Part I 　Reading Comprehension (60 points)

　　 Passage One
　　Directions:
　　1. Write an outline of the main points covered in the following reading material. (10 points)
　　2. What institutional constraints have been mentioned in this text? As a language learner, what do you think of the role of the individual learner, especially in terms of learner autonomy and learner possibility? (10 points)

　　Over the last quarter of the twentieth century, the (English) language teaching profession has undergone many changes. One interesting example of this is the role of materials, and in particular, in the nature of course book provision. The market for ‘main courses’ has grown enormously, and the top five course book series, in Britain alone, generate very large sales indeed. Responding to these greater rewards for producing successful courses, the series themselves have changed dramatically. Book now contain far more material, with ‘multi’ syllabuses (Swan and Walter 1984-87) as well as extensive accompanying material. In addition, the professionalism of the publishing process means that those series which are published have survived a rigorous monitoring and piloting schedule which is likely to have caused significant rejection of unsatisfactory material and revision of almost everything which remains.
　　All this, of course, represents a significant advance. It is difficult not to conclude that the materials which are now available are not simply more extensive but are also of better quality than their predecessors. In some ways these developments have rendered out-of-date an interesting exchange on the value of language teaching materials. Allwright (1981) argued that commercial materials are a juggernaut which are stifling for the individual and the mediating contributions that can be made by the teacher. In contrast, O’Neill (1982) argued that it is better to use professional materials than those produced under difficult circumstances by amateurs. The debate was nicely balanced, with each party making unanswered points, and the conclusion being a difficult one to draw. So it is all the more striking that since then the O’Neill position has seemed to prevail by default. Since the time of the debate we have seen an astonishing growth in accepted importance of a relatively small number of well produced course book series, with the result that the position that Allwright argued so cogently has been marginalized.
　　This, of course, leads us to consider the price that we have had to pay for such progress. Clearly, a central factor underlying publisher behavior is to maximize profits and the simplest equation for doing so is to sell more units. The key to achieving this is to develop a product that targets the widest purchaser group possible. Most directly of all, it is in the publisher’s interests to treat all learners as the same, in order that a course book series will not lose appeal to any particular group of buyers. As a consequence the scope to adapt material to learner differences is severely constrained.
　　But it would be wrong to think that publishers alone have created conditions which lead to such a situation. Syllabus designers, too, have taken a similar approach. The units and sequences of syllabus design are regarded as being equally appropriate for all learners, and no account is taken of styles or preferences or abilities which might make some approaches to organizing courses more appropriate for some learners than others. One could make very similar points about different approaches to classroom procedures. In general, different methodological approaches dispute principles with one another, but do not explore the more interesting question of how adapting a particular methodology for different learner types, or using different methodologies with different sorts of learner, might produce better results. In fact, methodology seems most comfortable when it is devising techniques by which large classes of learners may be organized efficiently. How else can we explain the success of thin rationales for the use of class activities such as pattern practice, drilling, and general lockstep teaching?
　　Other groups, too, participate in the conspiracy of uniformity. It is extremely convenient for administrators and educational authorities, for example, to assume that all learners are similar. A further factor in discouraging diversity of provision is accountability. Pursuit of such a goal is made much easier if one can assume that all learners are the same. One can also argue that the teacher training profession acts to consolidate many of these implicit power relations, by generally concentrating on how entire classes can be organized; by teaching teachers how to implement official syllabuses and course books, and by testing in an approved manner. There is little emphasis, in most teacher training courses, on the development of techniques which serve to adapt material to the individual learner, or on ways of fostering individuality in learning. The teacher is usually equipped to be a pawn within a larger structure, rather than a mediator between materials, syllabuses, and the learners themselves.
　　As a result of this conspiracy of sameness on the part of many of the powerful agents in the field of second language instruction, we have the paradoxical position that those with most power lack interest in learner differences, whereas those with least power, teachers, have to confront mixed-ability classes on a daily basis. It is striking that those who have no choice but to deal with the reality of classes with palpable individual differences are not provided with tools which would enable them to deal with such diversity. Whatever the reason for these shortcomings, the teacher is placed in a strange position: having to improvise with the minimum of guidance.