7/30/2019 ELT J-1988-Sheldon-237-46

1/10

Evaluating ELT textbooks andmaterialsLeslie SheldonEL T coursebook publishing is a multi-million poun d industry, yet the wholebusiness of product assessm ent is haphazard and under-researched.Coursebooks are often seen by potential consumersteachers, learnersand educational purchasersas market ephemera requiring invidiouscompromises between comm ercial and pedagogical demands. Some prac-tical and theoretical reasons for such grassroots discontent are discussed,as are previous textbook studies and qualitative'checklists'. T he state of theinformational assistance available to intending purchasers is also exam-ined. Finally, a set of 'common core'qualitative criteria is advanced, whosepurpose it would be to make evaluation an d selection more systematic andinformed.*According to Hutchinson and Waters, textbook evaluation is basically astraightforward, analytical 'matching process: matching needs to availablesolutions' (H utchinso n and W aters 1987:97). My own view is that this issueis rather more emotive and controversial for teachers; many would agreewith Swales (1980) that textbooks, especially coursebooks, represent a'problem', and in extreme cases are examples of educational failure. Iwould like to explore the reasons for such strong reactions, and to putforward possible evaluative solutions. I wish to conce ntrate on coursebooksbecause, whether we like it or not, these represent for both students andteachers the visible heart of any ELT programme. The selection of aparticular core volume signals an executive educational decision in whichthere is considerable professional, financial an d even political investme nt.This high profile means that the definition and application of systematiccriteria for assessing coursebooks are vital. Supplementary textbooks andmaterials on the other hand may not carry the same burden. The evaluativecriteria for these can to some extent remain implicit, or be allowed to definethemselves more informally in the local situation.

Classroom attitudm* ELT coursebooks evoke a range of responses, but are frequently seen byteachers as necessary evils. Feelings fluctuate between the perception thatthey are valid, labour-saving tools, and the doleful belief that 'masses ofrubbish is skilfully marketed' (Brumfit 1980:30). In basic terms, thereseems to be a 'coursebook credibility gap' (Greenall 1984:14) because ofem pha tic contrad ictions and potential conflicts of interest in their creation,commercial exploitation, public assessment, selection, and ultimate class-room use. ELT books are frequently seen as poor compromises betweenwhat is educationally desirable on the one hand and financially viable onthe other. In simple terms, they often do not seem to provide good value formoney.EL TJournal Volume 42/4 October 1988 Oxford University Press 1988 23 7

7/30/2019 ELT J-1988-Sheldon-237-46

2/10

In the attempt to make the volumes in question seem suitable for alllearners in all situations, excessive claims by some autho rs and publishershave made such disaffection inevitable. Staffroom conversations aboutwhich parts of a specific textbook can be salvaged for actual teachingpurposes are a constant reminder of the belief, publisher's blurbs notwith-stand ing, that 'T he w hole business of the manage me nt of language learn ingis far too complex to be satisfactorily catered for by a pre-packaged set ofdecisions embodied in teaching materials' (AUwright 1981:9).

The sheer labour-intensiveness of developing classroom materials, thepressures of heavy timetables, and the highly restrictive nature of mostteaching situations nevertheless force the teacher (or educational pur-chaser) to rein in his or her reservations, and to choose a book which onlyapproximates to the needs of the local context. It is not always a happycompromise, and is most often made in haste and with a paucity ofsystematically applied criteria. Coursebooks are perceived by many to bethe route map of any EL T program me , laying bare its shape, structur e, anddestination, with progress, programme, and even teacher quality beingassessed by learners in terms of sequential, unit-by-unit coverage. In thissituation, wrong selection can be a particularly keen reason for regret.When a textbook is imposed on both parties by a higher authority, andwhen there is no possibility of change or modification, the discontent is noless acute for being futile.

