To coursebook or not to coursebook? is that really the question?

What's wrong with #ELT course books? Attend @GeoffreyJordan talk on session#1 to find out #iELT15 pic.twitter.com/6SG3ddHR3Q

— InnovateELT (@InnovateELT) May 6, 2015

Geoff narrowed the topic of his talk clearly, but still the claim that this kind of CB is totally wrong and it is a problem rather than a solution for language learning rubs people in the wrong way. But they fail to focus on the matter. Before we come up with solutions, we have to acknowledge there is a problem, and also inform and discuss it as much as possible until we locally find a solution. It’s never about one illuminated person to offer solution, but for us to sit as equal where we are and discuss things openly. If of course, we put learning at the heart of our teaching!

Are materials for Kids grammar-based as well?

Although much value has been given to teaching instead of learning in practice things do not work like that. Books might tell what YOU ARE teaching, but it says nothing about what LEARNERS ARE learning.

But even so, most kids material brings activities that are much closer to the need of kids and they enjoy it. But this is only true because:

1. Children’s errors/mistakes are usually overlooked for affective reasons and because they seem to have plenty of time to acquire the language.
2. Everyone agree that children learn through play.
3. Focus is on building vocabulary (lots of time can be spent with images and vocabulary games, hence why flashcards/realia are really popular with kids teacher.)
4. Children are not taught grammar explicitely. They have plenty of opportunities to just use language in fun ways (games, songs, stories, etc.)

On the other hand teens and adults,

• are taught more often than not grammar explicitly and very little room is given for learning language implicitly. The social aspect of language learning might be completely ignored, among other things.
• errors are taken much more seriously. Materials that follow a structural syllabus give a lot of room for controlled practice. Get it right from the beginning as Lightbown and Spada describes it.
• As for play, there is a huge misunderstanding. Through play children learn about the world and develops their oral skills in their L1. The literature that talks about childhood play is talking about the natural development of children where make believe is key for children to make sense of the world. Educational play is fun, but it is not real play for development if the focus is the language and not the act of playing. While kids have all the time in the world (this in practice is not true for CBs for kids either), they are expected too to move along the syllabus, but they will rarelly be hold back.
• Teens/adults material focus little on vocabulary. And let’s not get started on vocabulary research.

Was Geoff talking about all coursebooks? Peharps, if they fall into his description of an ill-informed coursebook.

Is process syllabus better than product syllabus? Anyone who has had the experience of negotiating with learners and using digital tools or what learners bring to class, know it is really more engaging. In fact, we have tons of webinars, blogposts and workshops being given around the world from teachers for teachers sharing projects and ideas that do not fall into the CB type of activities.

Are there teachers who might lack the kind of training to take a process syllabus into their hand? Sure. Teacher Development should be core to our profession, not an option.

Ok, we have all kinds of realities out there, but what was Geoff really talking about?

The fact that CBs are designed around a structural syllabus should be enough for us all to be questioning it if it goes against learning. Teachers can’t be that blind. We get pulled into heavy-grammar teaching because the thing is there is front of us all. The whole material screams for grammar from cover to back. No matter how beautifully grammar get disguised. And what about the constant crash of beliefs? Learners and teachers alike are constantly negotiating with or without the coursebook. I’ll safely say that 50% of the time there is some kind of tension when you are using CBs. We ended up not managing learning, we end up managing to convince learners to do tasks and activities, some of which they have mininum interest in. I haven’t seen one coursebook that one student fell in love with or didn’t want to change things on it.

All CBs not matter how well designed they are (they are good in their own right of course), they won’t reach learners especially in an age where apps and internet tools are at the hand of our learners. Geoff wasn’t discussing teachers and learners’ beliefs but gave an overview well painted of what the industry is. Hugh Dellar gives even a more complete picture  of the industry in his post.

In addition to all of this, the vision of language contained with coursebooks differs quite considerably too. What might be dubbed the English File school tends very much towards a presentation of language as discrete structural grammar and predominantly single words, which generally need only to be matched to basic definitions.

Hugh Dellar

Every teacher knows that input and practice does not translate into accurate language use just because we want it to. Deep down, we all know there is something odd and rarely we have the time or energy to give it much thought (or research). We also know that most of our learners are not able to use a certain grammar point accurately after few lessons, and that some of them won’t be able to use it accurately in their speech or writing even after six months of seeing it over and over again. But the illusion that they can come from using the language mostly in controled situation or being guided by the teacher. Let go of that and teachers will freak out, I agree, but for the wrong reason. Because they are usually afraid to see how complex learning is and probably do not know how to deal with it. TD is key for change. Praxis is key for TD.

Again, What kind of coursebook is Geoff talking about in his talk?

One that has a grammar-based syllabus and one that Dellar recognizes as been established. So, why are we talking about Geoff and not this instead?

