Protocolo para la realización de los ensayos de cristalización de sales,

My engagement with the literature on textbook authorship reinforced the need not only to contextualize, but also to thematize the main issues arising from literature on textbook authorship, while explicating the contexts of these particular studies, which differ from the context of this TESEP study. Jolly and Bolitho (1998, pp. 97-98) present frameworks for materials writing, from a teacher-author perspective. Suggested components are: needs identification, exploration of need, contextual realization of materials, pedagogical realization of materials, physical production, use and evaluation. These frameworks are of limited generalizability in contexts where roles and expected products are generally accepted as demarcated and involving different stakeholders. As Masuhara (1998, p. 248) observes, “crucial stages of course design have been removed from the hands of teachers and

administrators to those of materials producers,” raising the perennial question of deskilling of teachers (Section 2.5.1.1).

In TESEP contexts such as this, “materials producers”, as a distinct group are centrally concerned with writing and publishing processes, and “crucial stages of course design” belong even further up the chain (Fig. 4). Producers in such contexts may carry out their own private research, but for textbook approval, their findings have to be presented in a manner that adheres to the pre-existing framework and vision of the national syllabus. There may be mismatches between what they believe or have found out and interpreted through their own research and experiences, and what is required of them by the syllabus. (This also applies to teachers [Section 2.5.1], who have situation-specific experiences). Like in some of the national projects described here, the MoE, in collaboration with donors, created an enabling environment for textbook development; however, in this study the materials were developed solely by local authors and editors for various commercial publishers. This was the first major textbook production period following greater market liberalization, and there were opportunities for publishers as well as experienced and inexperienced authors.

Author Selection

Littlejohn (1992, p.230) positions authors as “agents of publishers” whose “principle task is to produce materials which meet the criteria the publisher will have set out for the intended market.” He describes a publishing world characterized by disappearance of smaller publishing houses, formation of conglomerates, resources, global markets, and high competition. This publishing world involves pre-

commissioning, in which authors may be required to fill in a questionnaire regarding their proposed work, commissioning, writing, pre-production, editing, design and production. In the intervening years, more studies have recorded authors’ experiences in different contexts. Author selection may involve consideration of factors such as one’s geographical location, ethnicity, gender, academic qualifications, profession, interest and talent; however, the ability to write and current membership in the teaching profession at the target level appear to be among the basic ingredients for textbook authorship, as evidenced from the following studies.

The Primary English Language Project (PELP), 1996 – 2002, was a joint UK (DfID/British Council) - Government of Sri Lanka initiative, which included trainer and teacher training, curriculum development for primary schools and mother-tongue literacy. One of its outputs was textbooks. Author selection focused on a competitive process among primary school teachers, while retired teachers and college lecturers were avoided (Hayes, 2002). They attempted, but did not entirely succeed in achieving gender, geographical and ethnic coverage.

In Romania, the Ministry of Education, in collaboration with the British Council, the Colleges of St. Mark and St. John, and later, the World Bank embarked on an 8-year textbook project resulting in the Pathwayseries. Popovici, the Project Manager and an author, and Bolitho, the UK consultant, report that the 1991 British Council advertisement for authors attracted teachers, few of whom had been published. They submitted sample materials and were interviewed. Popovici & Bolitho (2003) note that teachers bring on board a sense of the classroom, the students and teachers who

will use the materials, as well as practical and experiential knowledge of teaching and learning.

For Fortez (1995), who reports on Expo II, a tertiary level Communication Skills course prepared institutionally for first year college students in a Manila College, the capacity of language teachers to write is a given. Other considerations for authorship included interest and willingness, flexibility and ability to work in harmony with others.

Illés (2009), in her analysis of what has madeAccess to Englishstand the test of time in Hungary, advocates inclusion of creative writers as part of a “dream team” of coursebook writers, noting that texts that resemble artistic works are likely to be stimulating and pedagogically effective. For Maley (2003) whose writing and ELT experiences span many countries including those in Africa, E. Europe, and Asia, creativity can be made manifest through content such as text and visuals, or in the suggested procedures and desired outcomes. Dubin & Olshtain (1986) advocate inclusion of a grammatical expert and writers with strong backgrounds in language learning theory and sociolinguistics.