It is a cruel parad ox th at for students, teacher-generated m aterial (whichpotentially ha s a dynam ic and m aximal relevance to local needs) often hasless credibili ty than a published textbook, no matter how inadequate thatmay be. Against the public endorsement implied by printed covers, home-grown materials appear in a poor light. This is especially true for theseemingly disconnected snippets of authentic texts or teacher-createdworksheets that are a consequence of the 'communicative' approach. Quitesimply, i t would seem tha t coursebooks exert a kind of'b ack wa sh' effect.This is particularly true w here their form and content is restricted beca useprogr am me s are linked to an English Languag e qualification, prob ably th emost common ELT s i tuat ion worldwide.These frustrations can be assuaged, at least potentially, when localtextbooks are developed in order to accom mod ate the on-the-spot needs oflearners and preferences of teachers. For the future, one might speculatethat with the expansion in desk-top publishing via microcomputers, evengreate r scope for interaction could one day be possible, with the textbook aswe know it eventually disappearing; i t might be replaced instead by a'published' core materials program, which the teacher could modify andsupplement as required, hard copies being placed between 'glossy' text-book covers to satisfy stude nt expectations a bout format an d abo ut qualityof production.2But the fact is that coursebooks are here, and are even exploited intraditional environm ents as a m ethod of controlling large classes of learn-ers. Such pedagogical experiences generate expectations about what acoursebook should contain, w hat i t should look like, and how it should be

used. These perceptions are frequently carried over into environmentswhere more freedom and choice are in reality possible.Common theoretical Other, more immediate reasons for disappointment seem partly to do withmndprmctieml a variety of com mon design flaws on one level, and a scepticism abou t theprobtmmM theoretical premises of many coursebooks on another: all this despite the

238 Leslie Shtldon

7/30/2019 ELT J-1988-Sheldon-237-46

3/10

fact tha t ' to put a book on the open market implies a moral contrac t that thebook has been cleared of basic faults' (Brumfit 1980:30). T ha t the samecomplaints come up repeatedly suggests a violation of this implicit agree-ment, and a substantive mismatch between what is produced and whatteach ers wo uld like to have. Of course, the situation is not helped by the factthat textbooks are necessarily static and a litde outdated , not least becauseof the long delays between writing and publication. T he feedback loop forhomegrown materials is of course much shorter and quicker.

Practical pro blems include such recurring faults as the failure to describeadeq uately the language levels of target learners (the indiscriminate use ofterms like 'beginner' and ' intermediate' abounds); the production of work-books or exercise pages that demand microscopic handwriting; the omis-sion of course rationales stating exactly w ho the book is intend ed for, or howthe material is selected and sequenced; a surrender to the economic pres-sures that demand a maximum textual density on each page; and theprodu ction of teach er's books that are litde more than studen t editions withinserted answ er keys. Th e pur chase r is also confronted w idi a terminologi-cal looseness (for example, 'communicative' , 'authentic' , 'notional/func-tional' , ' lexical syllabus' , etc.) that makes meaningful comparisons oftextbooks difficult.Publishers sometimes neglect matters of cultural a ppropriac y; they fail torecognize the likely restrictions operative in most teaching situations; andthey are not always a ware of the pedagogical implications of curren t theoryand research in linguistics and language learning. Many textbooks, forexam ple, use artificial, w hole-sentence dialogues, despite the descriptionsavailable of the truncated nature of authentic oral interaction (Cun-ningsworth 1987). A reade r's use of schem ata (Carrell 1984) and textsampling is often ignored in 'Reading Skills' books which encourage linear,word-byrw ord, bottom -up processing via visually intrusive com prehensionquestionirtgfoften in the margins) an d arrow-draw ing 'reference' exercises.The selection-sand presentation of vocabulary too often seem to be accom-plished without system in some coursebooks, despite the relevant studiesand sources of information to which reference could be ma de (for examp le,lexical field theory, componential analysis, West's A General Service List ofEnglish Words, a n d t h e Cambridge English Lexicon).