Geoff Presentation – Slide 3 #iELT15

So, let’s face it. The CBs that Geoff is critizing for ages (not only him by the way) goes against research findings and it can only make me angry that it took me so long to discover that. How on earth I was led to believe that PPP lessons would make learners learn language accurately and fluently? At some extent it provides the kind of instruction that some learners need and it is neat, but those learners are usually the ones who actually have an experience with English outside the class. They are usually not afraid to use the language in conversations or being corrected. In fact, these are very few in my context. They make teachers smile every time they open their mouth and if teachers let them, they will dominate the class. This is what the structural syllabus does. It makes teacher believe that the right coursebook will provide learners with what they need and if they fail is because they (students) haven’t done enough. Even I fall in this trap sometimes because there is a demand to move learners to the next level and it falls on our lap to decide whether they make it or not. Now how demotivating is it if you have to repeat the same book again?

I’m not trying to simplify the matter, because it isn’t simple. However, how can we pursue change if we just continue to accept things as they are opposed to what it should be? What is the point of investigating our practice if we can’t change anything? Can we really teach language without considering the people in the room? Their stories, beliefs, assumptions, dreams, fears, desires, who they are, why they are there and what they bring to class? And what to say about how all that might affect learning?

A post I totally recommend is Phillip Kerr’s Anaylitics and Elt Courses Materials. At the end he makes a point that is hard to contest. And if you take the time to watch Geoff’s presentation will see that what Geoff is trying to say is not new for those who reflects and read, but yet not have really reach teachers around the globe. So Geoff’s call for us to start looking at things locally is not an unreasonable one, difficult I guess, but not wrong.

What they need is to spend a significantly greater proportion of their time on ‘language use’ and less on ‘language knowledge’. This is not just my personal view: it has been extensively researched, and I am unaware of any dissenting voices.

Geoff Jordan’s posts and presentation:

Challenging the Coursebook: The presentation with audio (just follow the link to the slides)

Dellar defends the Coursebook

Challenging the Coursebook: Part 2

In fact, how can I disagree with Geoff when in essence he calls teachers to look at their local reality and learners before looking outside, just like Paulo Freire did? It’s a call for reflection and action!

Dealing with Differences: Gender differences and personal views

This week I was working with a lesson that is very common in any English classroom: Introducing people.

One of the suggestions from the authors in the second episode of English for Zombie Apocalipse is a 4 sentence introduction that can be explored in many ways. After following the authors’ suggestion to complete the introduction with the missing pronouns which had been reviewed quickly on the board, I decided to expand it to a more complex dialogue by having my learners suggest and create a scene to role play.

The scene needed two people (A and B) who might be walking and suddenly bumps into a friend (C). While A is so excited to catch up with his/her friend, he/she totally forgets or ignores the presence of B. A then apologizes and says, “oh, let me introduce you to my ___________” Say the name and something else about the person.

Nothing problematic about that until someone suggested that the couple could be people of the same sex. Another learner called it gross right after and another yet rejected the notion.

No idea who Robert Green Ingersoll is, but I totally agree with him.

Time for a lesson in TOLERANCE which meant something very different from what most people do out there. Tolerance is when both are respected and differences are acknowledged while setting limits to where and what one can or can’t do.

My position was simple. It wasn’t in my power to accept or reject a different way to role play. It wasn’t up to me to decide if two students (male or female) were going to act as boyfriends or girlfriends. We briefly discussed my position while leaving to them the decision to act as they wish in the role play activity. And others like me who had a different view on relationship would respect and cherish their attempt to use the language. Because we are in there to become competent users of English and not judge each other.

My personal view of family does not give me the right to dictate how people run their lives inasmuch that it does not give them the right to question my personal view. I also have the right in political debates to vote against what I believe to be against my personal views. That is the role of democracy. We have the freedom to discuss and disagree. However, my classroom is not a political arena, it is a community – a small part of society and as such there are differences we must acknoledge and respect the differences. Gender is one of those issues that people in charge tend to impose their view and diminish a view different from their own. I’ve seen this happened in both cases – pro and against gay rights.

The lessons I learned about tolerance did not come from the debate that society usually carries around with much prejudice in both sides of the debate. My personal view of respecting people’s view about life and themselves come from Jesus. The same Jesus that many people reject, despise and mock. In fact, when I hear Freire talking, I can clearly hear Jesus words which I have taken into my heart all these years.

I’m a Jesus follower. Do I love God above all things? Sure. Did God comand me to stone people? Nope. Through Jesus I learned to love, not to hate. In fact If I have to hate, I’d have to start by hating myself with all my imperfections. Jesus did not call me to judge others, but to love. It’s written all over the gospels. If there is a need to change something, it is in me. The rest is not up to me.

For those in education who believe in Jesus, I call you to take Jesus words and put into practice. But if the word of Jesus is too much for you to take in or care for, then I ask you to listen to Freire.

 According to Freire there is an essential virtue in which teachers should develop, that is being “tolerant”. He goes on explaining in the interview below that being tolerant does not mean killing your own personality, but seeking understanding through listening to one another. Tolerance can be a synonym for ACCEPTANCE. We should accept that people are different and think, see and do things in a different way. Freire doesn’t see that as something bad at all. In fact, he goes on saying that we learn different things from different people and all learning is good.

