Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Adapt
i
ngYourCour
seBook:Becomi
ng
Ski
l
l
edi
nt
heAr
tofMani
pul
at
i
on
Ti
m Dal
by
Jeonju University
Abst
r
act
In language teaching situations all over the world, course books are
the mainstay of many teachers lessons. Whether new or experienced
as a teacher it soon becomes apparent that assigned course books have
advantages and disadvantages for a class at any given time. This paper
attempts to review current thinking on the use of course books for
language teaching and then provide a series of adaptation methods
to help teachers ensure a better fit between the course book materials
and their learners needs.
Keywords: course books, curriculum, syllabus, materials, Korea, professional development.
I
.Cour
seBooksAr
en
tAl
lBad
Take a random selection of teachers and ask them what they think
of their current course book and you will probably get an overwhelming
sigh and some sporadic grumbling. Ask these same teachers to then
think about the advantages and disadvantages of course books and
you will hopefully get a more circumspect discussion ending with a
fairly evenly balanced list. I have tried this activity during several
course book workshops with over one hundred English language teachers
in Korea from a variety of teaching backgrounds and contexts. The
lists I get are generally similar and the main points are discussed in
more detail below.
1.1 Advantages
Course books provide guidance
As is the case in many parts of the world, many teachers in academies
and the public school system in Korea have no formal English-language
teaching qualifications or experience (Maley, 1992; Shin, 2004, p.68).
For these teachers, course books can provide a welcome level of guidance
on how to teach particular language structures or skills (Ur, 1991, p.184).
They can also provide professional development opportunities
(Cunningsworth, 1995; Cunningsworth & Kusel, 1991; Littlejohn, 1992;
Richards, 1993) in addition to those provided by their employers (if
any) or organizations such as Korea TESOL.
Course books save time.
For the busy teacher, a course book means a reduction in the amount
of planning that is required to teach a class (Graves, 2000, p.174).
Materials are (usually) neatly presented along with a series of activities
which takes the leg work out of lesson planning.
Course books provide a starting point for further activities.
The topics that are covered in course books provide teachers with
a jumping off point from which they can delve into deeper areas with
their learners. This could include getting into aspects of culture, looking
at different viewpoints in an argument and doing research. This view
is supported by Harmer (2001, p.8) who talks about course books as
...proposals for action, not instructions for use. It refutes the idea
that teachers slavishly follow a course book. Take the example of communicative language teaching in Vietnam where materials are used in
the classroom in a wholly different way than intended by the materials
developers (Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996, p.202).
Course books provide structure.
In any communicative language classroom there is a level of uncertainty and change that can be both threatening and uncomfortable
for learners. The course book provides a structure so that the level
of unpredictability is reduced for learners and the learning event becomes
more tolerable (Crawford, 2002, p.83). Likewise, the course of study
is predictable for the teacher who is able to see how a particular lesson
fits into the course of study.
Learners expect a course book
Although a teacher in Korea may believe this to be a particularly
Korean issue, it is more widespread than that. Learners like to have
a course book because it gives them some control over their learning
(Crawford, 2002, p.83). There is also the view of course books providing
both authority and expertise (de Castell, Luke, & Luke 1989), where
teachers handouts do not (Harwood, 2005, p.151).
1.2 Disadvantages
Course books are a straitjacket.
For more experienced teachers, a course book can limit the amount
of creativity and freedom allowed for a class. This is especially true
in large programs where the learners are given tests which are based
on the course book. This is a form of negative washback which affects
the teachers and learners alike (Taylor 2005, p.154).
Course books are poorly designed.
Of course this depends on the course book, but it is fair to say
that production standards vary from publisher to publisher in terms
of the quality of the paper used, the layout, and the number of typographical
errors encountered in any given publication. One workshop participant
described a teachers book she was assigned as being unusable as it
was written entirely in Korean.
Course book topics are boring and/or irrelevant.
Most teachers would agree that at some stage they have come across
a topic that bears no relevance to themselves or their learners. It could
be that the materials are out of date or feature a celebrity that has
no following in a particular country. Either way, the materials lose
validity for the learners and teachers alike.
Course books are culturally removed.
As many course books hail from British or American roots, it is
1.3 Balance
There are of course many other arguments that can be leveled both
for and against the use of course books (see for example, Crawford,
2002; Graves, 2000; Harwood, 2005; Richards, 2001; Ur, 1991 for
more in-depth analysis). In the end, we need to accept the fact that
course books are not going away anytime soon. Most of us, at some
time, need to use them, so we should try to find the best way to
incorporate them into our program of learning.
