Sustento teórico en relación a los dulces tradicionales que forman parte de la

Textbook opponents (some of whom, ironically, write educational materials) often view the textbook as contributing to deskilling the teacher while proponents view it as contributing to reskilling the teacher. However, researchers also take the middle ground, indicating that textbooks can reskill or deskill depending on how they are developed and used (Dubin & Olshtain, 1984; Swan, 1992; Littlejohn, 1992; Richards, 1993).

More recently, Harwood (2005) has distinguished strong from weak anti-textbook views, and pro-textbook views. As professionals, teachers do not necessarily need textbooks to teach, but textbooks are helpful resources. While it is desirable for teachers to produce materials that are highly relevant to their own contexts, there are

limiting factors. I therefore begin this section on teachers and textbooks, by revisiting the reskilling-deskilling debate to its current state, and then examining the literature from a broader teacher education and development perspective.

Richards (1993) is critical of overdependence on commercially produced materials, especially because of a lack of focus on student needs, a lack of local content (from a global coursebook perspective) and a “reification” of textbooks. Sheldon (1987), Shannon (1997) also point to standardization of materials and consequent reification as a deskiller. Reification is defined as the unjustifiable attribution of qualities of excellence, authority and validity to published textbooks.16 (Richards, 1993; Richards and Mahoney, 1996). In their study of the beliefs and practices of Hong Kong teachers, Richards and Mahoney (1996) concluded that the textbook was not transforming teachers into “teaching technicians” as evidenced by their autonomous decisions on adaptation and the time-saving purposes for which they used materials. The rightful place of the textbook in the education system is as a resource that supports and facilitates teaching (Littlejohn, 1992; Richards, 1993).

Block (1991) regards the reliance on commercially produced materials as an abdication of teacher responsibility, and differs with Sheldon’s (1988, p.214) view that students find teacher-generated material “tatty or unprofessional”. He asserts that, contrarily, students appreciate teacher materials and adequate class preparation. Block views teacher generated materials as providing contextualization, timeliness

16_{This probably arises out of the definition of reification – to make real or concrete – where the}

authority of the written word (concrete, visible) makes it more believable than the spoken word (transient).

and a personal touch. He advocates teamwork by teachers in materials development, but acknowledges that commercial materials are necessary part of the time.

While there are advantages to teacher-generated materials such as contextualization, targeting of individual learner needs, personalization, timeliness, and relevance to learners, there are also disadvantages such as lack of overall coherence, quality, poor text choices, and errors. (Howard & Major, 2004). Teachers also have to ensure that they keep in mind the curriculum goals and comply with copyright laws. These challenges factor into the confidence that teachers have in their own capacity as materials developers. For these and other reasons, they may have more confidence in published materials that are responsive to the syllabus they expect to cover. “We need teaching materials to save language learners from our deficiencies as teachers, to make sure, as far as possible, that the syllabus is properly covered and that exercises are well thought out” (Allwright, 1982 p. 6). It is worth noting that the challenges that face the teacher also face the materials developer; however, in the latter case, the availability of time, experience/expertise and a supportive environment specialized in the production of materials may help in overcoming some of these challenges.

Loewenberg Ball & Feiman-Nemser (1988) argue that beginning teachers do not necessarily have the subject content and pedagogical knowledge required of them. They reveal that beginning teachers made use of textbooks and teacher’s guides even when their training programmes have propounded the view that textbooks are undesirable. Grossman & Thompson (2008) cite Loewenberg Ball & Feiman- Nemser (1988) in their exploration of textbooks as scaffolds for new teachers. They

conclude that textbooks are resources for beginning teachers, and form a “powerful imprint” for future classroom practice. Ideally, trainees should be afforded opportunities to analyse and comment on teaching and learning materials in the course of training, and these opportunities should continue in the early years of teaching with the support of more experienced teachers. Thus, teachers’ use of the textbook depends on various variables including the topic, their level of experience and the context.

Illustrating the contradictory findings of what teachers want from coursebooks, Masuhara (1998, pp. 244, 246) contrasts Sheldon’s (1988) argument for flexible materials and Hutchinson and Torres’ (1994) view of the benefit of structured coursebooks, arising from the need for security in classroom management. Masuhara notes that the source and methods of how they identified the particular teachers’ needs are not explicit, and argues that in both cases, teachers’ claims are “assumed and not defined.” She concludes that there is need to recognise that teachers have different degrees of professional ability and confidence, giving rise to different needs, which require exploration.

Teachers are often involved in some way in materials production, selection and evaluation. They adapt content and sometimes give feedback formally and informally to commercial producers. As such, materials development ought to form a key component of teacher education and development. Hutchinson (1987), Loewenberg Ball & Feiman-Nemser (1988) and Hutchinson & Torres (1994) all consider the implications of their findings on teacher education and development. This indicates

that while research into materials is useful in and of itself, its implications for the wider arena of teacher education and development are significant.