Teamwork

Group dynamics are an important feature in the textbook story. Dubin & Olshtain (1986) indicate that there are diverse personality types such as the organizer, the ideas person, the diligent worker, the worrier, the experimenter, the evaluator, the persuader and the finalizer. Individual weaknesses are compensated by the strengths of others. Teams vary in their level of structure. In highly structured teams, one person is responsible for assigning tasks and task design. Work is likely to be

completed punctually, but there may be an absence of creativity. Democratic committees may display more creativity, but are likely to need more time. Both types of teams require a final decision-maker who can bring forth the best in the team and maintain harmony.

Bautista (1995), Gonzales (1995), Hayes (2002) and Popovici and Bolitho (2003) comment on teamwork. Hayes (2002) highlights the problem of achieving cohesiveness in team writing and advocates that a team of editors develop the final version and ensure a harmonious structure. Bautista (1995) reports on a departmental ESP project in a Manila university. She notes that apart from building their collection of materials and developing their knowledge, authors must also develop compatibility with their team-members. Frequent departures from writing teams can be problematic (Gonzales, 1995); therefore, developing cohesiveness and commitment is an important step that may require a training component. Popovici & Bolitho (2003) observe that authors’ team-building sessions during pre-writing played a pivotal role in preparing authors to face some of the challenges of teamwork.

Writers’ Knowledge and the Writing Process

Dubin & Olshtain (1986) cite areas of general and specific expertise required of authors such as maintaining an up-to-date understanding of linguistic and learning theories, broad knowledge of the cultural patterns pertaining to the target language as well as to the learners’ first language, and familiarity with the educational context within which their materials will be utilized. Richards (2006) also underlines that the theory of language and language use adopted will influence the design and goals of the materials while the theory of language learning will shape the suggested learning

experiences. He notes, however, that successful materials are not necessarily the latest research-based, since situational constraints determine what is well received.

Authors operate on sub-conscious criteria such as their belief-systems, personal history and education. They also have ideas about the characteristics of the end-users of their product (Maley, 1995). However, Tomlinson (2003a, p.107) observes that several reports by writers on their writing processes such as Cochingo-Ballesteros (1995), Maley (1995), Prowse (1998), “say very little about any principles of learning and teaching which guide their writing or any framework which they use to facilitate coherence and consistency.” They point to authors relying on their ‘creative intuition’.

Littlejohn (1992), Tomlinson (2003a, 2010a) and Atkinson (2008), have, however, sought to uncover the processes that writers go through. Through use of personal construct repertory grids and author interviews Littlejohn (1992) reveals three categories of views from authors: views about the nature of teachers, views about the nature of learners, and views about the nature of successful language learning. Three of his five authors were full-time writers, while two were employed in university language institutes. Their combined teaching experience was predominantly in the UK, but also spanned S.E Asia, Africa, the Middle East, E. Europe and France. Littlejohn (1992) indicates that authors’ views of teachers, learners and classrooms are a major factor in explaining the nature of materials.

Tomlinson (2010a, p.9) describes a writing process in a Muscat University that began with “the articulation of writers’ beliefs about what facilitates language

acquisition (i.e. universal criteria) and what is needed and wanted by their target learners (i.e. local criteria).” It also included developing a bank of materials, team writing, trialling, team monitoring and editing. This process lays emphasis on materials developers needing to articulate their beliefs about language acquisition and the learners’ needs and wants. It is perhaps assumed that for teachers-authors, these beliefs are founded on both theoretical knowledge and observation of their learners.

Atkinson (2008) builds an in-depth picture of the cognitive processes involved in textbook writing by an experienced writer and determines that the design process is cyclical in nature. The experienced writer was concerned with the design principles of continuity, substance, variety and repetition, causing him to revisit certain activities many times, engage in piloting and draw guidelines from outside sources in order to meet learners’ needs while respecting teacher and learner autonomy and satisfying educational aims.