I
I
.Eval
uat
i
ng Cour
seBooks
Before this can be done, there is a need to understand a course
book in a particular context. Course books are necessarily a compromise
between what the authors want to produce using the very latest and
best teaching methodologies, and what publishers know will sell (for
an in-depth analysis of how a course book is produced from conception
through to publication see Bell & Gower, 1998). Course books are
designed for everyone and for no one (Graves, 2000, p.174), but without
doubt there is a need for the teacher to understand the course book
that is being used. There are several lists of criteria for evaluating
course books currently available (see for example, Breen & Candlin,
1987; Cunningsworth, 1995; Dougill 1987; Hedge, 2000; Hutchinson,
1987; Richards, 2001; Sheldon, 1988; Ur, 1991) and an interesting
research question could be formulated to discover how widely, if at
all, they are used. In the event that formally developed evaluation criteria
are not used, what then is the basis for institutions to choose the course
books they choose? Leaving these questions aside, I would like to
introduce a simple set of course book evaluation criteria that were
used successfully in my workshops by experienced and inexperienced
teachers alike. The criteria were developed by Tanner & Green (1998,
p.121) and are presented in more detail below.
I
I
I
.TheAr
tofMani
pul
at
i
on
Whatever ratings a course book may receive after being given a
thorough evaluation, at some point it needs to be used in the classroom.
The level of fit between the needs of the learners and the resources
available in a course book will vary from course to course and class
to class and so, to be effective, the teacher will need to manipulate
the materials in some way. Graves explains that course book adaptation
can happen at three different levels the activity level, the unit level
and the syllabus level (2000, p.188). Syllabus level adaptation is taking
a course book and reordering the units and/or adding supplementary
materials to the units to better fit the learners needs over a course
of study. At the unit level, the steps in the order of activities in a
unit are changed. In an example of this, Graves gave twelve activities
from a course book unit to groups of teachers and asked them to produce
a unit plan for their students. At the end of the activity, each group
had reordered the units in a totally unique way, and none matched
the original course book order (2000, p.197). For simplicity at this
level, I will again turn to Tanner & Greens categories which I have
adapted into the easy-to-remember acronym DEAR (1998, p.122).
FIGURE 2
What do you know about each culture?
(Breakthrough Level 1, p. 66)
like to live and why or which person they would like to be and why.
Images of celebrations, traditional ceremonies and festivals could be
compared and contrasted with similar events in Korea. For a more
creative angle, groups of learners could create a ceremony, holiday
or tradition similar to the picture. The picture could encourage learners
to write a story or a newspaper article with the learners as reporters,
again with a comparison or a contrast to what occurs in Korea.
Speculate about the picture.
Getting learners to think outside the box, or picture in this case,
helps to get the creative juices flowing. Ask learners to decide whats
happening outside the picture and why. They could discuss or write
about why the people are there, who they are, what they are doing,
their relationship, when they arrived, how long they have been there,
when they will leave, how they are feeling and why.
Thinking more about a person, learners could speculate about the
persons job, age, education, family, lifestyle, nationality, their hobbies,
personal relationships, political opinions and musical tastes. They could
think about the persons favorites in terms of the food they like, the
types of restaurants they go to, the vacations they take, and sports
they enjoy. Learners could think about what the person or people did
yesterday, what they have done in their lives, what they are doing
later today, what they are going to do next year, a secret they have,
or a crime they have committed.
If the picture shows a group of people, learners could rank the
people in terms of who earns the most money, who is the most educated,
who has the most interesting job, who has the most friends or enemies,
or who is most likely to commit a serious crime. Once done, learners
could compare their rankings and discuss any differences. Learners
could decide who they would most or least like to have dinner with
and why. They could discuss which of these people they would be
and why.
If the picture shows a problem, learners could talk about the problem
being shown, why the problem developed, and possible solutions to
the problem. In a cityscape, learners could discuss everyday life in
the city, the possible advantages and disadvantages of living in the
city and compare this with living in the country, the sounds, noises
and smells of the city. Thinking more about vocabulary, learners could
figure out how new vocabulary in the course book can be related to
the picture. Ask learners to think about whether they would like to
live in the city and why. They could also think about whether they
would like to visit this place and, if so, who and what they would
take with them and why.
