40 Rani Rubdy

Wharton (1998) see the ELT coursbook functioning as a genre of mass

communication, where its authors can enter into positive dialogue with teach-
ers and students on a number of issues of current significance to ELT
professionals.

Not surprising, then, to see why the selection of materials has come to involve
considerable professional, financial and even political investment not just by
teachers and learners but other stakeholders as well, such as administrators,
educational advisors, education ministries and state governments, making the
task a high profile one (Sheldon, 1988: 237). Conflict of interests can arise
between commercial agencies who view ELT books as big business and use
aggressive marketing strategies to exploit the situation and those committed to
the choice of a coursebook simply for its value for effective classroom use. This
explains the current polarization of views, fluctuating between the perception
that coursebooks are valid, labour-saving tools, on the one hand, and the belief
that they are just skilfully marketed masses of rubbish (Brumfit, 1980: 30), on
the other.
We are reminded of Allwrights considered view about the limited usefulness of
ELT materials, expressed some two decades ago: The whole business of the
management of language learning is far too complex to be satisfactorily catered
for by a pre-packaged set of decisions embodied in teaching materials (Allwright,
1981). Hence the feeling that published materials can at best only represent
poor compromises between what is educationally desirable on the one hand and
financially viable on the other (Sheldon, 1988: 237), thus justifying Cunning-
sworths (1984) cautionary note about coursebooks being good servants but bad
masters.
The debate has raised many important questions regarding the relationship
between ready-made ELT materials and the teaching and learning process that
warrant serious consideration. Some of these have been identified by Bell and
Gower (1998: 117), as summarized below:

1. Given that creativity is to be preserved as an important pedagogical principle,

how can we ensure that coursebooks do not take away investment and
responsibility from teachers and learners?
2. How can one ensure that coursebooks reflect the dynamic and interactive
nature of the learning process while at the same time maintaining the con-
sistency of the syllabus?
3. Although it is true that no coursebook can cater for all the individual needs of
all learners all of the time, how can sufficient material be provided so as to
meet most needs most of the time and provide enough flexibility to enable
teachers to individualize it?
4. If the language provided in many coursebooks is conventional rather than
real life, how can samples of use that are as natural as possible be provided?
5. If coursebooks are frequently predictable in format and content, how can the
material be made more lively?