It is clear that it is no longer enough to teach merely the structures and rules of a language the myriad approaches to curriculum design which have sprung up in the last four decades under the umbrella of ‘the communicative approach’ have illustrated the shortcomings and lack of relevance of the grammar-systems model of language teaching. Language is communication, and as teachers we must develop in our learners the ability to communicate effectively in a wide range of professional and social contexts. But is it possible to teach a language within the four walls of a classroom? I think not - and so we also need to help our learners to learn how to learn and to keep on learning. I would like to quote the famous educator Carl Rogers, who makes a strong plea for learner- and learning-centred learning as the only possible model for education in a world that is changing faster than ever before:重试错误原因
We are, in my view, faced with an entirely new situation in education where the goal of education, if we are to survive, is the facilitation of change and learning. The only man who is educated is the man who has learned how to learn; the man who has learned how to adapt and change; the man who has realized that no knowledge is secure, that only the process of seeking knowledge gives a basis for security. Changingness, a reliance on process rather than upon static knowledge, is the only thing that makes any sense as a goal for education in the modern world. (Rogers, 1983, p. 120) 在我看来，我们在教育中面临着一个全新的局面，如果我们要生存，教育的目标就是促进变革和学习。唯一受过教育的人是那些学会了如何学习的人；那些学会了如何适应和改变的人；那些意识到没有知识是安全的，只有寻求知识的过程才能提供安全基础的人。变革性，依赖于过程而非静态知识，是现代世界中教育目标唯一有意义的东西。（罗杰斯，1983 年，第 120 页）
In this paper, I will briefly survey three dominant models of curriculum design which are rooted in educational traditions and see how they relate to the field of English language teaching (ELT). I will then propose a model for curriculum design which provides the teacher with the security of a coherent framework within which there is the flexibility to respond to the changing needs of learners and which recognises learners as active participants in 在本文中，我将简要概述三种根植于教育传统的主导课程设计模型，并探讨它们与英语语言教学（ELT）领域的关系。然后，我将提出一个课程设计模型，为教师提供一个连贯框架的安全感，在这个框架内可以灵活应对学习者不断变化的需求，并承认学习者作为积极参与者的角色。
the language learning process. This integrated, mixed-focus model is concerned both with the products of learning in which teachers equip the learners with the “knowledge, skill or pattern of behaviour envisaged as educational ends” (Prabhu, 1987, p. 190) and with the processes of learning, which Prabhu refers to as the “enabling procedure … a process of developing the learner’s capacity to extend and adapt what is learnt in the face of varied and emerging demands” (ibid.).重试错误原因
The term curriculum is open to a variety of definitions; in its narrowest sense it is synonymous with the term syllabus, as in specification of the content and the ordering of what is to be taught; in the wider sense it refers to all aspects of the planning, implementation and evaluation of an educational program, the why, how and how well together with the what of the teaching-learning process. A.V. Kelly, in his survey of curriculum theory and practice, makes a strong case for understanding curriculum as ‘the overall rationale for the educational programme of an institution’ and argues that any definition must include the following: 课程一词有多种定义；在狭义上，它与大纲一词同义，指的是教学内容的具体规定和顺序；在广义上，它涉及教育项目的规划、实施和评估的各个方面，包括教学过程中的“为什么”、“如何”和“效果”以及“教学内容”。A.V.凯利在对课程理论和实践的调查中，强烈主张将课程理解为“一个机构教育项目的整体理由”，并认为任何定义都必须包括以下内容：
the intentions of the planners, the procedures adopted for the implementation of those intentions, the actual experiences of the pupils resulting from the teachers’ direct attempts to carry out their or the planner’s intentions, and the ‘hidden learning’ that occurs as a by-product of the organization of the curriculum, and, indeed, of the school. (Kelly, 1989, p. 14) 规划者的意图、为实现这些意图而采用的程序、学生因教师直接尝试实施他们或规划者的意图而产生的实际经验，以及作为课程组织和学校组织副产品而发生的“隐性学习”。（凯利，1989，第 14 页）
From the field of applied linguistics, a similar definition of curriculum is proposed by Richards, Platt and Platt in the Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (1992, p. 94): 在应用语言学领域，Richards、Platt 和 Platt 在《朗文应用语言学词典》（1992 年，第 94 页）中提出了类似的课程定义：
An educational programme which states: 一项教育计划，内容如下：
a. the educational purposes of the programme (the ends)重试错误原因
b. the content, teaching procedures and learning experiences which will be necessary to achieve this purpose (the means)重试错误原因
c. some means for assessing whether or not the educational ends have been achieved重试错误原因
These definitions also imply the who, the participants within the curriculum design process: the planners, the administrators, the teachers and the learners. 这些定义还暗示了参与课程设计过程的相关人员：规划者、管理者、教师和学习者。
Although there has been a long history of research and development of curriculum theory and practice within the field of education in general, the field of Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (ESL or EFL) has largely ignored or been isolated from mainstream developments, informed rather by research in linguistics and applied linguistics. In recent years, there has been an increasing awareness by ESL/EFL practitioners and theorists that indeed there are parallels (Stern, 1983; Richards, 1984; Nunan, 1988; Johnson, 1989), and that curriculum theory has much to offer: 尽管在教育领域的课程理论和实践研究与发展有着悠久的历史，但作为第二语言或外语教学（ESL 或 EFL）的领域在很大程度上忽视或与主流发展隔离，更多地受到语言学和应用语言学研究的影响。近年来，ESL/EFL 从业者和理论家越来越意识到，确实存在相似之处（Stern, 1983; Richards, 1984; Nunan, 1988; Johnson, 1989），而且课程理论有很多可以提供的内容：
Changes in thought on language and language learning and changes in educational policy constantly impinge on language pedagogy, and curriculum change frequently occurs. Unfortunately, language pedagogy has not yet much use of the available collective wisdom in curriculum theory to cope with curriculum decisions in an economical and effective way. 关于语言和语言学习的思想变化以及教育政策的变化不断影响着语言教学，课程变革也时常发生。不幸的是，语言教学尚未充分利用课程理论中可用的集体智慧，以经济有效的方式应对课程决策。
Educational theory provides a broad framework and essential concepts for language pedagogy (Stern, 1983, pp. 442, 446). 教育理论为语言教学提供了广泛的框架和基本概念（Stern, 1983, 第 442, 446 页）。
Both Clark (1987) and White (1988) refer to the framework developed by Skilbeck (1982) to explore the ‘value systems’ underlying educational traditions, and relate it to language teaching. The three traditions are identified as Classical Humanism, Reconstructionism and Progressivism, which they relate to the structural grammar/systems approach, the notionalfunctional syllabus, and the process-procedural approach, respectively. 克拉克（1987）和怀特（1988）都提到了斯基尔贝克（1982）开发的框架，以探讨教育传统背后的“价值体系”，并将其与语言教学相关联。这三种传统被确定为古典人文主义、重建主义和进步主义，分别与结构语法/系统方法、概念功能大纲和过程程序方法相关联。
THE CONTENT MODEL: CLASSICAL HUMANISM 内容模型：古典人文主义
The central focus of the curriculum in this model is the content of what is to be learned by, or transmitted to, the learner. In the Classical Humanist tradition, the content is a valued cultural heritage, the understanding of which contributes to the overall intellectual development of the learner; and, from the point of view of epistemological objectivism, the content is knowledge which has been identified and agreed to be universal, unchanging and absolute. This model has been the dominant philosophy underlying the history of the Western educational system for centuries, derived from theories of knowledge going back to Aristotle and Plato. Its attraction lies in the fact that most people, when challenged, would have fairly definite ideas of what they consider as essential to a ‘good’ education, for example, literature, ethics/religion, the physical sciences, the biological sciences, history, a second language, with a resultant ability in the learner “to think effectively, to communicate thought, to make relevant judgements, to discriminate among values” (Hirst, 1965, p. 2). Undoubtedly, this owes much to the power this model holds over us as products of a largely content-based curriculum. 该模型课程的核心焦点是学习者所要学习或传递的内容。在古典人文主义传统中，这些内容是被珍视的文化遗产，其理解有助于学习者的整体智力发展；从认识论客观主义的角度来看，这些内容是被认定并一致认为是普遍的、不变的和绝对的知识。这个模型在西方教育体系的历史中占据主导地位，源于可以追溯到亚里士多德和柏拉图的知识理论。它的吸引力在于，大多数人当面临挑战时，会对他们认为“良好”教育的基本内容有相当明确的看法，例如文学、伦理/宗教、自然科学、生物科学、历史、第二语言，从而使学习者具备“有效思考、传达思想、做出相关判断、区分价值”的能力（Hirst, 1965, p. 2）。 毫无疑问，这在很大程度上归功于我们作为以内容为主的课程产品所受到的这种模型的影响力。
However, as Kelly (1989, pp. 45-46) points out, the model is inadequate as the basis for curriculum design because it is unable to cope with a discussion of the wider purposes of education, and does not take into account the abilities or problems of the individual learner or the complexities of the learning proces itself. In the era of globalisation and the growth of multicultural societies, it cannot justify the transmission of one particular culture; within the ethos of ‘education for all’ it is unable to take account of the widely differing needs of a massive student population, where the ‘educated’ are no longer an elite trained to rule the next generation of workers; as the basic premises of science no longer rest on objective, logical, value-free theories but are shaken by the discoveries and uncertainties of quantum physics, the foundations of universal knowledge are no longer secure and an educational philosophy based on these foundations is no longer acceptable.重试错误原因
That is not to say that ‘content’ has no role whatsoever in curriculum design, only that as a model it is too simplistic, and too much a product of an earlier, very different society, to be the central planning factor for curricula today. 这并不是说“内容”在课程设计中没有任何作用，只是作为一种模型，它过于简单，过于受早期一个截然不同的社会的影响，因此不能成为今天课程的核心规划因素。