“[..] it’s through the exercise of tolerance that I discover the rich possibility of doing things and learning different things from different people. Being tolerant is not a question of being naive, on the contrary, it’s a duty to be tolerant… an ethical duty, a historical duty, a political duty, but it does not demand that I lose my personality.”

Paulo Freire

I’m sharing this story because I spent a lot of time in the last couple of years questioning my own way of reacting to this matter; and, seeking through my faith and what Jesus says what was the right thing to do. I hope that this can make you reflect on this too and instead of replicating the common approach of self-imposing yourself, let learners make their own decisions while learning how to deal with this complicated world themselves. Teens are pretty confused on how to respond to this. They should be encouraged to have empathy instead of becoming apologetic to the matter.

I can say that the student who made the comment saw that there was nothing gross about introducing or meeting a couple of the same sex. I did not interfere with their choices but I requested them to be respectful and focus on the task. I gave them the space they needed, they helped each other practice the language and rehearse the scene until they were satisfied with themselves. Before giving them the space they needed, we discussed on the board variations for the introduction supplying the language according to their ideas. If it was a friend or a family member what they could complement the introduction with.

Engaging learners with Multiple-Path Stories 1

One of the things that most of my students hate doing is reading so giving them a reason to read or presenting it in a way that is interesting is really a must. I have used OneStopEnglish graded readers with audio and even the most simple story like The Well was amazingly well accepted by the teens. I think the trick is delivering it in a way that is interesting and leave them curious at the end of each part of the story. They also like writing down their predictions and comparing with the story and sharing with others afterwards.

I bought some digital copies of The Lost Cup by Atama-ii to give to my learners. As I was assigned about couple of months ago 5 students in 8th grade, and two of them are boys, I thought this reader would just match perfectly the time. Soccer was a popular theme because of the World Cup, so I thought the reader would be really cool input material and would give me also the advantage of working on improving/recycling/reinforcing their vocabulary. Two of the boys are in the fourth semester of studying, one girl has just started this semester and the other girl is in book 2. The girl in book 2 and one of the boys in book 4 have similar language knowledge and skills. But the girl loves songs and pays attention to chunks of the language she hears and reads in the lyrics outside the class. Few weeks later, I got a new girl in the group, she seems also very comfortable with English and so far she has been very participative.

Introducing the story: Lesson 1

On the board: Jules Rimet.

What is it? Their first thought was a person. Then, I showed them the video below.

Brainstorming: After the video, they came up with a number of words related to the event. Naturally some words from the story came up. They were actively using the dictionary to help them find the words they wanted. That was a good start. This is our first class really! Last week it was just to get to know each other.

The first part of the story: Focus on Meaning

I asked them to read only the first part of the story and find any word from the text that could be added to the board.

I selected 15 verbs, some were single-word items and some were multiple-word items. As the aim here was to work with dictionary skills mostly, it took 30 minutes for them to fill the glossary accurately. I asked them to look up the dictionary and select the appropriate meaning considering the text. Then, copy the dictionary definition to the glossary.

They also helped each other by giving the definitions that they already found or that they couldn’t find in their dictionary version. It gave us the great opportunity to discuss different aspects and the importance of using dictionaries. Even if they were sure they knew the word or chunk and could fill the glossary with their own definition, I asked them to look up and write the dictionary definition to be more accurate.

Lack of vocabulary kills the story, and I don’t see comprehension questions as enough to check it. I guess like many teachers out there, I left learning vocabulary to chance and thought they would be able to guess from the context and pre-teaching vocabulary was done to a minimum. You know with words I thought they would be most likely not to know. In mixed-levels groups, we don’t have this luxuary. Lexis knowledge varies greatly from one to another. And that was when I realized that things are not as they seem to be. So last year, I decided to sit with learners  and do the reading with the whole group, first by testing their knowledge of vocabulary, then asking them to explain a passage or sentences using their own words. The less words the student knew, less he/she could really make sense of the sentence or passage. I realised that without the words, reading would be boring and daunting. It kills the magical moment of learning about the characters, the story itself. I kills the joy of the moment.

Scaffolding the reading process for my learners who attend a mixed-level class and make sure that everyone can enjoy the story became a goal. Using visual and activities that engages them is particular useful. During the brainstorming around Jules Rimet, lots of words came up. As they did, we worked on pronunciation and meaning. Sort of a ping pong approach and going back and forth to review them.

Reminder: Don’t rush into the book. Let them explore the words, engage with the topic of the passage. Create activities that help them connect to the story and the characters.

After working with the passage and a word game, I asked them to role play the first part of the story.

I aim in this class to make sure that learners in all levels either learn the most 1000 words (at least) or become fluent at using them by the end of the year. We have roughly a semester to do that. So, I can’t focus on teaching and testing specific language items as some learners in lower levels are just learning the most frequent words while in higher, they have seen and practiced with them but don’t recall them as fast as they should.

*This post had been in the draft file for weeks. I finally got the time to review and publish it.