Coursebooks (The SR-EAL perspective)

Is coursebook based instruction the best we can do? The question has been around for a while and still raises strong emotions. Not since the Phonics Wars of the '80s have mild mannered EAL teachers become so perturbed over what might seem a mere matter of preference. And as in any war, we see the same old participants: the die-hard evangelists, the loyal foot soldiers (I do what I'm told), the traditionalists (It works, why change it?) and the propagandists ready to confront us with selective references to the 'latest scientific' research.

To old-hands such as myself, the coursebook debate seems every bit as gladiatorial as the melee over phonics that followed Chall's (1983) Learning to Read: The Great Debate. We all now agree that phonics works; that battle's over. But as for coursebooks, the debate remains far from settled. In the one corner we have the pro-lobby and teacher converts pushing the coursebook route among those who haven't embraced it. And in the other, a chorus of bloggers and EAL practitioners steadfastly insisting that there may just be a better way.

In this post I'll review some of the more oft-quoted features of coursebooks that make them so seductive to EAL professionals before moving on to note a few of their decidedly less appealing qualities. The post concludes with a commentary on what an idealized coursebook might look like from the SR-EAL teacher's perspective. With any luck, this will nicely set the scene for exploring at a later date how we might produce the ideal textbook should we indeed agree to continue down the 'coursebook driven' path.

So, let's begin with a list of the 'pros.' Just what is it about coursebooks that appeals so much to us that annual sales of Headway had hit a staggering 72 million copies as early as 2011?

Well, at the top of the 'for' column I imagine most of us would list "High quality of product," or words to that effect. Let's face it, a Headway, Interchange, Passport or Let's Talk! doesn't just materialize without the hard work from well-informed and dedicated professionals. The major publishing houses such as OUP, MacMillan, and Pearson ELT employ some of the best artists, copywriters and graphics designers you're likely to come across -and it shows. By the time it hits the shelves, a new coursebook from a reputable company will have visual appeal by the truckload, come with a suite of supplementary texts (pretty much guaranteed), a library of audio-visual clips and likely point you to a freebie website offering all the extra practice your students could possibly wish for. No wonder so many of us see coursebooks as a boon. What's not to like in all this?

Bear in mind, too, it's not as if we're living in the days when you had to buy into several programs to cover the main skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking). It's pretty much given that today's top selling texts cover the lot. Take Interchange, for example. Buy into that and you'll have punctuation practice, grammar exercises listening comprehension and vocabulary, the whole scheme thoughtfully tied together into a carefully integrated package. Just imagine the heartache if we had to draw up our own syllabuses and conjure up the supplementary resources. It hardly bears thinking about -the research! Proofreading! Presentation order issues, to say nothing of having to dive into the world of language learning theory to justify our choices. Could we come up with something half decent? Probably, given sufficient time. But more than likely, I suspect we'd end up with a bound collection of dodgy worksheets. After all, it's hard enough finding time for the day-to-day tasks that teaching demands without adding on the burden of authorship. We can't deny it. Coursebooks offer us valuable time savings and a product that serves up everything on a platter. For many teachers, the majority I suspect, that's reason enough not to toss out our Headways just yet.

To the usual arguments from coursebook advocates (logical structure, a foundation in current research, absence of typos, input from experts) we can reasonably add another: that warm, fuzzy, sense of security that comes from knowing that so long as we're following the 'book,' then our teaching surely remains fundamentally sound. After all, wasn't it written by professionals? For new teachers struggling with an element of self doubt and conflicted by so many expert opinions, a coursebook can seem a very good friend indeed. Put yourself in the shoes of an NQT: The boss queries why you had students complete activity 'x', or questions your introduction to a structure and, voila!, you have your answer at the ready: "I'm following the Teachers' Book; I respectfully refer you to ... (insert author's name) for elucidation." If s/he's really and truly out to get you and throws a follow up along the lines of 'But don't you feel that you need go beyond the textbook from time to time?'' No problem, you have that covered, too. You reach into your pocket, open up your packed timetable and, in the most anguished tone you can muster, solemnly confide: "There is nothing I would like more than to give unfettered rein to my creative talents. Alas! We live in a less than perfect world." I'm sure get the point.