In the field of English language teaching, this model underpins the grammar-based curriculum, where the syllabus is concerned with the grammar and vocabulary of the language. If we return to Richards’s definition of curriculum, then the purposes of the programme are to transmit knowledge of the language system to the learners and to ensure that they master the grammar rules and vocabulary of the language; the content, or the syllabus, is a selection and sequencing of individual grammar points and lexis; the teaching procedures and learning experiences will include drilling of grammatically correct sentences, explanations of theory and memorization of lists of vocabulary; and assessment is based on the learner’s ability to produce grammatically accurate language. The starting point for the grammar-based curriculum, then, is the target language as a relatively fixed concept and it largely ignores factors such as context, appropriacy of use, modes of discourse or individual learner needs; as such, it reflects an essentialist (or objectivist) approach to meaning. 在英语教学领域，这一模型支撑着以语法为基础的课程，其中课程大纲关注语言的语法和词汇。如果我们回到理查兹对课程的定义，那么该项目的目的就是将语言系统的知识传授给学习者，并确保他们掌握语言的语法规则和词汇；内容或课程大纲是对单个语法点和词汇的选择和排序；教学程序和学习体验将包括对语法正确句子的训练、理论的解释和词汇表的记忆；评估则基于学习者产生语法准确语言的能力。因此，以语法为基础的课程的起点是目标语言作为一个相对固定的概念，它在很大程度上忽视了上下文、使用的适当性、话语模式或个别学习者需求等因素；因此，它反映了一种本质主义（或客观主义）对意义的理解。
With the advent of the communicative approach to language learning in the late 1960s and 1970s, this approach to language curriculum design has increasingly fallen out of 随着 20 世纪 60 年代末和 70 年代交际法在语言学习中的出现，这种语言课程设计的方法逐渐被淘汰
favour. Although it still has a place in content for syllabus design, as a basis for planning a curriculum, the grammar-based approach is not the primary factor.重试错误原因
THE OBJECTIVES MODEL: RECONSTRUCTIONISM 目标模型：重建主义
The starting point for this model of curriculum planning is no longer the content, but the objectives of the teaching-learning program; as such, it relates to the second educational tradition identified by Skilbeck (1982), Reconstructionism, where the main purpose of education is to bring about some kind of social change. Its origins lie in the movement for the scientific management of education and the work of behavioural psychologists in the first half of the twentieth century, who defined learning as a process of observable changes in behaviour which could be measured. It was the influential curriculum designer R. W. Tyler who promoted the use of behavioural objectives as the basis for curriculum design in the 1930s, long before the movement really took off in the 1960s, when Mager (1962) published Preparing Instructional Objectives, and gave the clearest definition available of behavioural objectives, as having three essential characteristics: 该课程规划模型的起点不再是内容，而是教学-学习程序的目标；因此，它与 Skilbeck（1982）所识别的第二种教育传统——重建主义相关，其中教育的主要目的是带来某种社会变革。它的起源可以追溯到 20 世纪上半叶教育科学管理运动和行为心理学家的工作，他们将学习定义为可观察的行为变化过程，这些变化是可以测量的。影响深远的课程设计师 R. W. Tyler 在 1930 年代提倡将行为目标作为课程设计的基础，早于 1960 年代这一运动真正兴起的时间，当时 Mager（1962）出版了《准备教学目标》，并给出了行为目标的最清晰定义，具有三个基本特征：
They must unambiguously describe the behaviour to be performed. 它们必须清楚地描述要执行的行为。
They must describe the conditions under which the performance will be expected to occur. 他们必须描述预计将发生表演的条件。
They must state a standard of acceptable performance (the criterion). 它们必须说明可接受的绩效标准（标准）。
Today, there is a welter of terms used to describe intended learning outcomes: performance indicators, learning objectives, performance objectives, expected outputs which are particularly relevant to the business ethos and the emphasis on public or client accountability which form some of the constraints within which educational development takes place. 今天，有许多术语用于描述预期学习成果：绩效指标、学习目标、绩效目标、预期产出，这些术语与商业精神以及对公众或客户问责的强调特别相关，这些构成了教育发展的某些限制。
The attraction of the model is that it provides: 该模型的吸引力在于它提供了：
Clarity of goals: The objectives of a learning programme are clear to both the teacher and the learners, which facilitates the selection of learning materials and activities. 目标明确：学习项目的目标对教师和学习者都是清晰的，这有助于选择学习材料和活动。
Ease of evaluation: Where there are clearly specified objectives, the success of the learners, and of the programme, can easily and accurately be evaluated to the extent that the objectives have been fulfilled. 评估的便利性：在目标明确的情况下，学习者和项目的成功可以轻松且准确地评估，以达到目标的实现程度。
Accountability: In both formal and business sectors, the model provides clear methods for needs identification, establishing learning purpose and providing measurable ‘products’ of the educational programme. 问责制：在正式和商业领域，该模型提供了明确的方法来识别需求、建立学习目标并提供可衡量的教育项目“产品”。
Some severe criticisms of the approach have been summarised by Kelly (1989), and he points out that the most fundamental criticism is that philosophically it reduces people to the level of automatons who can be trained to behave in particular ways and precludes such concepts as autonomy, self-fulfilment and personal development. As such, it is too unsophisticated, and attempts to impose a linear process on something that is spiralling and cyclical. Kelly does acknowledge, however, that the objectives model can be appropriate in the area of vocational training and in subjects which require the transmission of particular skills. 一些对该方法的严厉批评已被凯利（1989）总结，他指出，最根本的批评是，从哲学上讲，它将人降低到自动机的水平，这些自动机可以被训练以特定方式行为，并排除了自主、自我实现和个人发展的概念。因此，它过于简单，试图对一个螺旋和循环的事物施加线性过程。然而，凯利确实承认，目标模型在职业培训和需要传授特定技能的学科领域是合适的。
Reviewing the role of behavioural objectives in foreign language learning, Tumposky (1984, p. 302) claims that “There has been a mixed, but largely negative, reaction to behavioral objectives from teachers of foreign languages, including teachers of ESL/EFL”. She explores some of the same contra arguments as Kelly, emphasising the limits such objectives place on creativity and the cognitive and affective aspects of learning, in their reduction of education to an instrument for behavioural change. Her perspective 在回顾行为目标在外语学习中的作用时，Tumposky（1984 年，第 302 页）声称：“外语教师，包括 ESL/EFL 教师，对行为目标的反应是混合的，但总体上是消极的。”她探讨了一些与 Kelly 相同的反对论点，强调这些目标对创造力以及学习的认知和情感方面的限制，因为它们将教育简化为行为改变的工具。她的观点
is very much that of the teacher and an interpretation of the objectives model in its narrowest sense. The objectives model, however, was the basis of the Council of Europe Threshold Level project in the 1970s, one of the most important movements in the transition from a grammar-based approach to a communicative approach to language teaching, which resulted in the notional-functional syllabus and an emphasis on needs analysis and the eventual ends of language learning rather than a narrow linguistic focus.重试错误原因
THE PROCESS MODEL: PROGRESSIVISM 过程模型：进步主义
Kelly sums up the objections to the contents and objectives models as “the fact that neither offers any real help with that decision which must precede all others, namely the choice of content and/or aims and objectives,” and proposes the process model as an approach to curriculum planning which attempts to deal with this “value issue as the prime concern in educational planning” (1989, p. 84). The purpose of education from the point of view of the process model is to enable the individual to progress towards self-fulfilment. It is concerned with the development of understanding, not just the passive reception of ‘knowledge’ or the acquisition of specific skills. The goals of education are not defined in terms of particular ends or products, but in terms of the processes and procedures by which the individual develops understanding and awareness and creates possibilities for future learning. Content, then, is based on principles derived from research into learning development and the overall purposes of the educational process, which allows the formulation of objectives related to the procedural principles. 凯利总结了对内容和目标模型的反对意见，认为“这两个模型都没有提供任何真正帮助我们做出所有其他决策之前必须做出的决策，即内容和/或目标的选择”，并提出过程模型作为一种课程规划的方法，试图将这一“价值问题作为教育规划中的首要关注点” (1989, 第 84 页)。从过程模型的角度来看，教育的目的是使个人能够朝向自我实现的方向发展。它关注的是理解的发展，而不仅仅是被动接收“知识”或获取特定技能。教育的目标不是通过特定的结果或产品来定义，而是通过个人发展理解和意识的过程和程序来定义，从而为未来的学习创造可能性。因此，内容是基于从学习发展研究和教育过程整体目的中得出的原则，这使得与程序原则相关的目标得以制定。
The model rests on concepts of learner needs, interests and development processes and is thus open to the criticism of subjectivity in the definition of these concepts, but, as the body of research in the field of developmental psychology expands, there is an increasing acceptance of its underlying philosophy. In practice, however, as a basis for national curriculum development projects, it is less attractive than the objectives model for large-scale curriculum development and planning related to government trends in the West towards vocational training to meet employment needs. 该模型基于学习者的需求、兴趣和发展过程的概念，因此在这些概念的定义上容易受到主观性的批评。然而，随着发展心理学领域研究的不断扩展，其基础哲学的接受度也在增加。然而，在实践中，作为国家课程开发项目的基础，它在大规模课程开发和与西方政府趋势相关的职业培训规划方面，吸引力不如目标模型，以满足就业需求。
In the language teaching world, there has been a move towards the ‘learner-centred curriculum’ (Nunan, 1985, 1988; Candlin, 1984), and even towards a definition of a ‘learningcentred curriculum’ (Dickinson, 1987). Although these ideas inform much of the work done in curriculum research and development, as the central principle for curriculum design they are, as yet, peripheral rather than mainstream. 在语言教学领域，已经出现了向“以学习者为中心的课程”（Nunan, 1985, 1988；Candlin, 1984）转变的趋势，甚至向“以学习为中心的课程”的定义（Dickinson, 1987）。尽管这些理念对课程研究和开发中的许多工作有影响，但作为课程设计的核心原则，它们仍然是边缘化的，而非主流。
The analyses by Clark and White show that language teaching has not been entirely isolated from the educational mainstream, but has been influenced by philosophical trends and broad educational developments. Their view is echoed by Johnson in his introduction to The Second Language Curriculum (1989, p. xi), where he suggests that language teaching, after the “communicative revolution” and a period of “piecemeal reconstruction”, is now characterised by “a growing interest in the curriculum process as a whole, attempts to put language teaching back in touch with educational theory in general and curriculum studies in particular”. 克拉克和怀特的分析表明，语言教学并没有完全脱离教育主流，而是受到哲学趋势和广泛教育发展的影响。他们的观点在约翰逊的《第二语言课程》（1989 年，第 xi 页）引言中得到了呼应，他指出，在“交际革命”和“零散重建”时期之后，语言教学现在的特点是“对整个课程过程日益关注，试图将语言教学与一般教育理论和特别是课程研究重新联系起来”。