Production.
For more focused production activities, take a picture and have
learners talk non-stop for one minute about the picture without hesitation
or repetition. Have learners look at two pictures then, in pairs or threes,
see how many sentences they can make about the first picture in one
minute. Then do the same for the second picture, but learners have
to try to beat their first score. Learners could be asked to look at
a picture for one minute, close their books and then tell a partner
everything they remember about the picture, as in the example below
from Top Notch Level 1 (Saslow & Ascher, 2006).
FIGURE 3
Remember as much as you can.
(Top Notch Level 1, p. 76)
Learners could also ask each other their opinions about the picture.
Learners could be encouraged to use the target grammar, vocabulary
or exponents to interview a person, object or animal in the picture.
If it is an event, the learners could interview an eyewitness. If it is
a city, interview someone who lives there.
Have learners brainstorm anything that comes to mind about the
picture. They could give a personal reaction to what they see as
in the example below from Top Notch Level 1 (Saslow & Ascher,
2006). They could talk about how they feel about a particular person,
event or place shown in the picture. They could talk about which parts
of the picture are most or least important to them and why.
FIGURE 4
Write a personal reaction to the story
(Top Notch Level 1, p. 72)
I
V.Fi
nalThought
s
Throughout the world, teachers of English language are thrust into
a classroom, course book in hand and told, Teach that! It is neither
ideal, nor pedagogically sound, but it is the reality of an ever-expanding
and diverse industry. No matter how controlled the working environment
is, there is always room for adaptation at the activity level. As a teacher
becomes more proficient, the activities suggested above will become
second nature and lesson planning will become easier with more focus
on what the learners require. A teacher may even start to enjoy using
a course book for the challenge of adapting it to his or her learners!
In a less controlled environment, teachers will have the ability to
adapt course books on the unit level. At this point, course books become
less of a crutch and more of a tool. Teachers have more freedom and,
as they experiment and learn about what works and what does not
work, they will begin to gain an insight into syllabus and curriculum
design.
As a teachers experience grows, and as they move into more senior
teaching positions, educators will have both the confidence and experience to adapt course books at the syllabus level. It is worth remembering
though that the teachers who have to work with a syllabus are probably
busy adapting the materials that have been so carefully prepared. My
hope is that senior teachers in course management positions will see
this as a positive step in their staff and so reward and encourage them
for their efforts. After all, if our learners needs are being satisfied,
what more do we need to do?
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Paul Michel of the Caledonian School
in Prague for many of the adaptation ideas presented in this paper,
as well as the two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions for
improvements.
Ref
er
ences
Alderson, C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bell, A. & Gower, R (1998). Writing course materials for the world:
A great compromise. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development
in language teaching (pp. 116-129). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Breen, M. P. & Candlin, C. N. (1987). Which materials?: A consumers
and designers guide. In L. E. Sheldon (Ed), ELT textbooks and
materials: Problems in evaluation and development (pp. 13-28).
London: Modern English Publications and The British Council.
Bruton, A. (1997). In what ways do we want EFL coursebooks to
differ? System, 25(2), 275-284.
Carless, D. R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based
teaching in primary schools. System, 31, 485-500.
Craven, M. (2008). Breakthrough: Success with English. Students Book
1. Tokyo: MacMillan Language House Ltd.
Crawford, J. (2002). The role of materials in the language classroom:
Finding a balance. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.),
Methodology in Language Teaching. (pp. 80-91). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cunningsworth A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford:
Heinemann.
Cunningsworth, A., & Kusel, P. (1991). Evaluating teachers guides.
ELT Journal, 45(2), 128-139.
Day, R. R. & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive Reading in the Second
Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Castell, S., Luke, A., & Luke, C. (1989). Introduction. In S. de
Castell, A. Luke, & C. Luke (Eds.), Language, authority and
criticism: Readings on the school textbook (pp. 245-260). London:
The Falmer Press.
Dougill, J. (1987). Not so obvious. In L. E. Sheldon (Ed), ELT textbooks
and materials: Problems in evaluation and development (pp. 29-35).
London: Modern English Publications and The British Council.
Gammidge, M. (2004). Speaking Extra. A Resource Book of Multi-level
Tim Dalby
Jeonju University
tim_dalby@yahoo.co.uk
Received: 2009.09.11
Peer reviewed: 2009.10.28.
Accepted: 2009.11.06.