effectiveness, and the result can then go forward to inform subsequent
decisions.
In addition it seems necessary to take a preliminary look at two different
approaches to the question of die role of teaching materials. On the one
hand there is die DEFICIENCY view. According to this view, we need teaching
materials to save learners from our deficiencies as teachers, to make sure, as
far as possible, diat die syllabus is properly covered and that exercises are
well diought out, for example. This way of thinking might lead, at one
extreme, to die idea diat die 'best' teachers would neidier want nor need
published teaching materials. At die odier extreme we would have 'teacherproof
materials diat no teacher, however deficient, would be able to teach
badly widi.
On die odier hand, diere is die DIFFERENCE view, which holds diat we
need teaching materials as 'carriers' of decisions best made by someone
odier dian the classroom teacher, not because die classroom teacher is
deficient, as a classroom teacher, but because die expertise required of
materials writers is importandy different from that required of classroom
teachers—the people who have to have die interpersonal skills to make
classrooms good places to learn in. For some diis conception may seem to
'reduce' die teacher to die role of mere classroom manager. For odiers, it
'frees' die teacher to develop die expertise needed for dealing widi practical
and fundamental issues in die fostering of language learning in die
classroom setdng.