplementation to forms
of provision which are more demanding in terms of creativity, expertise
and potentially time, we may need to persuade them of the need and help
them ro develop the necessary confidence and skills. We may a lso want
to encourage them ro accept learners as active partners rather than as
recipients of materials and teaching. The implications for teacher education
a re clear.

~ lc.1-1 McQ-rn,fh, lea.c.~ fia..-kna~ o:h.d -Hie

!1.cl.e.> 4 f:fL..,f_ESL lea.chen (__5100lt)Sb~ .l.013)
PP· 2. 'l'+ ·