There may indeed be a closed circle at work here, wherein textbooksmerely grow from a nd imitate other textbooks and do not admit the w indsof change from research, methodological experimentation, or classroomfeedback.T h u s , for good procedural and theoretical reasons, textbooks are fre-que ndy seen as die tainted end-prod uct of an aud ior's or a pub lisher'sdesire for a quick profit. Disjointed material produced in specific andpossibly limited situations is generalized and stitched togedier under flashycovers; or so it often seems. Th e large n um ber of single-edition, now defunctcoursebooks produced during the past ten years testifies to die marketconsequences of teachers' verdicts on such practices. In the United Statesalone, 28 major publishers now offer 1,623 ESL textbooks between diem(Go odm an and Ta kaha shi 1987). Purcha sers are righdy sceptical abou t dieimproved utility or methodological 'advance' claimed for each newpublicat ion.

Prwvtotn evmlumthfm Tea chers are cons ume rs, just like studen ts or educational a dmin istrators.pr op os al s All diese grou ps, of course, can have potentially conflicting notions of whatEvaluating ELTtextbooks 239

7/30/2019 ELT J-1988-Sheldon-237-46

4/10

a good textbook should be. But whatever they feel, where can they all turnfor advice on how to make informed decisions about the best value formoney?The literature on the subject of textbook evaluation is not very extensive.Various writers have suggested ways of helping teachers in particular to be

more sophisticated in their evaluative approach, by positing 'checklists 'based on supposedly generalizable criteria. These sometimes elaboratesystems use a variety of 'scoring' methods to assess how well specifictextbooks measure up und er scrutiny (see Tucker 1975, van Lier 1979,Allwright 1981, and W illiams 1983). Tucker, for exam ple, proposes aningenious method whereby textbooks are assigned num erical scores, whichare then plotted on a 'Value Me rit Produc t Gra ph ', the object of which is tocom pare the resulting score curve against an ideal target profile drawn upin advance by the teacher.Of course, the criteria and key questions central to such schemes partlydepen d on the swings of l inguistic fashion. Nowa days, one would probablynot rate 'adequacy of pattern inventory' (Tucker 1975:360) as highly as afew years ago. Such decisions would, however, depend on one's own localpriorities and preferences. Over the years, the relative importance ofdifferent criteria would change, along with the interpretation given to thescores assigned in each category. A solid structurally-based coursebookmight not pass muster quite as well as it once did. Moreover, as with all theattempts to objectify what are essentially subjective phenomena, some ofthe categories would in any case be exceedingly difficult to quantify.Facto rs such as 'Com petence of the author' (Tucker 1975:360) and w hetheror not a book is 'based on a contrastive analysis of English and LI soundsys tem s' (Williams 1983:255) might prese nt problem s of clarification an dscoring.Though providing food for thought, checklists and questionnaires l ikethese have probably had little real influence on textbook evaluation interms of either ELT reviewing practice or educational decision making.Perh aps they have simply not had the currency they deserve, most teache rs,

at any rate, being unaware that they even exist . Finding back issues ofrelevant journ als in many teaching contexts (and indeed in some E LTlibraries) is also very difficult. The subject bibliography is short, so thereare few published discussions for the interested teacher to consult, even ifhe/sh e had time to do so. Perh aps this explains why coursebook evaluationis usually so ad hoc and rushed , with teachers trying to make choices on thebasis of such simplistic criteria as 'popularity', in the belief that if a booksells well , somehow , somew here, someone mu st be doing something right.Obviously, the articles and checklists diat exist do not reflect the wholes tory; al l TEFL/TESP teacher t raining programmes generate diei r ownapproaches to coursebook evaluation (e.g. Cunningsworth 1979), butbecau se of the isolationist natur e of TE FL , these approac hes vary greatly intheir rigour, consistency, utility, and awareness of relevant scholarship.Th ere would seem to be a point at which celebration of'welcome diversity'(Bloor, Swales and Williams 1984:4), especially in tertiary-level teachertraining becomes a smug acceptance of entrenched confusion, rath er tha n apositive basis on which to initiate methodological development andcoherent change. Nowhere is this state of affairs clearer than in the unevenquality of the evaluative tools given to the thousands of EFL /ES P teacherstrained in the UK each year.