Although Skilbeck’s scheme neatly summarises the ideologies underlying curriculum models, the actuality of developments in ELT over the last three decades has not been so neat or coherent. Johnson refers to the communicative ‘revolution’, and a revolution cannot be achieved without a certain degree of chaos before reconstruction (Johnson refers to this period as “epitomised by the flowering of a thousand methods” (1989, p. ix) - and then consolidation. The move away from the structural grammar-systems approach began in the late 1960s, and the 1970s saw the proliferation of many different approaches under the umbrella of the communicative syllabus and a growing interest in curriculum design重试错误原因
rather than teaching methodology. The concept of ‘communicative competence’ was much debated and analysed, and finer distinctions were created. For a time, a communicative approach was equated with the notional-functional syllabus, but as other approaches were developed and presented as equally - or more - communicative, the concept began to be defined more by negation of what was clearly noncommunicative, that is, the structural approach. Henry Widdowson, a leading member of what is known as ‘the London school’ of applied linguists and author of a book titled Teaching Language as Communication, even went so far as to state: “there is no such thing as a communicative syllabus: there can only be a methodology that stimulates communicative learning” (Widdowson, 1984, p. 26).重试错误原因
For the ELT curriculum designer in the 1990s, informed by research in first and second language acquisition, theories of discourse and genre analysis, and developments in socioand psycholinguistics, constrained by funding and public or client accountability, there is a need for a framework of curriculum design which allows flexibility but gives a clear direction in which to move. 对于 1990 年代的英语语言教学课程设计者来说，受到第一语言和第二语言习得研究、话语和体裁分析理论以及社会语言学和心理语言学发展的影响，同时受到资金和公众或客户问责的限制，迫切需要一个课程设计框架，该框架既允许灵活性，又能提供明确的方向。
The 'New Pragmatism': A Mixed-Focus Curriculum重试错误原因
In practice today, too often the claim to be using a communicative syllabus or curriculum approach is heard, without any real agreement of what the term communicative means in this context and without clarification of the principles and processes of curriculum design. In the opinion of Dubin and Olshtain (1986, p. 68), three areas are central to the concept of a communicative curriculum: “a view of the nature of language as seen by the field of … sociolinguistics; a cognitively based view of language learning; and a humanistic approach in education”. Their book on course design is one of several which contribute to the long overdue discussion of curriculum issues in language teaching. Through all the publications (Richards, 1984; Dubin & Olshtain, 1986; Nunan, 1988; Yalden, 1987; Johnson, 1989) runs an awareness of what previous models have contributed to current approaches; concepts which remain central include needs analysis, an emphasis on process as well as product, a focus on the learner and learning, evaluation at every stage, and, most important, the need for interaction between and integration of the different aspects of the design and implementation process.重试错误原因
In this section, I will examine some of the issues raised, and suggest that the framework most applicable to ELT today is an integrated approach which is essentially learner-centred and is an attempted “synthesis of the product-oriented ends-means model and the processoriented approach” (Nunan, 1988, p. 20). This mixed-focus model is not without its difficulties, and a good deal of research will need to take place to establish an adequate theoretical base. It does, however, suggest the direction in which language curriculum development could move in the future. The following subsections broadly follow the framework proposed by Johnson (1989, p. xii): 在本节中，我将探讨一些提出的问题，并建议目前最适用于英语语言教学的框架是一个综合方法，该方法本质上以学习者为中心，并试图“综合以产品为导向的目的-手段模型和以过程为导向的方法”（Nunan, 1988, p. 20）。这种混合焦点模型并非没有困难，仍需进行大量研究以建立足够的理论基础。然而，它确实暗示了语言课程开发未来可能发展的方向。以下小节大致遵循 Johnson（1989, p. xii）提出的框架：
The framework I propose has three dimensions: that of policy, the aims of the curriculum, or what it seems desirable to achieve; pragmatics, the constraints on what it is possible to achieve; and finally the participants in the decisionmaking process, whose task it is to reconcile policy and pragmatics. Four stages of decision-making are identified: curriculum planning, ends/means specification, programme implementation, and implementation in the classroom … ‘evaluation’ is not seen as a stage in itself, but as a necessary and integral part of each and all of the stages already mentioned.重试错误原因
CURRICULUM POLICY 课程政策
The role of the policy maker who establishes the broad principles and purposes of the curriculum and expresses them in a curriculum design document is that of a juggler, keeping aloft the ‘balls’ representing the needs of the learners, the needs of the institution or planning committee, the needs, possibly, of society, or at least specific interest groups within society, and also the needs of the teachers and administrators, the implementers of the curriculum. These diverse needs encapsulate both opportunities and constraints which must be analysed and balanced in the expression of the controlling principles and educational goals of the program. In the integrated curriculum, the policy guides all other decisions but is itself open to modification; I return to the concept of curriculum renewal, which recognises that most planning does not begin from zero but from an evaluation of what already is in place. 政策制定者的角色是建立课程的广泛原则和目的，并在课程设计文件中表达这些原则，犹如一个杂技演员，保持“球”在空中，这些“球”代表学习者的需求、机构或规划委员会的需求、社会的需求，或者至少是社会中某些特定利益群体的需求，以及教师和管理者的需求，即课程的实施者。这些多样化的需求包含了必须在表达项目的控制原则和教育目标时进行分析和平衡的机会和限制。在综合课程中，政策指导所有其他决策，但本身是开放于修改的；我回到课程更新的概念，这一概念承认大多数规划并不是从零开始，而是从对现有情况的评估出发。
NEEDS ANALYSIS 需求分析
Needs analysis is now seen as the logical starting point for the development of a language program which is responsive to the learner and learning needs, but there has been some disagreement as to what is entailed. Brindley (1989, p. 64) suggests that two orientations are now generally recognised: 需求分析现在被视为开发一个能够响应学习者和学习需求的语言项目的合理起点，但对于其所涉及的内容存在一些分歧。Brindley（1989 年，第 64 页）建议现在普遍认可两种取向：
a narrow, product-oriented view of needs which focuses on the language necessary for particular future purposes and is carried out by the ‘experts’ 一种狭隘的、以产品为导向的需求观，专注于特定未来目的所需的语言，并由“专家”来实施
a broad, process-oriented view of needs which takes into account factors such as learner motivation and learning styles as well as learner-defined target language behaviour 一种广泛的、以过程为导向的需求观，考虑了学习者的动机、学习风格以及学习者定义的目标语言行为等因素
He further suggests (p. 64) that both types of need analysis are necessary: ‘one aimed at collecting factual information for the purposes of setting broad goals related to language content, the other aimed at gathering information about learners which can be used to guide the learning process once it is underway’. 他进一步建议（第 64 页）这两种需求分析都是必要的：“一种旨在收集事实信息，以设定与语言内容相关的广泛目标，另一种旨在收集关于学习者的信息，以便在学习过程开始后指导学习。”
The results of the needs analysis are applied in the development of programme objectives and in the choice of appropriate teaching methodology. The participants in the needs analysis ideally should include as many of the programme participants as possible, and ideally the learners themselves - where they are involved in the specification of course content, there is a greater likelihood that they will perceive it as relevant to their needs and can take an active role in course evaluation. In the integrated approach, needs analysis takes place not only at the pre-course planning stage, but also during the course, contributing to the development of teacher-learner negotiated learning objectives.重试错误原因
SYLLABUS DESIGN 课程大纲设计
Course content and procedures will usually be expressed in the form of goals or learning objectives; within language teaching there are a number of different ways of expressing objectives, and indeed considerable debate on the role and nature of objectives. Earlier in the paper, I discussed the drawbacks of performance objectives, but many would argue that there is a place for them in a language teaching syllabus, particularly where they are negotiated by the teacher and the learners and provide a means of ongoing feedback and a move towards self-direction and self-evaluation on the part of the learner. An alternative - or addition - to performance objectives is the formulation of process-related objectives, for example, from an English for academic purposes (EAP) course: ‘the student will be able to select and apply reading strategies appropriate to his or her needs’. Another重试错误原因
form is instructional objectives, which are more related to methodology (e.g., ‘To develop the learner’s confidence in speaking’). The debate will - and should - continue: for both the teacher and the learner, objectives provide a guide and framework for what goes on in the classroom.重试错误原因