With an ever growing number of English language learners, it comes as no surprise that EAL coursebook production has grown into its own multi-billion dollar industry. Yet despite the advertising, stellar reviews in EAL journals and special offers more than a few EAL professionals doggedly express misgivings over coursebook usage. Take, Sheldon (1988), for example. He cites concerns at two levels: 1. design, and 2. theory. Design faults include inadequate rationale for exercises, confusion over terms 'beginner,' intermediate' and 'advanced,' and over emphasis on western lifestyles and values (why do we find no discussion of poverty, disability, religion, or even pork? How come we see no illustrations of five pointed stars?). Among the theoretical shortfalls, Sheldon (1988) cites cultural insensitivity and outdatedness given the lag between launching a project and its availability to buyers. And it's not as if these criticisms are any less valid today than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Far from it. The great Scott Thornbury, no less, has argued compellingly against coursebook use for some time now -so much so that in the '90s he popularized Dogme, a methodology that all but insists upon a no coursebook classroom and a 'materials light' approach to EAL teaching in general. The term Dogme, by the way, comes from the Dogme cinematic movement (a back-to-basics initiative) that sprang up in the mid 1990s and which Thornbury clearly found inspiring. To cut a long story short, by 2009 Thornbury and Meddings felt sufficiently secure in their convictions that they published their popular Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language Teaching. For those interested in learning rather more, you can even sign up to join a dogme ELT training course.

For myself, and many other SR-EALers, what really concerns us is how commercial pressure seems to impinge upon educational content. Publishing Houses don't, as a rule, describe themselves as charities -not as far as I know. Coursebook design and production remains big business and you can bet that a new project never sees the light of day without careful thought to its income generating potential. Understandable? Fair? Reasonable? Perhaps we should leave this to philosophers. But one question we cannot pass off is this: What if commercial pressure impact upon what the coursebook sets out to teach? This should surely concern us very much indeed. I don't have anything against companies striving to make a profit; I do worry, however, that the profit goal can lead to commercial EAL courses that fall short of ideal from our perspective as EAL teachers. I doubt I'm alone in believing that here lies a genuine cause for concern. And this brings me to topic of 'homogenization' of the EAL student body.

Have you noticed how eager the advertising blurb for the latest incarnation of a popular text will promote the product as somehow satisfying all and every language learner's conceivable needs? I doubt you'll find many courses for Thai learners of English, Japanese learners of English, let alone Japanese primary aged learners studying at Such-and-Such School -some such texts, yes, but all pretty much the exception t han the rule. Grouping 'EAL' learners into a single homogenous clump has become standard practice in the publishing industry; it has been so for as long as I can remember. Take the following, for example:

Interchange

The series delivers a communicative approach, flexible unit structure and easy to use digital support, giving teachers the tools they need, and empowering students to achieve their goals. Teachers choose Interchange because it works.

New Headway

Authentic material from a variety of sources enables students to see new language in context, and a range of comprehension tasks, language and vocabulary exercises, and extension activities practice the four skills.

Speakout

Speakout is the English language course that includes video content from the BBC to engage students and make teaching easier. It follows a balanced approach to topics, language development and skills work.