2 4 0 Ltslit Sheldon

7/30/2019 ELT J-1988-Sheldon-237-46

5/10

ELT reviews The reviews spread across the ELT press also seem unlikely to influenceactual coursebook selection. Their discursive format makes it difficult tosepara te desc ription, guidance , and criticism. Also, they seem for the m ostpart to be unruffled by schemes such as those put forward by Tucker andothers, which aim for a graphically presented, concise mode of textbookanalysis. Trying to ascertain, for example, how many units a coursebookhas , or the number of hours allocated to each unit, often involves consider-able skimming. It is difficult, in a number of cases, to say with certaintyexactly what a reviewer really does feel about the relative advantages/disadvan tages of a specific coursebook.

Reviews, like the books they dissect, vary in their academic and profes-sional quality, and in their ability to be of practical assistance. Theapproach often tends to be idiosyncratic (perhaps no bad thing), andreviewers ca n often be con strained by the desire either to be polite, or to beentertaining at the expense of fairness. This is all made worse by the factthat reviewers are a transient lot.Even assuming that the teacher or educational purchaser is able toperuse the ELT press, he or she can obtain only a sporadic impression ofwhat is currently available. In the event that the consumer finds a poten-tially interesting title in a publisher's catalogue or on the shelves of abook shop d urin g a visit to the U K , it is difficult to discover whe n, whe re, orif it has been previously assessed. Old reviews pass quickly from the scene,except where publishers revive positive ones for marketing purposes.As Christopher Brumfit observes: 'There is no Which for textbooks'(Brumfit 1980:30). ' Perha ps it is high time there was. Tho ugh the ELTUpdate (produced by KELTIC) is a mine of potentially useful, carefullystructured information, its circulation is small and its publication fre-quently delayed. Reviews in the large-circulation periodicals do not presen tthe grid-style tables typical of Which?, preferring to use the traditionalconflation of descriptive information and subjective com mentary . Th enotable exception to this is ELT Journal, which uses an evaluative table atthe end of survey reviews. This system has another advantage in that itallows similar textbooks to be compa red, ra ther than to be scrutinized onlyas individual, isolated objects of analysis, which is typical of most reviews.The physical appearance of textbooks and perhaps even the extent towhich they provide guidanc e for their myriad users have changed substan-tially over the p ast few years , if only partially in response to teach ers'dem and s. We m ight now expect a corresponding cha nge in reviews as well,so that they can fulfil a genuine advisory role. The recent experimentationin the EFL Gazette (see Issue 96 p.7; and Issue 97, p. 15) with 'student-generated' and ' teacher-consensus' reviews would seem to be steps in theright direction. At the very least, we might hope for the production of acompendium of reviews culled from various sources so that teachers canhave access to wha t has been though t and said abo ut various books over aperiod of time.

Suggested For discussion, I would like to present wh at I think is a 'bell-jar' su mm arycounmbook criteria of common-core factors that reviewers, administrators, teachers, learners,and educa tional advisers most frequently use in deciding whether or not atextbook is chosen. A major caveat is necessary, however: no one is reallycertain wh at criteria and constra ints are actually operative in ELT contextsworldwide, a nd textbook criteria are emp hatically local. Not all the criteriadescribed would be deployed simultaneously, nor is the list definitive.

Evaluating EL T textbooks 241

7/30/2019 ELT J-1988-Sheldon-237-46

6/10

Consumers would obviously emphasize other factors that relate specific-ally, and perhaps dramatically, to their own unique situations.T he point is, of cours e, that any culturally restricte d, global list of criteriacan never really apply in most local environments, without considerablemodification. We can be committed only to checklists or scoring systemsthat we have had a hand in developing, and which have evolved fromspecific selection priorities. So we need some points around which ourthoughts can crystallize.The elements presented might perhaps lead to revamped formats forELT book reviews, or, on a more modest level of optimism, to the develop-ment of evaluation sheets (see Figure 1) which could be used in ELTdepartments to record in-house coursebook assessments. Ideally this eval-uative framework could abo have a bearing on the appraisal of teacher-produced materials, because identifying a qualitative yardstick for pub-lished coursebooks, regardless of whether or not the teacher has the free-