Course content is usually presented in the form of a syllabus, which I will take to mean ‘a public document, a record, a contract, an instrument which represents negotiation among all the parties involved’ (Yalden, 1984, p. 13). So far in this paper, several syllabus frameworks have been outlined within the discussion of different models of curriculum planning: the structural syllabus, the notional-functional syllabus, and the process syllabus in particular have been highlighted and have been treated as separate, mutually exclusive entities. However, one of the most widely used syllabus models is one that integrates aspects of all three, a variable focus (Allen, 1984) or proportional (Yalden, 1987) syllabus. The three principles which can inform language syllabus design, according to Yalden, are (1) a view of how language is learned, which would result in a structure-based syllabus; (2) a view of how language is acquired, which would result in a process-based syllabus; and (3) a view of how language is used, which would result in a function-based syllabus. By integrating all three, Yalden proposes a proportional syllabus, with a semantic-grammatical organisational base, a linguistic component based on language functions and themes based on learners’ interests. In the early stages of language learning, one might place more emphasis on structure, before moving on to functions and then using tasks or topics to apply and creatively use the language. Allen’s formulation of the variable focus syllabus is similar to this. He defines three components: structural, functional and experiential. The syllabus includes all levels all the time, but the emphasis changes at different stages of learning. 课程内容通常以大纲的形式呈现，我将其理解为“一个公共文件、一个记录、一个合同、一个代表所有相关方之间谈判的工具”（Yalden, 1984, p. 13）。到目前为止，在本文中，已经在不同的课程规划模型讨论中概述了几种大纲框架：结构大纲、概念功能大纲，特别是过程大纲被突出并视为独立的、相互排斥的实体。然而，最广泛使用的大纲模型是整合了三者各个方面的模型，即可变焦点（Allen, 1984）或比例（Yalden, 1987）大纲。根据 Yalden，可以指导语言大纲设计的三个原则是：（1）对语言学习的看法，这将导致基于结构的大纲；（2）对语言习得的看法，这将导致基于过程的大纲；（3）对语言使用的看法，这将导致基于功能的大纲。 通过整合这三者，Yalden 提出了一个比例课程，基于语义-语法的组织基础，语言功能和基于学习者兴趣的主题的语言成分。在语言学习的早期阶段，可能会更强调结构，然后再转向功能，最后通过任务或主题来应用和创造性地使用语言。Allen 对可变焦点课程的定义与此相似。他定义了三个组成部分：结构性、功能性和体验性。该课程始终包括所有级别，但在不同的学习阶段强调的内容有所变化。
Task-based syllabus, focus
on learning processes and
strategies to encourage
creative language use| Task-based syllabus, focus |
| :---: |
| on learning processes and |
| strategies to encourage |
| creative language use |
Elementary levels 初级水平
Pre-Intermediate levels 中级前水平
Intermediate and above 中级及以上
Structure/Function Function/Skills Task/Theme
"Greater emphasis on
structure and
functions" Targeting specific functions Remedial structural work
"Introduction of
learning strategies
& techniques" "Application through task-
based and problem-solving
activities" "Task-based syllabus, focus
on learning processes and
strategies to encourage
creative language use"
Elementary levels Pre-Intermediate levels Intermediate and above| Structure/Function | Function/Skills | Task/Theme |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Greater emphasis on <br> structure and <br> functions | Targeting specific functions | Remedial structural work |
| Introduction of <br> learning strategies <br> $\&$ techniques | Application through task- <br> based and problem-solving <br> activities | Task-based syllabus, focus <br> on learning processes and <br> strategies to encourage <br> creative language use |
| Elementary levels | Pre-Intermediate levels | Intermediate and above |
The advantages of this mixed-focus model are summed up by Yalden (1987, p. 120) when she states that it 'would seem to allow the syllabus designer the most freedom to respond to changing or newly perceived needs in the learners, and at the same time provides a framework for the teacher who may not be able or willing to ‘go fully communicative’. I would add that it provides the experienced teacher with a framework that allows for choice in how to implement the syllabus, and with further development can create space for learner-teacher negotiation in ‘real-life’ communication in the classroom.重试错误原因
METHODOLOGY 方法论
The syllabus provides the framework, but learning ultimately depends on the interaction between the teacher and the learners in the classroom, and on the teaching approaches, activities, materials and procedures employed by the teacher. From the perspective of communicative language teaching, learners’ needs and wants inform the teaching-learning process, and the emphasis is on using the language in stimulating communicative activities.重试错误原因
The main point to be made in the context of an integrated approach to curriculum development is that teacher training and development is a necessary and ongoing process, involving the exploration of a range of materials, methods and approaches to learner training and evaluation. Teachers must be reflective, analytic and creative, open to new methods and ideas; the aim of teacher-training courses must be to develop teachers who are researchers, not just technicians and deliverers of the syllabus. In this way, teaching methodology can reflect curriculum goals, and teachers’ experiences in turn contribute to the process of curriculum renewal. 在综合课程开发的背景下，主要观点是教师培训和发展是一个必要且持续的过程，涉及对各种材料、方法和学习者培训与评估的探索。教师必须具备反思、分析和创造能力，开放于新方法和新思想；教师培训课程的目标必须是培养研究型教师，而不仅仅是课程的技术人员和传授者。通过这种方式，教学方法可以反映课程目标，而教师的经验又反过来促进课程的更新过程。
EVALUATION 评估
Evaluation must take place at all stages of curriculum planning and implementation, and involve all participants. The primary purpose of evaluation is to determine whether or not the curriculum goals have been met, which, in the case of a language programme, will be based on an assessment of the participants in the programme. Another purpose is to determine the effectiveness of the curriculum and to evaluate the language programme itself, which will focus on the teachers, the methodology, the materials and so on. The information gathered forms the basis of accountability to the client and also the basis for decisions regarding curriculum renewal. Brown (1989, p. 222) identifies it as ‘the systematic collection and analysis of all relevant information necessary to promote the improvement of a curriculum, and assess its effectiveness and efficiency, as well as the participants’ attitudes within the context of the particular institution involved’. 评估必须在课程规划和实施的各个阶段进行，并涉及所有参与者。评估的主要目的是确定课程目标是否已实现，在语言项目的情况下，这将基于对参与者的评估。另一个目的是确定课程的有效性，并评估语言项目本身，这将侧重于教师、教学方法、教材等。收集的信息构成了对客户的问责基础，也为课程更新的决策提供依据。布朗（1989 年，第 222 页）将其定义为“系统地收集和分析所有相关信息，以促进课程的改进，并评估其有效性和效率，以及参与者在特定机构背景下的态度”。
In the integrated approach, both formative evaluation during the planning and implementation of the curriculum, and summative evaluation at the end of the program, are important and complementary. 在综合方法中，课程规划和实施过程中的形成性评估以及项目结束时的总结性评估都是重要且互补的。
In drawing parallels between curriculum processes in the educational mainstream and the world of English language teaching, this paper has tended to present ‘ideal’ versions of the applications of major types of curriculum models: content, objectives and process; the reality is likely to be a blend of all three. I would suggest that this is the most realistic approach, given the constraints operating on any educational enterprise: external expectations and client accountability, teacher preconceptions and experiences, learner preferences, and, not least, financial and administrative constraints. Certainly, it is the mixed-focus product and process model which best fits my own experience of the curriculum. 在将教育主流中的课程过程与英语教学领域进行类比时，本文倾向于呈现主要类型课程模型的“理想”版本：内容、目标和过程；而现实可能是三者的结合。我认为，考虑到任何教育事业所面临的限制，这种方法是最现实的：外部期望和客户问责、教师的先入之见和经验、学习者的偏好，以及不容忽视的财务和行政限制。毫无疑问，混合焦点的产品和过程模型最符合我自己对课程的经验。
What has emerged from this brief survey of curriculum development in ELT is that there is a need for flexibility and openness to change and influences from the broader perspective of general educational theory, and for much more discussion and research before it can be said that there is a coherent model for ELT curriculum planning and development. It is clear, however, that there is growing support for Richards’s (1984, p. 25) exhortation: 从对英语语言教学（ELT）课程发展的简要调查中可以看出，需要灵活性和对变化的开放态度，以及对更广泛的教育理论的影响。在能够说出有一个连贯的 ELT 课程规划和发展的模型之前，还需要更多的讨论和研究。然而，很明显，越来越多的人支持理查兹（1984 年，第 25 页）的呼吁：
The language teaching profession has yet to embrace curriculum development as an overall approach to the planning of teaching and learning. Our profession has evolved a considerable body of educational techniques, but little in the way of an integrated and systematic approach to language curriculum processes. Such an approach may be crucial, however, if we are to develop a more rigorous basis for our educational practices. 语言教学职业尚未将课程开发作为教学和学习规划的整体方法。我们的职业已经发展出相当多的教育技术，但在语言课程流程方面却缺乏一种综合和系统的方法。然而，如果我们要为我们的教育实践建立更严格的基础，这种方法可能是至关重要的。
There is also a move in ELT toward consolidation and integration, informed by educational theory. 在英语语言教学中，也有向整合和融合的趋势，这一趋势受到教育理论的启发。
References 参考文献
Allen, J. P. B. (1984). General-purpose language teaching: A variable focus approach. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), ELT Documents 118 (pp. 61-74). Oxford: Pergamon Press.重试错误原因
Brindley, G. P. (1989). The role of needs analysis in adult ESL programme design. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 63-78). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.重试错误原因
Brown, J. D. (1989). Language program evaluation: A synthesis of existing possibilities. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 222-241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.重试错误原因
Brumfit, C. J. (1984). General English syllabus design: Curriculum and syllabus design for the general English classroom. ELT Documents 118. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 布伦菲特，C. J.（1984）。通用英语课程大纲设计：通用英语课堂的课程和大纲设计。英语语言教学文献 118。牛津：培根出版社。
Brumfit, C. J., & Johnson, K. (Eds.). (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 布伦菲特，C. J.，与约翰逊，K.（编）。 （1979）。 语言教学的交际法。 牛津：牛津大学出版社。
Candlin, C. N. (1984). Syllabus design as a critical process. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), ELT Documents 118 (pp. 29-46). Oxford: Pergamon Press.重试错误原因
Clark, J. L. (1987). Curriculum renewal in foreign language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 克拉克，J. L.（1987）。外语学习中的课程更新。牛津：牛津大学出版社。
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 迪金森，L.（1987）。语言学习中的自我指导。剑桥：剑桥大学出版社。
Dubin, F., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Course design: Developing programs and materials for language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 杜宾, F., & 奥尔什坦, E. (1986). 课程设计：为语言学习开发项目和材料. 剑桥: 剑桥大学出版社.