All those unqualified references to students! Not Spanish students, mind; not Japanese students, not Arabic students but simply students. For Publishers it makes perfect commercial sense that a product appeals to as many customers as possible, and OUP, PearsonELT and Macmillan invest large sums to ensure that it does just that. Restrict your class of buyers (e.g. to Spanish learners in primary schools, children, etc.) and the less sales you rack up. The quest to maximize the sum of buyers also explains the safe topics around which modern EAL coursebooks present their language content (Hall, 2013). What school, after all, buys into a course that obliges students to discuss issues they would frankly rather leave well alone for fear of offending classmates? Coursebooks, in short, seek out the lowest common denominator. This accounts for why certain facets of language that we might wish to cover do not appear in the text at all. Why would a coursebook dwell on pronunciation practice with 'sh/ch' -something that Thai L1 EAL learners might benefit from- if their Spanish and German classmates can readily discriminate between these same language sounds? Better by far, from a seller's perspective, to base content on some sort of perceived common need. The particular difficulties some students may face given their first language background must necessarily fall by the wayside.

So, what do SR-EALers feel about coursebooks and coursebook usage? Opinions range from the outright skeptical to qualified acceptance. Most of us, however, will draw a distinction between coursebooks as 'we find them' and how 'they could be' if only their design incorporated the 'right' principles as a guide to content. No SR-EALer would write-off coursebooks per se. It's simply that none of the current offerings meet the specifications we look for given our students' needs. So, what then, are those specifications around which we would like to see coursebooks constructed? What type of coursebook would SR-EALers happily embrace? What cultural values would they endorse? The list below would probably meet with approval among those pushing the SR-EAL cause:

1. It is home produced. By that I mean, teachers at a particular school have fabricated the text with little or no assistance from outside agencies.

2. The course focuses upon the language needs of the particular children in the particular school where it will be taught.

3. Where opportunities arise, the course will consolidate and promote core school values.

4. The course will be readily editable -produced on a readily available word processing software. This will allow for very regular amendments.

5. In the various book(lets), the illustrations will focus upon (where possible) school buildings, school staff, objects within the school etc. A student will see pictures of other pupils,

6. The timing and presentation of topics will match up with the timetabling realities of the school and the school calendar.

7. As far as possible, the course will tie in with other subjects students study as part of their day to day studies. It will aim to recapitulate factual knowledge and skills that students are currently studying in their mainstream lessons.

We can also offer a checklist of sorts. Most SR-EALers would likely argue that a coursebook is better than another to the extent that it ticks more of the boxes. There may be items missing from the list, but I think is probably uncontroversial.

1 The course promotes, endorses and consolidates

School ethos and culture (when appropriate)

Yes/no

2 The course is designed and made by teachers with a very close affiliation with the school –ideally teachers working in the school itself.

Yes/no

3 The course exists in a form that lends itself to ‘easy’ amendment, modification and revision Perhaps e.g. you produced it in microsoft word.

Yes/no

4 Illustrations, reading passages, pictures etc will, as far as possible, relate to the school, its students and staff.

Yes/no

5 The course will address the particular language issues that teachers within the school deem important to address.

Yes/no

6 As far as practicable, supplementary resources will involve students and staff from various school departments in their production.

Yes/no

7 The course will, by design, lend itself to personalization by individual teachers to meet their particular needs. Should teacher ‘X’ wish to modify, delete or add to the course, this will prove straightforward and could be carried out at any time.

Yes/no

8 The course will be understood by all exist as a ‘living document,’ constantly evolving and adapting to meet needs.

Yes/No

9 In the interests of responding to children’s needs, the course will, as far as practicable, reinforce topics students are studying outside of the EAL lessons.

Yes/No

10 The course should not restrict a teacher to a particular teaching practice, approach or method but lend itself to the teacher’s preferential teaching style.

Yes/No

To coursebook writers I would say this: Your products have served us well and I marvel at the design and quality of your output. Even so, I suspect you would agree: The best coursebook -the best approach to EAL teaching, for that matter- derives from looking at the needs of particular students in particular schools. Once we acknowledge that basic truth then, I say, we're really on our way!

References

HALL, G. 2013. “This house believes that published course materials don’t reflect the lives or needs of learners” [online], Available at http://oupeltglobalblog.com/2013/04/05/this-house-believes-that-published-course-materials-dont-reflect-the-lives-or-needs-of-learners/#comments

Sheldon, L. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal 42(2), 237–246.