FA CTUAL DETAILSTide:Author(s):Publisher: Price:ISBN: No. of Pages:Components: SB/TB/WB/Tests/Cassettes/Video/CALL/OtherLevel: Physical size:Length: Units Lessons/sections Hours .Target skills:Target learners:Target teachers:ASSESSMENT ( Poor " F a i r * Good Excellent)Factor Rating and commentsRationaleAvailabilityUser definitionLayout/graphicsAccessibilityLinkageSelection/gradingPhysical characteristicsAppropriacyAuthenticitySufficiencyCultural biasEducational validityStim ulus/pra ctice/re visionFlexibilityGuidanceOverall value for money

Figure 1: Textbook evaluation sheet2 4 2 Leslie Sheldon

7/30/2019 ELT J-1988-Sheldon-237-46

7/10

Rationale

Availability

User definition

dom to choose what he or she uses in class, would seem to be central tocoping with 'gaps' via subsequent supplementation and adaptation.There are several key questions to ask ourselves about each feature: W hy w as the book written in the first place, and w hat gaps is it intended

to fill? Are you given information about the Needs Analysis or classroom pilot-ing that were undertaken?Are the objectives spelt out?Is it easy to obtain sample copies and support material for inspection? Can you contact the pub lisher's representatives in case you want furtherinformation about the content, approach, or pedagogical detail of thebook?Is there a clear specification of the target age range, culture, assumedbackground, probable learning preferences, and educationalexpectations?Are entry/exit language levels precisely defined, e.g. by reference to

internat ional ' s tandards ' such as the ELTS, ACTFL or Council ofEurope scales, or by reference to local or country-specific examinationrequirements?In the case of an ESP textbook, what degree of specialist knowledge isassumed (of both learners and teacher)?Is there an optimum density and mix of text and graphical material oneach page, or is the impression one of clutter?Are the artwork and typefaces functional? colourful? appealing?Is the material clearly organized? Can the stude nt find his or her location in the material at any point, i .e. isit possible to have a clear view of the 'progress' ma de, and how mu ch stillneeds to be covered?A re there indexes, vocabulary lists, section headings, and other m ethodsof signposting the content that allow the student to use the materialeasily, especially for revision or self-study purposes?Is the learner (as opposed to the teacher) given clear advice about howthe book and its contents could be most effectively exploited?

Linkage Do the units and exercises connect in terms of theme, situation, topic,pattern of skill development, or grammatical/lexical 'progression'?Is the nature of such connection made obvious, for example by placinginput texts and supporting exercises in close proximity?D oes the textbook cohere both internally and externally (e.g. with otherbooks in a series)?Selection/grading Does the introduction, practice, and recycling of new linguistic items

seem to be shallow/steep enough for your students? Is the re a discernible system at work in the selection and grading of theseitems (e.g. on the basis of frequency counts, or on the basis of usefulcomparisons between the learner's mother tongue and English)?Is the linguistic inventory presented appropriate or ou r purposes, bear-ing in mind the LI background(s) of your learners?

Layout/graphics

Accessibility

Evaluating ELTtextbooks 243

7/30/2019 ELT J-1988-Sheldon-237-46

8/10

Physical characteristics

Appropriacy

Authenticity

Sufficiency

Cultural bias

Educational validity

Stimulus!practice!revision

Flexibility

Is the re space to write in the book? Is th e book robust? too large? too heavy? Is the spine labelled? Is it a book that could be used m ore tha n once , especially if it is ma rkedby previous students?Is the material substantial enough or interesting enough to hold theattention of learners? Is it pitched at the right level of maturity and langu age, and (particularlyin the case of ESP situations), at the right conceptual level? Is it topical? Is the content obviously realistic, being taken from LI ma terial notinitially intended for ELT purposes?Do the tasks exploit language in a communicative or 'real-world' way?If not, are the texts unacceptably simplified or artificial (for instance, inthe use of whole-sentence dialogues)?Is the book complete enough to stand on its own, or must the teacher

