How do writers write materials? According to Tomlinson, ¹ replication and adaptation of previously successful materials played a large part in the process of the writers he surveyed. In other instances, writers benefit from inspiration. If none of this is very helpful to the aspiring materials writer, we can take comfort from Tomlinson’s statement of preference for a principled approach to materials writing – one which ‘is driven by a set of agreed principles, both universal
principles applicable to any learning context and local criteria specific to the target learning context’ ². As well as being of more use to the novice, who likely would not have a large repertoire of materials of their own design to which they might make modifications, the process of defining or agreeing upon these principles could be expected to result in more student-centered, needs-focussed materials.

So what are these principles? Are they all created equally? How do writers decide which ones apply to them? During our second seminar, we discussed some of the principles put forward in the literature on materials writing and attempted to agree upon those most relevant to our teaching context. Obviously, as our group is made up of teachers from such a wide range of backgrounds, this was not an easy task! What follows is my summary of that discussion. The principles we discussed in the session included those put forward by Tomlinson, ³ Bell & Gower, ⁴ Nunan, ⁵, Hall, ⁶ and Hutchinson & Waters ⁷. To these, I have added the principles suggested by Graves ⁸

There are some areas of clear agreement between these authors. For instance, the need for relevance was mentioned by most. Tomlinson makes the point that it is the perception of relevance on the part of the learners that is important; Nunan and Graves both argue for materials that facilitate links between the learners’ developing skills and the wider world; Hall’s frames this as a call for student-centredness. A second example is the desirability of facilitating what Bell & Gower term learner development. Nunan refers to developing ‘learning skills and skills in learning’; ⁹ Hutchinson & Waters require materials to be equal to the complexity of the task of learning a language and give the learners the necessary tools to succeed; Graves calls for activities which ‘develop specific skills and strategies’ ¹⁰ while Tomlinson values materials which require an investment from and devolve responsibility to the learners. An additional similarity is the need for authenticity, or in Bell & Gower’s terms, natural language. Both Graves and Nunan extend this to authenticity of tasks as well as texts. A final point of consensus centres around the importance of the presentation and analysis of linguistic features. The terminology used here differs amongst authors and their phrasing could be seen as clues to their views on how languages are learned. Graves ¹¹ believes materials should engage learners in ‘discovery, problem solving, analysis’ style tasks. Bell & Gower also favour an analytical approach. For Tomlinson and Nunan, materials which promote noticing are to be valued – they speak of attention being drawn and allowing a focus on language patterns. For Hutchinson & Waters ¹², the models provided are important but also the way these models are delivered – ‘not simply … statements of language use’.

The picture below shows our final group selection of principles for materials design. How far do they overlap with the opinions of the authors discussed so far? One member of our group put forward the principle worded ‘materials should evoke relevant language’, which connects to the comments on relevance discussed above. One of my own suggestions – ‘materials should facilitate and encourage autonomy’ could be considered a parallel for Bell & Gower’s ‘learner development’ and perhaps my colleague’s suggestion that ‘materials should be making students do most of the work’ ties in here too. I think our statement that ‘materials should provoke cognitive processes’ was our attempt at a comment on how materials should present language for analysis. It seems as though authenticity was missed off our list, which is something of an oversight. 

So what of our other principles? Do they receive any support from the literature? Unsurprisingly, there are comments from various authors on engagement, excitement and so on. Tomlinson ¹³  terms this ‘achieving impact’ and notes that it may be achieved in a variety of ways, including novelty. In my own personal view, this principle is not of paramount importance. This is based on my experience that some learners are engaged in their learning – that is, motivated, whether extrinsically or intrinsically, and others are not. Furthermore, this motivation or lack thereof appears to me to be connected to many factors, the materials in use being only one. Having said that, materials that are clearly outdated or those which suffer from poor aesthetics might be harshly judged by even the most motivated. Bearing this in mind, I would change the wording of this principle to refer to face value rather than excitement or innovation.

The issue of cultural sensitivity was raised by Graves, who takes it a step further by suggesting that materials should have responsibility for developing a critical understanding of cultural and social issues. For Tomlinson, this forms part of the need for an awareness of differences in affective attitude, which also points to the value in encouraging learner feedback on the materials and allowing them choices in how materials are used. Interestingly, this is one of the other principles that I suggested. My final suggestion included in our top 12, flexibility, is something that Bell & Gower also promote.

So having gone away and read around these principles, reconsidering our seminar discussions, is there anything which I would change? Perhaps. For me, the final two principles in the image above overlap and could be reworded to better reflect my view on the role materials play in motivation. On reflection, I think there is another point of duplication, where we have suggested that ‘materials should be challenging’ and that ‘materials should push learners beyond their present level’ – I will combine these. Learner-centered is an ever-popular buzz word but for my list of principles, I want to specify its meaning as distinguishing materials designed to meet a present learner need rather than those fail-safe activities from one’s repertoire of successes. To this, I am adding three further principles. The first requires authenticity and like Graves and Nunan, I will apply this to tasks as well as texts; the second prioritises opportunities for feedback while the third refers to the long-term nature of language learning. For its wording, I will borrow from Tomlinson ¹⁴ who says ‘Materials should take into account that the positive effects of instruction are usually delayed’. I take this to mean that materials should steer clear of the fallacious notion that once learners have ‘done’ something, the logical step is to move on to the next item. This linear view of language learning doesn’t take account of the need for repeated exposure to aspects of the language and ongoing and repeated opportunities for practice. Despite these changes, overall, I am surprised to find that our selections mirror those points where the literature emphasises importance.

Below is my final list. Tomlinson’s point that principles can be both global and local should be recalled here. These principles apply to my present teaching context and were a different one under consideration, the selection would differ. They are presented in no particular order.

Principles for the design of materials 

1. Materials should facilitate and encourage autonomy.
2. Materials should make students do most of the work.
3. Materials should push learners beyond their current level.
4. Materials should be flexible.
5. Materials should respond to learners’ needs rather than be based on past successes.
6. Materials should feature language relevant to learners’ lives outside the classroom.
7. Materials should be sensitive to and promote understanding of different cultures.
8. Materials should have face value.
9. Materials should provoke cognitive processes.
10. Materials should be authentic in task and text.
11. Materials should allow opportunities for regular feedback.
12. Materials should take into account that the positive effects of instruction are usually delayed.