Hirst, P. H. (1965). Liberal education and the nature of knowledge. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), Philosophical analysis and education (pp. 113-138). London: Routledge & Kegan.重试错误原因
Johnson, R. K. (Ed.). (1989). The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 约翰逊，R. K.（编）。 （1989）。 第二语言课程。 剑桥：剑桥大学出版社。
Kelly, A. V. (1989). The curriculum: Theory and practice. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.重试错误原因
Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. California: Fearon Press. 梅杰，R. F.（1962）。准备教学目标。加利福尼亚：费伦出版社。
Nunan, D. (1985). Language teaching course design: Trends and issues. Adelaide: National Curriculum Recource Centre. Nunan, D. (1985). 语言教学课程设计：趋势与问题。阿德莱德：国家课程资源中心。
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum. New York: Cambridge University Press. 努南, D. (1988). 以学习者为中心的课程. 纽约: 剑桥大学出版社.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Language education: Equipping or enabling? In B. K. Das (Ed.), Language education in human resource development (pp. 190-201). Singapore: SEAMEO RELC.重试错误原因
Richards, J. C. (1984). Language curriculum development. RELC Journal, 15(1), 1-29.重试错误原因
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of applied linguistics. 2nd ed. Harlow, UK: Longman. 理查兹, J. C., 普拉特, J., & 普拉特, H. (1992). 应用语言学词典. 第 2 版. 英国哈洛: 朗文.
Rogers, C. (1983). Freedom to learn. New York: Macmillan. 罗杰斯，C.（1983）。学习的自由。纽约：麦克米伦。
Skilbeck, M. (1982). Three educational ideologies. In T. Horton & P. Raggatt (Eds.), Challenge and change in the curriculum. London: Hodder & Stoughton. 斯基尔贝克，M.（1982）。三种教育意识形态。在 T. 霍顿和 P. 拉加特（编），课程中的挑战与变革。伦敦：霍德与斯托顿。
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 斯特恩，H. H.（1983）。语言教学的基本概念。牛津：牛津大学出版社。
Tumposky, N. (1984). Behavioral objectives, the cult of efficiency, and foreign language learning: Are they compatible? TESOL Quarterly, 18(2), 295-310.重试错误原因
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 泰勒，R. W.（1949）。课程与教学的基本原则。芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社。
White, R. (1988). The ELT curriculum: Design, innovation and management. Oxford: Blackwell.重试错误原因
Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Educational and pedagogic factors in syllabus design. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), ELT Documents 118 (pp. 23-27). Oxford: Pergamon Press.重试错误原因
Yalden, J. (1984). Syllabus design in general education: Options for ELT. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), ELT Documents 118 (pp. 11-21). Oxford: Pergamon Press.重试错误原因
Yalden, J. (1987). Principles of course design for language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.重试错误原因
The Role of Materials in the Language Classroom: Finding the Balance 材料在语言课堂中的作用：寻找平衡
Jane Crawford 简·克劳福德
bar(" INTRODUCTION ")\overline{\text { INTRODUCTION }}
What about meeting learner needs? How can a course book meet the needs of a specific group of students?重试错误原因
These questions, posed by a teacher looking for the first time at Words Will Travel (Clemens & Crawford, 1994), a set of integrated resources colleagues and I had just spent 3 years developing, set me thinking about the role of preplanned materials and why I have always been interested in resource production. It also recalled my concern, both as a teacher and as a teacher educator, about the incoherence of many language programs when teachers create their own materials or, as seems more frequently the case, pick and choose from a range of authentic and published materials and worksheets, often originally prepared for other classes. 这些问题是由一位第一次查看《语言将旅行》（Clemens & Crawford, 1994）的教师提出的，这是一套我和同事们花了三年时间开发的综合资源，令我思考预先规划材料的角色，以及我为什么一直对资源生产感兴趣。这也让我想起了我作为教师和教师教育者时的担忧，即许多语言课程在教师自制材料时的缺乏连贯性，或者更常见的情况是，从一系列真实和已出版的材料及工作表中挑选，通常这些材料最初是为其他班级准备的。
This discussion is divided into two sections. The first looks at attitudes to teaching materials, including textbooks, and explores two opposing points of view. For some, commercial materials deskill teachers and rob them of their capacity to think professionally and respond to their students. They are also misleading in that the contrived language they contain has little to do with reality. For others, the role of teaching materials is potentially more positive. They can, for example, be a useful form of professional development for teachers, and foster autonomous learning strategies in students. Such arguments and the proliferation of teaching materials suggest that the issue is not so much whether teachers should use commercially prepared materials, but rather what form these should take so that the outcomes are positive for teachers and learners rather than restrictive. The second part of the discussion explores eight key assumptions which the author believes should underpin materials if they are to enhance the learning environment of the classroom. 本讨论分为两个部分。第一部分关注对教学材料的态度，包括教科书，并探讨两种对立的观点。对一些人来说，商业材料使教师失去技能，剥夺了他们专业思考和回应学生的能力。这些材料也具有误导性，因为它们所包含的造作语言与现实关系不大。对另一些人来说，教学材料的作用可能更为积极。例如，它们可以成为教师专业发展的有用形式，并促进学生的自主学习策略。这些论点以及教学材料的激增表明，问题不在于教师是否应该使用商业准备的材料，而在于这些材料应采取何种形式，以便对教师和学习者的结果是积极的，而不是限制性的。讨论的第二部分探讨了作者认为应支撑材料的八个关键假设，以增强课堂的学习环境。
Preplanned Teaching Materials - Helpful Scaffold or Debilitating Crutch?重试错误原因
Concern whether pre-prepared materials can meet individual learner needs is part of the dilemma teachers face in trying to implement learner-centred language programs in a group setting. This is not a new issue. Two decades ago, O’Neill (1982) queried the assumption that each group is so unique that its needs cannot be met by materials designed for another group. Such a view not only presupposes that it is possible to predict the language needs of students beyond the classroom, but also ignores the common linguistic and learning needs of many learners. 教师在尝试在小组环境中实施以学习者为中心的语言项目时，是否预先准备的材料能够满足个别学习者的需求是他们面临的困境之一。这并不是一个新问题。二十年前，O’Neill（1982）质疑了这样一种假设：每个小组都是如此独特，以至于其需求无法通过为其他小组设计的材料来满足。这种观点不仅假设可以预测学生在课堂之外的语言需求，还忽视了许多学习者的共同语言和学习需求。
Textbooks nevertheless remain a contentious issue for many teachers and researchers. Littlejohn (in Hutchinson & Torres, 1994, p. 316), for example, claims that textbooks ‘reduce the teacher’s role to one of managing or overseeing preplanned events’. A similar negative view emerged during a recent discussion of the role of textbooks on the Internet (TESL-L [Teachers of English as a Second Language List], City University of New York). One participant, for example, claimed that textbooks are for poor teachers, those without imagination. In the same discussion, a Canadian colleague suggested that there are cultural differences in attitudes to textbooks and referred specifically to ‘the Australian prejudice’ against them. One reason for this prejudice may well be that so many of the ESL books available are British or American and so culturally removed from learners in Australia. Certainly when asked what they saw as the major strengths of a recent set of materials (Clemens & Crawford, 1994), more than one in three of the participants at introductory workshops explicitly mentioned the Australian characters, content and contexts (see Table 1 in the Appendix). The discussion on TESL-L, however, confirmed that attitudes to textbooks are complex (see Table 2 in the Appendix) and represent a mix of pedagogical and pragmatic factors and the different weightings given to these in different contexts.重试错误原因
It is, of course, relatively easy to criticise published materials. Their very visibility makes them more publicly accountable than those produced by teachers. The grounds for criticism are wide-ranging. Not only do published materials make decisions which could be made by the teacher and/or students (Allwright, 1981), but they often exhibit other shortcomings. Some materials, for example, fail to present appropriate and realistic language models (Porter & Roberts, 1981; Nunan, 1989). Others propose subordinate learner roles (Auerbach & Burgess, 1985) and fail to contextualise language activities (Walz, 1989). They may also foster inadequate cultural understanding (Kramsch, 1987). Further weaknesses include failure to address discourse competence (Kaplan & Knutson, 1993) or teach idioms (Mola, 1993), and lack of equity in gender representation (Graci, 1989). The fact that the textbook market flourishes despite such criticisms - Sheldon (1988), for example, reports that, in the United States alone, twenty-eight publishers offer more than 1,600 ESL textbooks - reflects perhaps teachers’ understanding that these same shortcomings also occur in teacher-produced materials; indeed, they may do so more frequently because of the time constraints under which these materials are prepared.重试错误原因
There appears to be very little research, however, on the exact role of textbooks in the language classroom. Allwright (1981) suggests that there are two key positions. The first - the deficiency view - sees the role of textbooks or published materials as being to compensate for teachers’ deficiencies and ensure that the syllabus is covered using well thought out exercises. Underlying this view is the assumption that ‘good’ teachers always know what materials to use with a given class and have access to, or can create, them. They thus neither want, nor need, published materials. The difference view, on the other hand, sees materials as carriers of decisions best made by someone other than the teacher because of differences in expertise. This view was mentioned by several of the teachers participating in the TESL-L debate (see Table 2 in the Appendix), who argued for the use重试错误原因
of published materials on the grounds that these are better - and cheaper in terms of cost and effort (McDonough & Shaw, 1993) - than what teachers can produce consistently in the time available to them.重试错误原因
For many, however, both the deficiency and difference views challenge teachers’ professionalism and reduce them to classroom managers, technicians or implementers of others’ ideas. This attitude is not limited to language teachers. Loewenberg-Ball and FeimanNemser (1988), for example, found that preservice primary school teachers in two American universities were taught explicitly that textbooks should be used only as a resource, and that following a textbook is an undesirable way to teach. 然而，对于许多人来说，缺陷和差异的观点挑战了教师的专业性，使他们沦为课堂管理者、技术人员或他人思想的执行者。这种态度并不限于语言教师。例如，Loewenberg-Ball 和 Feiman-Nemser（1988）发现，在两所美国大学的师范生被明确教导，教科书应仅作为一种资源，遵循教科书是一种不理想的教学方式。