produce a lot of ancillary bridging material to make it workable?Can you teach the course using only the student's book, or must all theattendant aids (e.g. cassettes) be deployed?Are different and appropriate religious and social environments cateredfor, both in term s of the topic s/situa tions p resented and of those left out?Are students ' expectations in regard to content, methodology, and for-mat successfully accommodated? If not, would the book be able to wean students away from their precon-ceived notions?Is the author's sense of humour or philosophy obvious or appropriate?D oes the coursebook enshrine stereotyped, inaccura te, condescending oroffensive images of gender, race, social class, or nationality?Are accurate or 'sanitized' views of the USA or Britain presented; are

uncomfortable social realities (e.g. unemployment, poverty, familybreakdowns, racism) left out?Does the textbook take account of, and seem to be in tune with, broadereducational concerns (e.g. the nature and role of learning skills, conceptdevelopment in younger learners, the function of 'knowledge of theworld', the exploitation of sensitive issues, the value of metaphor as apowerful cognitive learning device)?Is the course material interactive, and are there sufficient opportunitiesfor the learner to use his or her English so that effective consolidationtakes place?Is the material l ikely to be retained/remembered by learners? Is allowance made for revision, testing, and on-going evaluation/m ark-

ing of exercises and activities, especially in large-group situations; areready-made achievement tests provided for the coursebook, or is testdevelopment left for the hardpressed teacher? Are 'self-checks' provided?Can the book accommodate the practical constraints with which youmus t deal, or are assum ptions m ade abou t such things as the availabili ty

244 Leslie Sheldon

7/30/2019 ELT J-1988-Sheldon-237-46

9/10

Guidance

Overall value formoney

Uftmtunofeounmbook

of audio-visual equipm ent, pictorial m aterial, class size, and classroomgeography; does the material make too many demands on teachers 'preparation time and students' homework time?Can the material be exploited or modified as required by local circum-stances, or is it too rigid in format, structure, and approach?Is there a full range of supplementary aids available?Are the teacher's notes useful and explicit?Has there been an inordinate delay between the publication of th estude nt's and te acher's books which has meant tha t teachers have had tofend for themselves in exploiting the material?Is there advice about how to supplement the coursebook, or to presentthe lessons indifferent ways?Is there enough/too much 'hand-holding'?Are tapescripts, answer keys, ' technical notes' (in the case of ESPtextbooks), vocabulary lists, structural/functional inventories, andlesson summaries provided in the Teacher's Book? Is allowance ma de for the perspectives, expectations, and preferences ofnon-native teachers of English? Q uit e simply, is the coursebook cost-effective, easy to use, and successfulin your teaching situation, in terms of time, labour, and money?To what extent has it realized its stated objectives?How ever the above categories might be 'scored' (with pluses and m inuses,or stars, etc.), it is clear that different kinds of user could have divergent(and even opposing) concerns. For example, an educational adm inistrator,with an ey e to financial issues, might consider ratings on 'Sufficiency' or'Physical characteristics' to be more important than those for 'Rationale' .Moreove r, the same coursebook, when judge d by the same criteria, couldbe 'successful ' in one context, but not in another. For instance, the presenceof cultura l eleme nts could be welcomed in a situation where the teache r feltthat they were a central vehicle for learning English; on the other hand,they could be seen as irrelevant and even offensive in other teachingsituations. Similarly, the 'hand-holding' provided by some teacher's bookscould be interpre ted e ither as useful guidanc e or unwanted regimen tation.Also, of course, ratings would clearly be influenced by whether or notinstruction was carried on in ESL or EFL environments, and by suchfactors as the divergent claims of EFL versus ESP, wherein the textbook/homegrown materials mix can be radically different.It is clear that coursebook assessment is fundamentally a subjective, rule-of-thumb activity, and that no neat formula, grid, or system will everprovide a definitive yardstick. But at the very least, perhaps theuse ofsimilar evaluative par ame ters will help to make it, when time and circum -stances allow, a more coherent, thoughtful enterprise than it often is atpresent .Textbook appraisal is no t a once-only activity. When a coursebook isselected, its success or failure can only be meaningfully determined duringand after its period of classroom use. Learners are not taught in a vacuum,but com e from somew here and are proceeding tow ards specific educationalgoals and future training. Th e coursebook ultimately needs to be appraisedEvaluating EL T textbooks 245

7/30/2019 ELT J-1988-Sheldon-237-46

10/10

in terms of its integration with, and contribution to, these longer-termgoals.

