I’ve just finished my work as Lead Author of the new Pearson-Edexcel IGCSE ESL Student Book. This was my first ‘Lead Author’ role, and it involved a few duties on top of general writing. Here are some examples of those extra duties, which might be of interest to other authors being offered this type role for the first time.

So, lead authoring involved…

Writing the scope and sequence for the book

That was a new process for me and was quite an undertaking! Deciding on an overall structure for each module, deciding which sub-skills would be the focus of each unit, ensuring skills/topic/task coverage in relation to the test specification, divvying up grammar points and core vocab, suggesting text types and activities to help authors hit the ground running… It was pretty epic, but I guess it was quite fun. Full marks to the publisher for allowing me that level of input into the project. Mind you, if fellow teachers hate the resource, then I’m gonna feel kinda responsible for that!

Troubleshooting

Various issues arose with the mapping of the resource, as I imagine they always do. A change to the test spec meant including some more task types; new sections needed to be added to cover additional content; another writer wanted to swap the order of units, or swap X with Y, etc. You end up quite involved in problem-solving because, having mapped the resource, you’re well-placed to know which changes will work and/or how they will impact things.

Decision-making

I don’t normally make ‘big’ decisions as an author. People above me do that, then I carry out their instructions (which I moan about of course!). This project was different though.

Whenever there was a decision about the overall content or the approach taken, I was almost always consulted. I made choices when mapping the resource which I had to justify/advocate for. The rationale behind my choices needed to be underpinned by evidence, which meant remembering lots of theory and doing some research during the project. There were also times when, as an IG ESL teacher myself, I pushed back against certain approaches or features that I didn’t feel had much value.

Still, it was a collaborative process with many people involved – all of us wanting what we felt was best for the learners. It was nice to be given more of a voice than usual during this project. It was also scary at times to be CCed into fairly deep discussions with a ‘Pete, what do you think we should do about XYZ?’ Arrrrrrrrrrrgh responsibility! Nooooooo!

Reviewing other authors’ work

There were four-then-five authors on the project. I had to review all their manuscripts at each draft stage, and have a general skim through their proofs (1^st and 2^nd) too. The publisher asked me to review specific aspects of the content – the flow of the activities, whether they had covered all content outlined in the mapping doc, etc. But, given how fun this task was, I tended to get more into it and make other comments too.

This was undoubtedly the best part of the role – it was also the most daunting. The other authors were super experienced and I didn’t feel I’d be giving them much useful input. However, the thing about experienced writers is that they’re so used to dealing with feedback. They rarely take anything personally and they often welcome suggestions. I grew into ‘the reviewing role’ as the project progressed – I think I actually got more direct because authors seemed to appreciate that.

Helping to get endorsement

This one is quite specific to the project as it was for a particular exam. The book had to be endorsed by the exam body, so they scrutinize the content a bit. I had to respond to queries from the exam peeps on certain aspects of the resource. Again, this basically involved justifying our approach to things, it’s just that it was doing so to more scary and important people.

Reviewing / assisting with author briefs

Different phases of the project (e.g. review units, exam practice sections, grammar reference sections) required different author briefs. The publisher involved me in the brief writing process, which was pretty interesting to be honest! It was mostly just reviewing the content of the brief, but it was still interesting and a new experience for me.

Writing examples

Occasionally, I was tasked with writing an example of a certain section to guide other authors. This wasn’t an ‘extra’ duty as such, because the example would form part of my writing remit anyway. However, there was a bit more urgency to creating the content, as others would need it for a model.

_______

In summary…

Mapping the content of the book and reviewing the manuscripts of other authors were the two big responsibilities on paper. The responsibility of ‘being there’ as a point of reference for everyone (editors, writers, managers, etc) was actually the more time/mind-consuming thing. Overall, being a Lead Author involved a bit more (personal) investment in a resource and more decision-making powers! But, this was one experience – I’m sure the role varies from project to project.

Take homes

• I can just about hold my own in a role like this – one with a bit more responsibility. Do I like it? Hmmm.
• I would recommend all my co-authors in a heartbeat. Kath and Steve Bilsborough, Manal Elsehwari, Trish Reilly, Liz Kilbey – such solid writers. And my development editor Alex MacKenzie was *so* good – in my Top 2 Editors ever.
• If there isn’t some kind of training around on mapping the scope and sequence of a book then there should be. I mean, there should be more training around on a lot of this stuff. Come on Kath and John, get some sessions on the go.

Categories: General, materials writing

Tags: elt, Lead Author, materials writing, reflections, scope and sequence, tefl