Such views seem problematic. Obviously, teaching materials are not neutral and so will have a role to play in deciding what is learnt (Apple, 1992). For this reason, it is essential that materials writers be familiar with the learning and teaching styles and contexts of those likely to use their materials, and be able to exemplify a variety of good practice. In other words, teachers and their experience have a crucial role to play in materials production as well as in their critical classroom use, and the best writers are probably practising teachers. The difference (or is it a deficiency?) is thus not in terms of expertise, but in access to time and technology. We live in a multimedia age, and educational materials need to be of an adequate level of sophistication if the language class and learner are not to be devalued. Desktop publishing facilitates the production of convincing print materials, but many teachers still have neither the time nor access to adequate technology to create ‘authentic’ audiovisual materials (i.e., videos, cassettes and computer programs which reflect the realworld products the learners encounter outside the classroom). Without such authenticity, however, it is difficult to provide culturally rich input, or to develop coping strategies that will enable students to take advantage of the extracurricular input to which they have access. 这样的观点似乎存在问题。显然，教材并不是中立的，因此在决定学习内容方面会发挥作用（Apple, 1992）。因此，教材编写者必须熟悉可能使用其材料的学习者的学习和教学风格及背景，并能够举出多种良好实践的例子。换句话说，教师及其经验在教材生产以及课堂的批判性使用中发挥着至关重要的作用，而最优秀的编写者可能是正在执教的教师。因此，差异（或者说是缺陷？）并不在于专业知识，而在于时间和技术的获取。我们生活在一个多媒体时代，教育材料需要具备足够的复杂性，以免语言课堂和学习者的价值被贬低。桌面出版使得制作令人信服的印刷材料变得容易，但许多教师仍然没有足够的时间或技术来创建“真实”的视听材料（即反映学习者在课堂外遇到的真实世界产品的视频、磁带和计算机程序）。 然而，没有这样的真实性，提供文化丰富的输入就变得困难，也难以制定应对策略，使学生能够利用他们所能接触到的课外输入。
The assumption seems to be that teachers will slavishly follow the textbook, let it control the classroom and what occurs therein, and fail to respond to learner feedback or to challenge received ideas contained in the materials. Is such a view justified, and, if teachers do behave in this way, is it realistic to expect them to prepare their own materials? In any case, as Allwright (1981) points out, materials may contribute to both goals and content but they cannot determine either. What is learnt, and indeed, learnable, is a product of the interaction between learners, teachers and the materials at their disposal. Furthermore, teachers do not necessarily teach what materials writers write just as learners do not necessarily learn what teachers teach (Luxon, 1994), perhaps because of differences in perceptions of proposed tasks (Block, 1994). In one of the few studies which has actually looked at teacher use of textbooks, Stodolsky (1989) found considerable variation which suggests that mistrust of textbooks may be misplaced. She concluded: ‘teachers are very autonomous in their textbook use and … it is likely that only a minority of teachers really follow the text in the page-by-page manner suggested in the literature’ (p. 176).重试错误原因
There is a need for more research into the dynamics of textbook use. Appropriate textbooks, for example, may actually assist inexperienced teachers to come to terms with content and ways of tackling this with different learners: 需要对教科书使用的动态进行更多研究。例如，适当的教科书可能实际上会帮助缺乏经验的教师理解内容以及如何与不同的学习者应对。
Teachers’ guides may provide a helpful scaffold for learning to think pedagogically about particular content, considering the relationship between what the teachers and students are doing and what students are supposed to be learning. This kind of thinking about ends and means is not the same as following the teacher’s guide like a script. (Loewenberg-Ball & FeimanNemser, 1988, p. 421; emphasis added) 教师指南可以为学习如何以教育学的方式思考特定内容提供有益的支架，考虑教师和学生所做的事情与学生应学习的内容之间的关系。这种关于目的和手段的思考与像剧本一样遵循教师指南并不相同。（Loewenberg-Ball & FeimanNemser, 1988, p. 421；强调部分已加粗）
Donoghue (1992, p. 35) extends this pedagogical role for textbooks from inexperienced to experienced teachers. His survey of seventy-six teachers showed that the majority reported 多诺霍（1992 年，第 35 页）将教科书的这种教学角色从经验不足的教师扩展到经验丰富的教师。他对 76 名教师的调查显示，大多数人报告说
using teachers’ guides at least once or twice a week, suggesting their potential as ‘an essential source of information and support’ and a medium of ongoing professional development. This, of course, will only occur if teachers’ guides include adequate information about the materials provided, and clear and theoretically explicit rationales for the activities proposed.重试错误原因
Hutchinson and Torres (1994) also see the textbook as a possible agent for change. This can be achieved if a number of conditions are met. First, the textbook needs to become a vehicle for teacher and learner training. In other words, as well as an explicit and detailed teacher’s guide, the student book should also include appropriate learning-howto-learn suggestions. Second, the textbook must provide support and help with classroom management, thus freeing the teacher to cope with new content and procedures. Third, the textbook will become an agent for change if it provides the teacher with a clear picture of what the change will look like, and clear practical guidance on how to implement it in the classroom. Finally, if adopted by a school, a textbook can result in collegial support and shared responsibility for, and commitment to, the change. Again, more research is needed to see whether preplanned materials actually do change practice or are simply adapted to maintain the status quo. Stodolsky’s study of the use of textbooks by social-studies teachers (1989) suggests that innovative curriculum packages may produce stricter adherence to content and procedures than standard textbooks, but that teachers frequently make instruction more teacher-centred by eliminating group projects and the use of exploratory, hands-on activities, or those focused on higher-order mental processes. In other words, the textbook writer’s aims may be overridden or vitiated by the teacher’s implementation skills (Jarvis, 1987) or reading of the text (Apple, 1992).重试错误原因
Another function for textbooks that is often overlooked is their role as a structuring tool. Communicative language classes are social events, and so, inherently unpredictable and potentially threatening to all participants (e.g., Reid, 1994). This is particularly so in periods of change (Luxon, 1994) such as those experienced by teachers implementing new programs or working with unfamiliar learner types. Learners are, of course, by definition, always facing enormous and possibly threatening change as their language skills develop. One strategy both teachers and students use in dealing with this uncertainty is ‘social routinisation’, the process by which classroom interaction becomes increasingly stereotyped to reduce the unpredictability and, thereby, the stress. Materials can play a key role in this process: ‘Textbooks survive dots\ldots and prosper primarily because they are the most convenient means of providing the structure that the teaching-learning system - particularly the system in change - requires’ (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994, p. 317). A textbook, from this perspective, does not necessarily drive the teaching process, but it does provide the structure and predictability that are necessary to make the event socially tolerable to the participants. It also serves as a useful map or plan of what is intended and expected, thus allowing participants to see where a lesson fits into the wider context of the language program. Hutchinson and Torres (1994) suggest that this is important because it allows for:重试错误原因
Negotiation: The textbook can actually contribute by providing something to negotiate about. This can include teacher and learner roles as well as content and learning strategies. 谈判：教科书实际上可以通过提供一些谈判的内容来贡献。这可以包括教师和学习者的角色，以及内容和学习策略。
Accountability: The textbook shows all stakeholders ‘what is being done dots\ldots in the closed and ephemeral world of the classroom’ (Hutchinson and Torres, 1994).重试错误原因
Orientation: Teachers and learners need to know what is happening elsewhere, what standards are expected, how much work should be covered, and so on. 方向：教师和学习者需要了解其他地方发生的事情、期望的标准、应覆盖的工作量等。
Again, it is a question of balance. Using a textbook does reduce some options for learners, but it can also allow for greater autonomy. They can, for example, know what to expect and better take charge of their own learning. It may well be this sense of control which explains 再一次，这是一种平衡的问题。使用教科书确实减少了学习者的一些选择，但它也可以让学习者拥有更大的自主权。例如，他们可以知道自己可以期待什么，并更好地掌控自己的学习。正是这种控制感可能解释了
the popularity of textbooks with many students. Consequently, a teacher’s decision not to use a textbook may actually be a ‘touch of imperialism’ - in the words of a TESL-L colleague - because it retains control in the hands of the teacher rather than in the learners’.重试错误原因
Therefore, despite the frequently expressed reservations about published materials, these do not need to be a debilitating crutch used only by those unable to do without. Indeed, the preceding discussion suggests that use of appropriate teaching materials can advantage both teachers and learners. The issue, then, is not whether teachers should or should not use such materials - most do so at some point in their career (Cunningsworth, 1984) - but what form these materials should take if they are to contribute positively to teaching and learning.重试错误原因
Materials obviously reflect the writers’ views of language and learning, and teachers (and students) will respond according to how well these match their own beliefs and expectations. If materials are to be a helpful scaffold, these underlying principles need to be made explicit and an object of discussion for both students and teachers. The remainder of this paper looks at the assumptions about language and learning which the author believes should underpin materials used in language classrooms. Individual end-users will, of course, weigh these factors differently, and so need to adapt the materials to their own context and learners. In terms of our present understanding of second language learning, however, effective materials are likely to reflect the following statements: 材料显然反映了作者对语言和学习的看法，教师（和学生）将根据这些看法与他们自己的信念和期望的匹配程度作出反应。如果材料要成为有帮助的支架，这些潜在原则需要明确并成为学生和教师讨论的对象。本文的其余部分将探讨作者认为应支撑语言课堂中使用的材料的语言和学习假设。当然，个别最终用户会以不同的方式权衡这些因素，因此需要根据自己的背景和学习者调整材料。然而，就我们目前对第二语言学习的理解而言，有效的材料可能会反映以下陈述：