Finally, perhaps when more has been written and said about helpingconsumers to choose appropriate textbooks, when research discovers whatcriteria purchasers actually do use, these books will in turn become the kindof educational tools that consumers want. This will also be achieved byarticulate expectations filtering back from the classroom, especially whenteachers are afforded more effective feedback channeb than they have atpresent. For the moment, we need to discover whether or not a de factoevaluative consensus exists at all, and whether there is any foundation uponwhich universal criteria could be erected. Received March 1988

1 This article is based on a pape r delivered at T E S O L(Miami), April 1987, and on a series of coursebookassessment workshops held in Germ an y andFrance, and at the universities of Aston, EastAngl ia , Warwick , B irmingham, and Surrey.2 I am indebted to Michael Hoey for the concept of an'electronic textbook'.3 Which? is a consumer magazine published in theUK. Different products or services are comp ared ona grid by independent assessors, using a four-dotrating system.

Al l wr i gh t , R. 1981. ' W h a t do we want teachingmaterials for?' ELT Journal 36/1:5-18.Bloor, M., J. S wal es and D. W i l l i ams . 1984. ESP:strength in diversity. ' EFL Gazette 56/4.Brumfit, C J. 1980. 'Seven last slogans. ' ModemEnglish Teacher 7/1 :30-31 .CarrelL P. L. 1984. 'Schema theory and ESL reading:classroom implications and applications. ' ModemLanguage Journal 68/4 :332-43 .Cu n n i n gswort h , A. 1979. 'Evaluating coursemater ials ' in S. Holden (ed .) : Teacher Training.London: Modern English Publications.C a n n i n g s w o r t h , A. 1987. 'Courseb ooks and conver-sational skills' in L. E. Sheldon (ed.): ELT Textbooksand M aterials: Problems in Evaluation an d Development(ELTDocuments 126). Oxford: Modern English Pub-lications/The British Council .

EFL Gazette. 1987. 'Business books survey. ' Number96, page 7.

EFL Gazette. 1987. 'Five great reads? ' Numb er 97 , page15.G o o d m a n , P. and S. TakahashL 1987. 'The ESLtextbooks explosion: a publisher profile.' TESOLNewsletter 4:49-51.GreenalL S. 1984. 'The coursebook credibility gap.'EF L Gazette 53/54:14.Hu t ch i n son , T. and A. Waters . 1987. English ForSpecific Purposes: A Learning-Centred Approach.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.v a n I i e r , L. 1979. 'Choosing a new EFL course. 'Mextesol Journal 111/3:2-14.S wal es , J. 1980. 'ESP: the textbook problem.' ESPJournal 1/1:11-23.Tucker, C A. 1975. 'Evaluating beginningcoursebooks. ' English Teaching Forum X I I I / 3 / 4 : 3 5 5 -61 .West , M. 1953. A General Service List of English Words.London: Longman.W i l l i ams , D. 1983. 'Developing criteria for textbookevaluation. ' EL T Journal 37/3:251-5.

7 7M authorLeslie Sheldon is Director of ELT, Pitman Educationand Training Ltd. He has taught at schools, univer-sities, and teacher-training establishments in Can ad a ,Iran, Algeria, Italy, Sweden and the UK, as well ashaving been an ESP consultant. In 1989 Dr Sheldonwill direct a British Council specialist seminar to beheld in the UK, entided 'ELT Textbooks AndMaterials: Evaluation, Exploitation, Adaptation andDesign'.

24 6 Leslie Sheldon