Expertise studies such as Johnson (2000, 2003) and Samuda (2005) reveal how task designers work. Samuda (2005, pp. 241-252) reports on her own work and that of Johnson (2003) in examining tasks developed by expert and less expert designers, drawing upon thinkaloud protocols and the task design. For Johnson (2003) good task designers have the ability to visualize in detail possibilities and problems, and the capacity to abandon a task. They also tend to do one thing at a time, invest time in analyzing design problems, highlight important considerations early, design the whole before the parts, design cyclically, give attention to a wide range of variables and engage in self imposed complexification by “introducing issues not strictly

necessary for designing the task with minimum effort” (Samuda, 2005, p. 243). She suggests that some of the differences may relate to the nature of the task parameters.

Consumer Sensitivity

Dubin & Olshtain (1986, pp. 167-173) distinguish writing for a local audience from writing for wider audiences. The former is generally characterised by well-defined goals, knowledge about national examinations and information about teachers and learners. In writing for wider audiences, they highlight age as a crucial factor. The materials should not be beyond the learner’s level of understanding, nor should they appear to be “talking down” to them. Tomlinson (2003b) describes efforts to develop materials that connect with learners’ lives as “humanising the coursebook”. This can be done through use of engaging texts, literature, personal voice, localization of textbooks, single-focus units, generalizable activities and resource packs of materials. Tomlinson (2010b) suggests 10 principles relating to language acquisition and language teaching for effective materials, including comprehensible input, affective and cognitive engagement in the language, and localization and personalization of materials.

Williams (1983) asserts that authors should not “jump on the bandwagon of innovation for the sake of it,” but should ensure consistency with accepted psychological and linguistic principles. New materials cannot be too different from current materials (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994; Mares, 2003). Consumers may appreciate change, but if it is too novel or inconsistent with their practices, without adequate guidelines and motivation, they are unlikely to adopt new practices. Developing consumer sensitivity among authors is part of materials development.

Author Development

Part of the literature has sought to account for how experienced authors work, and this is sometimes contrasted to inexperienced authors. At some point, all authors are inexperienced. They gain expertise in the course of writing. Teacher-authors, for instance, may be novices to begin with; however, they are experts in their field (Cochingo-Ballesteros, 1995). Nonetheless, authorship may mean further investment in one’s own learning (Gonzales, 1995), engagement with theory (Hall, 1995), and the capacity to call upon “unknown inner resources and wisdom, pushing abilities to the limits…” Rozul (1995, pp. 211-212).

Author development may occur in various forms prior to, during and even after a writing project has ended; however, authors work under different conditions, and a high degree of support and facilitation is not always available. Bautista (1995) describes an EAP writing process in which the 4-author team basically worked on their own, with little reinforcement. Hayes (2002, p. 35) describes the Primary English Language Project (PELP) of Sri Lanka as “managing national textbook development in difficult circumstances” partly because writers had no textbook- writing experience, yet the project was expected to yield books for Grades 3 to 5 within three years. Hayes states that the usual timeframe for development of a coursebook from ideas to copies in the classroom is 3-5 years, yet within a limited period of time, these inexperienced writers had to simultaneously develop textbook writing skills, bond with each other, understand the curriculum, and draft materials. In addition, each level required three books: a pupil’s book, a teachers’ guide, and a workbook and the timeframe was insufficient for trialling materials in the classroom.

Authors are required to absorb a variety of skills in the process of authorship, and writing experience may play a role in making it less daunting.

Popovici & Bolitho (2003) describe collaboration and author development in the

Pathway project. Pre-writing training was significant in terms of building trust, consensus, learning to listen, encountering and resolving conflict and revealing strengths and weaknesses. Through workshops, authors built assertiveness and self- esteem, and a desired spirit of cooperation emerged. Authors learnt to give the emerging textbook centrality above their personal desires and began to regard themselves as team players with a common goal. They also received support from the United States Information Agency (USIA), which afforded them the opportunity to not only visit the UK, but also the USA during the project. This infused authenticity in their portrayal of these countries. Author development need not, therefore, cease at the end of the project. It may potentially result in the engagement of writers in related activities beyond the project and in the wider arena of professional development, as in the case of thePathwayproject.