LANGUAGE IS FUNCTIONAL AND MUST BE CONTEXTUALISED 语言是功能性的，必须在上下文中理解
Language is as it is because of the purposes we put it to. For this reason, materials must contextualise the language they present. Without a knowledge of what is going on, who the participants are and their social and psychological distance in time and space from the events referred to, it is impossible to understand the real meaning of an interaction. In other words, language, whether it is input or learner output, should emerge from the context in which it occurs. One possible way to build a shared context for learners and their teachers is to use video drama. Familiarity with the context helps make the language encountered meaningful, and also extends the content of the course beyond that other rich source of contextualised language use, the classroom itself. That is to say, the fictitious world of a video drama can provide a joint focus which is culturally broader than the classroom, and which serves as a springboard into other real-world contexts. These will need to be negotiated carefully, however, because they are not shared by all members of the group. Again, it is the teacher who must ensure that a balance is achieved between input and the reapplication of this to the unique context of a given class. 语言之所以如此，是因为我们赋予它的目的。因此，材料必须将所呈现的语言置于上下文中。没有对正在发生的事情、参与者是谁以及他们在时间和空间上与所提及事件的社会和心理距离的了解，就无法理解互动的真实意义。换句话说，无论是输入还是学习者的输出，语言都应该源于其发生的上下文。为学习者和教师建立共享上下文的一种可能方式是使用视频剧。对上下文的熟悉有助于使所遇到的语言变得有意义，并且将课程内容扩展到课堂这一其他丰富的上下文语言使用来源之外。也就是说，视频剧的虚构世界可以提供一个比课堂更具文化广度的共同焦点，并作为进入其他现实世界上下文的跳板。然而，这些需要谨慎协商，因为并非所有小组成员都共享这些上下文。 再次，教师必须确保在输入与将其重新应用于特定班级的独特背景之间实现平衡。
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES LEARNER ENGAGEMENT IN PURPOSEFUL USE OF LANGUAGE 语言发展需要学习者积极参与有目的的语言使用
The focus of input and output materials should thus be on whole texts, language in use, rather than on so-called building blocks to be used at some later date. This does not mean that there should be no focus on form, but rather that form normally comes out of whole texts which have already been processed for meaning. Study of grammar looks at how such texts use the system to express meaning and achieve certain purposes. Depending on the background and goals of their learners, teachers can decide whether to enhance or reduce this focus on form and the language used to do this. For the majority of learners, however, 输入和输出材料的重点应集中在完整的文本和实际使用的语言上，而不是所谓的构建块，这些构建块将在某个后期使用。这并不意味着不应关注形式，而是形式通常来自于已经处理过意义的完整文本。语法研究关注这些文本如何使用系统来表达意义和实现特定目的。根据学习者的背景和目标，教师可以决定是否增强或减少对形式及其使用语言的关注。然而，对于大多数学习者来说，
some explicit discussion of language at the whole-text level is presumably useful and will contribute positively to the language learning process and learner autonomy (Borg, 1994). Materials need to include such information for students so that they can be used as references beyond the classroom and independently of the teacher. 在整体文本层面上进行一些明确的语言讨论显然是有用的，并将积极促进语言学习过程和学习者的自主性（Borg, 1994）。教材需要包含这些信息，以便学生可以在课堂之外独立于教师使用这些信息作为参考。
THE LANGUAGE USED SHOULD BE REALISTIC AND AUTHENTIC 使用的语言应该真实且地道
An outcome of our understanding that language is a social practice has been an increased call for the use of ‘authentic’ materials, rather than the more contrived and artificial language often found in traditional textbooks (Grant, 1987). The problem with using authentic materials (in Nunan’s sense of ‘any material which has not been specifically produced for the purpose of language teaching’ [1989, p. 54]) is that it is very difficult to find such materials which scaffold the learning process by remaining within manageable fields. It is also difficult for teachers legally to obtain a sufficient range of audiovisual materials of an appropriate quality and length. The quality of the materials is, nevertheless, important because of its impact on learners and their motivation: 我们对语言作为一种社会实践的理解的结果之一是，越来越多地呼吁使用“真实”的材料，而不是传统教科书中常见的更人为和人工的语言（Grant, 1987）。使用真实材料（在 Nunan 的定义中是“任何未专门为语言教学目的而制作的材料”[1989, p. 54]）的问题在于，很难找到能够在可管理的领域内支撑学习过程的材料。教师在法律上也很难获得足够范围的适当质量和长度的视听材料。然而，材料的质量仍然很重要，因为它对学习者及其动机的影响：
Hi-tech visual images are a pervasive feature of young people’s lives. Textbooks, worksheets and overheads are a poor match for these other, more complex, instantaneous and sometimes spectacular forms of experience and learning. In this context, the disengagement of many students from their curriculum and their teaching is not hard to understand. Teachers are having to compete more and more with this world and its surrounding culture of the image. (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 75) 高科技视觉图像是年轻人生活中普遍存在的特征。教科书、工作表和幻灯片与这些其他更复杂、即时且有时壮观的体验和学习形式相比，显得相形见绌。在这种情况下，许多学生对课程和教学的脱离并不难理解。教师们不得不越来越多地与这个世界及其周围的图像文化竞争。 (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 75)
Materials, therefore, need to be authentic-like, that is, ‘authentic, in the sense that the language is not artificially constrained, and is, at the same time, amenable to exploitation for language teaching purposes’ (MacWilliam, 1990, p. 160). Another related aspect of authenticity concerns the classroom interaction to which the materials give rise (Crawford, 1990; Taylor, 1994). The more realistic the language, the more easily it can cater to the range of proficiency levels found in many classes. At the same time, the proposed activities must be varied and adaptable to classroom constraints of time and concentration span. Vernon (1953), for example, found that there was a steep decline in the amount of aural information retained during the course of a half-hour transmission, and that 6 to 7 minutes is probably the optimal maximum even for native-speaking viewers. A video drama which contained 5-minute episodes would not, therefore, be authentic in terms of typical TV programs, but it would be pedagogically practical and efficient in terms of language comprehension. 因此，材料需要具有真实性，即“真实，意味着语言没有人为的限制，同时又可以用于语言教学目的”（MacWilliam，1990，第 160 页）。真实性的另一个相关方面涉及材料所引发的课堂互动（Crawford，1990；Taylor，1994）。语言越真实，就越能满足许多班级中存在的不同水平的需求。同时，所提议的活动必须多样化，并适应课堂的时间和注意力跨度的限制。例如，Vernon（1953）发现，在半小时的传输过程中，听觉信息的保留量急剧下降，6 到 7 分钟可能是即使对于母语观众来说的最佳最大时间。因此，包含 5 分钟剧集的视频剧本在典型电视节目方面并不真实，但在语言理解方面则在教学上是实用和高效的。
CLASSROOM MATERIALS WILL USUALLY SEEK TO INCLUDE AN AUDIO VISUAL COMPONENT 课堂材料通常会寻求包含视听组件
This statement is true not only because we live in an increasingly multimedia world in which advances in technology allow for expanding flexibility in delivery, but also because such materials can create a learning environment that is rich in linguistic and cultural information about the target language. Materials such as video and multimedia allow teachers and learners to explore the nonverbal and cultural aspects of language as well as the verbal. Intonation, gesture, mime, facial expression, body posture and so on, are all essential channels of communication which not only help learners understand the verbal language to which they are exposed, but also are an integral part of the system of meaning which they are seeking to learn. The distance created by the video and the replay/pause options allows 这一说法之所以正确，不仅因为我们生活在一个日益多媒体化的世界中，技术的进步使得交付方式的灵活性不断扩大，还因为这些材料能够创造一个丰富的语言和文化信息的学习环境。视频和多媒体等材料使教师和学习者能够探索语言的非语言和文化方面，以及语言的口头表达。语调、手势、哑剧、面部表情、身体姿势等，都是沟通的重要渠道，不仅帮助学习者理解他们所接触的口头语言，而且是他们所寻求学习的意义系统的一个不可或缺的部分。视频所创造的距离以及重播/暂停选项使得
for analysis and cross-cultural comparisons which can then be extended to members of the class and local community. Visuals also provide information about the physical context of the interaction. This crucial comprehension support occurs particularly with formats such as soap opera, where there is greater convergence between the audio and visual strands than in other video materials, such as documentaries with voice-overs (MacWilliam, 1986).重试错误原因
IN OUR MODERN, TECHNOLOGICALLY COMPLEX WORLD, SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS NEED TO DEVELOP THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH WRITTEN AS WELL AS SPOKEN GENRES 在我们现代、技术复杂的世界中，第二语言学习者需要培养处理书面和口头体裁的能力
Reading materials will normally need to cover a range of genres, possibly including computer literacy. These will emerge from the context and be accompanied by activities and exercises which explore both their meaning in that context and, if appropriate, their schematic structure and language features. The extent to which teachers focus explicitly on the latter will depend on the needs and goals of their learners, and whether this kind of analysis fits with learning preferences. For many learners, however, these reading materials will provide models which can be used to develop familiarity with the structure of such texts, and provide a scaffold to assist with the learners’ subsequent attempts to write similar texts. Materials should be integrated and not require students to write genres which have not already been encountered. This means that when learners do begin their analysis, they have already had an opportunity to acquire a certain familiarity with the genre. These previous examples can then be used for additional practice in identifying the schematic structure and language features, thus providing learners with an opportunity to elaborate and revise their interlanguage (Ellis, 1989). 阅读材料通常需要涵盖多种体裁，可能包括计算机素养。这些材料将从上下文中产生，并伴随有活动和练习，探讨它们在该上下文中的意义，以及在适当的情况下，它们的结构和语言特征。教师在多大程度上明确关注后者将取决于学习者的需求和目标，以及这种分析是否符合学习偏好。然而，对于许多学习者来说，这些阅读材料将提供可以用来熟悉此类文本结构的模型，并提供一个支架，以帮助学习者随后尝试撰写类似文本。材料应当是整合的，不应要求学生撰写尚未接触过的体裁。这意味着当学习者开始分析时，他们已经有机会对该体裁有一定的熟悉度。 这些先前的例子可以用于进一步练习识别示意结构和语言特征，从而为学习者提供机会来详细阐述和修订他们的中介语言（Ellis, 1989）。
Writing in a second language is sometimes daunting for L2 learners, especially because, as native speakers know, we tend to be less forgiving of grammatical and other inaccuracies. Learners need to come to terms with this aspect of written language, and develop appropriate strategies for tackling written tasks. Except for informal notes, most writing involves more than one draft. Materials can incorporate learning cycles which allow learners to explore choices and options and choose the most appropriate to their purpose before they begin working on their own. Individual writing will usually occur at the end of a number of activities in which learners have (a)(a) worked with examples of the genre but with the focus on meaning, not form; (b)(b) analysed examples of the genre to determine its social purpose and generic structure; (c)(c) built up their knowledge of the topic through discussion, reading and so on, so that they have something to write about and have covered the necessary vocabulary; and (d)(d) engaged in a joint construction, either as a whole group or in smaller groups. The discussion such collaborative work provokes engages learners in purposeful interaction and gives them an opportunity to check their understanding of the requirements of the task.重试错误原因
Given the context-dependent nature of language, no language course can predict all the language needs of learners and must seek, therefore, to prepare them to deal independently with the language they encounter as they move into new situations. The activities and materials proposed must be flexible, designed to develop skills and strategies which can be transferred to other texts in other contexts. The materials writer can also suggest follow-up activities to encourage this process and to provide additional practice for those who need it. This not only assists teachers in catering to a range of learning styles and levels, but also contributes to developing their teaching repertoire. Learners can likewise be asked to explore the strategies they and their fellow students use and, where appropriate, try new ones. 鉴于语言的上下文依赖性，没有任何语言课程能够预测学习者的所有语言需求，因此必须努力使他们能够独立应对在新情境中遇到的语言。所提议的活动和材料必须灵活，旨在培养可以转移到其他文本和其他情境中的技能和策略。材料编写者还可以建议后续活动，以鼓励这一过程，并为需要额外练习的学习者提供更多练习。这不仅帮助教师满足不同学习风格和水平的需求，还促进了他们教学能力的发展。学习者也可以被要求探索他们自己和同学使用的策略，并在适当的情况下尝试新的策略。
One of the advantages of talking about language as proposed here is that such discussion contributes to the development of skills for continued autonomous learning (Borg, 1994), and students gain confidence in their ability to analyse the data available in the language to which they have access. Making generic and cultural aspects of the language explicit and available to learners in their textbook gives them more control over their learning environment. Another important aspect of the move to greater self-direction is the ability to evaluate the performance of oneself and others. Materials, therefore, need to build in self-assessment tasks which require learners to reflect on their progress. 谈论语言的一个优势是，这种讨论有助于发展持续自主学习的技能（Borg, 1994），学生在分析他们所能接触到的语言数据时会增强自信。将语言的通用和文化方面明确化并提供给教科书中的学习者，使他们对自己的学习环境有更多的控制权。向更大自我导向转变的另一个重要方面是评估自己和他人表现的能力。因此，教材需要设计自我评估任务，要求学习者反思他们的进步。
MATERIALS NEED TO BE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO CATER TO INDIVIDUAL AND CONTEXTUAL DIFFERENCES 材料需要足够灵活，以适应个体和情境的差异
Although language is a social practice, learning a language is largely an individual process as learners seek to integrate newly perceived information into their existing language system. It is essential for teachers to recognise the different backgrounds, experiences and learning styles that students bring to the language classroom, and the impact these experiences have on what aspects of the input are likely to become intake. In other words, it is to a large extent the learners, not the teachers, who control what is learnt since it is they who selectively organise the sensory input into meaningful wholes. 尽管语言是一种社会实践，但学习语言在很大程度上是一个个人的过程，因为学习者试图将新获得的信息融入他们现有的语言系统中。教师必须认识到学生在语言课堂上带来的不同背景、经验和学习风格，以及这些经验对输入的哪些方面可能成为吸收的影响。换句话说，在很大程度上，控制学习内容的是学习者，而不是教师，因为正是他们选择性地将感官输入组织成有意义的整体。
This diversity of response provides classroom teachers with a rich source of potential communication as learners and teachers share their reactions to the materials and compare cultural differences. This presupposes that the teacher is prepared to adopt an interpretive rather than a transmissive methodology (Wright, 1987) and to adapt the materials to the context in which learning is taking place. Without opportunities to interact with one another, the teacher and the language, students will not be able to confront their hypotheses about how the language system is used to convey meaning, and then check these intuitions against the understanding of their fellow students and the teacher. It is this kind of open interaction which helps make explicit the underlying cultural and linguistic assumptions and values of both teachers and learners. Such assumptions and values become negotiable when they are made overt. 这种反应的多样性为课堂教师提供了丰富的潜在沟通来源，因为学习者和教师分享他们对材料的反应并比较文化差异。这假设教师准备采用解释性而非传递性的方法论（Wright, 1987），并根据学习发生的环境调整材料。如果没有相互互动的机会，教师和语言，学生将无法面对他们关于语言系统如何用于传达意义的假设，然后将这些直觉与同学和教师的理解进行对比。正是这种开放的互动有助于明确教师和学习者的潜在文化和语言假设及价值观。当这些假设和价值观被明确出来时，它们就变得可以协商。
LEARNING NEEDS TO ENGAGE LEARNERS BOTH AFFECTIVELY AND COGNITIVELY 学习需要在情感和认知上同时吸引学习者
The language classroom involves an encounter of identities and cultures, and it needs to be recognised that language learning (particularly in a second language context but increasingly in foreign language contexts as the world shrinks) requires the active participation of the whole learner. The integration of new knowledge into the learner’s existing language system occurs with certainty only when the language is used spontaneously in a communicative (purposeful) situation to express the learner’s own meaning. Such real communication, however, implies the engagement of genuine interest and will depend, in part at least, on the presence of a positive group dynamic in the classroom. The input from the materials provides linguistic and cultural preparation before, or in parallel with, the learner-generated language which is the ultimate goal of the learning process. As O’Neill (in Rossner & Bolitho, 1990, pp. 155-156) suggests:重试错误原因
Textbooks can at best provide only a base or a core of materials. They are a jumping-off point for teacher and class. They should not aim to be more than that. A great deal of the most important work in a class may start with the textbook but end outside it, an improvisation and adaptation, in spontaneous interaction in the class, and the development of that interaction. (Emphasis added) 教科书充其量只能提供一个基础或核心材料。它们是教师和课堂的起点。它们不应旨在超越这一点。课堂上许多最重要的工作可能始于教科书，但最终超出其范围，成为一种即兴创作和适应，在课堂上的自发互动中，以及这种互动的发展。
In this article, I have looked at the roles preplanned teaching materials can play, and argued that their contribution need not be debilitating to teachers and learners; they can scaffold the work of both teachers and learners and even serve as agents of change, provided they act as guides and negotiating points, rather than straitjackets. In selecting materials, of course, practitioners need to look carefully at the principles underpinning such materials to ensure that they contribute positively to the learning environment. This article outlined eight assumptions about language and learning which seem appropriate in the light of our current understanding of the learning process, and which suggest that we take advantage, not just of print, but also of different audiovisual media, to enrich the classroom learning context.重试错误原因
We obviously need much more information about how we and our students use such materials to facilitate learning. Wright (1987) suggests that we teach with, rather than through, materials, thus being free to improvise and adapt in response to learner feedback. Effective teaching materials, by providing cultural and linguistic input and a rich selection of integrated activities, are thus a professional tool which can actually assist teachers to be more responsive, both by leaving them time to cater to individual needs and by expanding their teaching repertoire. Learners, too, can benefit from access to the materials used in class, and the control and structure this allows them to put on their learning. Both teachers and materials writers, of course, walk a tightrope. The teachers’ challenge is to maintain the balance between providing a coherent learning experience which scaffolds learner comprehension and production, and modelling effective strategies without losing responsiveness to the unique situation and needs of each learner. The textbook writer’s challenge is to provide materials which support, even challenge, teachers and learners, and present ideas for tasks and the presentation of language input without becoming prescriptive and undermining the teacher’s and the learner’s autonomy. It is a fine balancing act. 我们显然需要更多关于我们和我们的学生如何使用这些材料来促进学习的信息。赖特（1987）建议我们应当通过材料进行教学，而不是仅仅依赖材料，从而能够根据学习者的反馈自由地即兴发挥和调整。有效的教学材料通过提供文化和语言输入以及丰富的综合活动选择，成为一种专业工具，实际上可以帮助教师更具响应性，既能留出时间满足个体需求，又能扩展他们的教学 repertoire。学习者也可以从课堂上使用的材料中受益，并且这种材料所带来的控制和结构使他们能够更好地进行学习。当然，教师和材料编写者都在走钢丝。教师的挑战在于保持提供连贯学习体验的平衡，这种体验支撑学习者的理解和产出，同时又要在不失去对每个学习者独特情况和需求的响应性的情况下，展示有效的策略。 教科书作者的挑战在于提供支持甚至挑战教师和学习者的材料，并提出任务和语言输入呈现的想法，而不至于变得过于规定，从而削弱教师和学习者的自主性。这是一项微妙的平衡行为。
References 参考文献
Allwright, R. L. (1981). What do we want teaching materials for? ELT Journal, 36(1). Allwright, R. L. (1981). 我们为什么需要教学材料？英语语言教学杂志, 36(1).
Apple, M. W. (1992). The text and cultural politics. Educational Researcher, 21(7), 4-11.重试错误原因
Auerbach, E. R., & Burgess, D. (1985). The hidden curriculum of survival ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 475-496.重试错误原因
Block, D. (1994). A day in the life of a class: Teacher-learner perceptions of task purpose in conflict. System, 22(4), 473-486.重试错误原因
Borg, S. (1994). Language awareness as methodology: Implications for teachers and teacher training. Language Awareness, 3(2), 61-71.重试错误原因
Clemens, J., & Crawford, J. (eds). (1994). Words will travel. Sydney: ELS Pty. 克莱门斯, J., & 克劳福德, J. (主编). (1994). 语言的旅行. 悉尼: ELS Pty.
Crawford, J. (1990). How authentic is the language in our classrooms? Prospect, 6(1), 47-5447-54.重试错误原因
Cunningsworth, A. (1984). Evaluating and selecting EFL teaching materials. London: Heineman Educational Books.重试错误原因
Donoghue, F. (1992). Teachers’ guides: A review of their function. CLCS Occasional Papers (30). 多诺休，F.（1992）。教师指南：其功能的回顾。CLCS 偶刊（30）。
Ellis, R. (1989). Sources of intra-learner variability in language use and their relationship to second language acquisition. In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.),Variation in second language acquisition: Psycholinguistic issues (Vol. 2, pp. 22-45). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.重试错误原因