Job Discussion Forums

[The Great Wall of Whiner]

We got some new books, and I want to ask you people if you're familiar with them.

Does anyone teach with these books?

I want to talk to someone who is familiar with these books. Off-hand I can't remember the names of these textbooks, but tomorrow I'll grab a book and take it home.

I have found so many mistakes in these books, it's not even funny!

[Louis]

I think I know what you're talking about. They're based on British spelling/expressions, and have little cartoons coloured only in brown? They're horrible. My Chinese coworkers would constantly ask me about what even they could recognize as wrong, as well as the many inconsistencies and contradictions inside. And, they're pretty dry stuff for the kids, too. Good luck!

[latefordinner]

That particular set, no; but with just about any sausage factory you're going to get books full of errors. Be grateful if the chinese teachers can spot most of the mistakes. If not, then teaching them and limiting the damage that they do will become another thankless part of your job. (That's why they hire foreign experts, isn't it?) You will know that you've taught the kids well when you can give them "spot the mistake" contests.

[davis]

I can't remember the name of that text either but I had to use it my first year here. A piece of crap. You'd be better off throwing the damn thing in the trash and using your own material.

[The Great Wall of Whiner]

[Old Dog]

I've noticed with some surprise negative comments about "Junior English for China".
I've taught these texts for 10 years now and think they are wonderful. I'll explain why in a minute.
I've seen claims that they are full of errors. Where might I ask?
They are cast in British English terms since that is the form of English used in Chinese Junior and Senior Middle Schools - with occasions forays these days into some American spelling and the use of "cool".
They are well-supported by audio tape and video material, have excellent Teachers' books full of good ideas and have good student workbooks.
They are cheaply produced since they have to be affordable to even the poorest peasant children in the poorest provinces.
The vocabulary and grammar are well-sequenced. As far as grammar is concerned, they very rarely get ahead of themselves as some of the more recent, glossy texts do - and may I mention the very worst example I know, "Fun With English, Book 7".
The characters are a good mix of Chinese and overseas children but they exist in very Chinese situations. They are not slanted towards the interest of either boys or girls and do not assume, as "Fun with English" does, that readers are western-orientated rich gels just back from shopping on the Huai Hai Road in Shanghai.
If you think about the situations presented and use the grammar and vocabulary mastered, it is possible to construct endless short, amusing plays in which the students can use the vocab. and grammar they've learnt in entirely new situations.
Do think more carefully about the texts and be thankful, I believe, that they have been constructed by people who really know something about teaching English as a foreign language and writing appropriate textbooks.
If you dislike "Junior English for China", then you'll rue the day you are asked to work from "Fun with English" which seems to me to have been the result of that roomful of monkeys working endlessly on a roomful of computers - maybe infinitely. It's in Engish certainly but hardly in China. What the learning theory is that throws the whole of English grammar at a student in the first unit and why a fixation with fashion, diet and "cool" clothing is thought to be a good thing iare things that are a little beyond me.
But I guess someone somewhere made a pile by recommending the glossy new product as a replacement for very successful, if brown and white, "Junior English for China".

[Brian Caulfield]

What's the big deal. You fix the mistakes . The problem is that Chinese students don't like to spend money on books . No matter what text you use You still have to bring in other materials

[latefordinner]

Nice post, Old Dog. I've just been assigned Jnr English for China for my middle school. Not bad, compared to some of the stuff I've seen. The British English isn't so difficult, the sequencing of tasks is reasonable, and as OD notes, the situations are quite workable. I have some minor beefs, but I've always adapted texts anyways. Don't we all from time to time?

[The Great Wall of Whiner]

Old Dog Wrote:

[Old Dog]

�Whiner�, you take to �Junior English for China� with a stick, based, I take it, upon some familiarity with Book 1A. I think you do the texts a disservice and if, truly, you have been so persuasive that you have encouraged the abandonment of the texts in favour of �New Concept English�, I feel you have done your students a disservice along with it.

Your objections seem to be those of an editor more than those of an experienced EFL teacher. Maybe there are criticisms of editorial points to be made. Maybe there are errors in punctuation � though it is worth considering that your taste in punctuation may not be that of the compilers. Maybe there are errors in �colouring�. I didn�t really look for that.

From a teacher�s perspective, however, I think they do a pretty good job � and, as I know from long experience, they�ve been responsible for some remarkable language learning through the length and breadth of China over many years. As for cheapness, were you to teach in the rural areas of, say, Hubei, you�d be grateful � as would be your students and their parents for their low cost.

I think it�s a pity that you so put the wind up the Chinese staff of your school that they abandoned �Junior English for China� - though this does speak volumes for your persuasive abilities. China is difficult to move but you�ve done it, it seems. I am convinced, nevertheless, that the texts have great value and are admirable indeed. Still, �New Concept English� is an old standby here. Its approach is pretty traditional, doesn�t put great stress on a communicative approach to the learning of language but is often used as a supplement for vocabulary development, quirky though its vocabulary may be in parts.

You make other criticisms of the texts. But when dealing with a textbook for beginner students of a foreign language, maybe readers of kindly disposition should be prepared to offer some �suspension of disbelief�. Hence, maybe, one should not spend too much time wondering or worrying about how American, British and Chinese children all come to be inhabiting the same classroom.

As for the pictures dealing with Ann�s absence on p. 23 of Book 1A, I think a sympathetic reading of the text will raise no problem. I�ve been reading it for years without crisis of conscience. The teacher repeats the question, �Is she at school today?�, seeking confirmation apparently. The point is, Lesson 19 (approximately Week 3 of Term 1, Grade 1), is about the use of simple questions involving he, she and it? Hemingway may not have dealt with the situation in this way but I�m prepared to live with what the textbook writers have presented.

As for the poor 10-year old in danger, I hurried to the park to save her from old Mr Zhang on p. 21 of Book 1A. But I had no need to worry since I found Su Weifang is 12, not 10. The park seemed well-peopled as most Chinese parks are. Su Weifang is probably a Young Pioneer helping �very old� Mr Zhang who seems to be known to the children. Maybe he is lost. Culturally, there doesn�t seem to me to be anything inappropriate here.

I wrote: �They are cast in British English terms since that is the form of English used in Chinese Junior and Senior Middle Schools - with occasions forays these days into some American spelling and the use of "cool". By that I meant that, while British English is the preferred form of English in Chinese schools, I find that these days American spellings sometimes appear in some of the material I find in classrooms and even in the National Exam. As for �cool�, the compilers of �Fun with English� regard it as a very �cool� word requiring use on a number of occasions. I did not mean that �Junior English for China� has become confused in its approach.

You criticize the supporting material, particularly the audio material. It can�t be all that disastrous since, time and again, I�ve found Chinese students in village schools speaking beautiful English who had been taught by Chinese teachers whose spoken English capacities are somewhat limited. I�ve always assumed that this has been the result of the supporting audio material. Alternatively, they could be speaking in tongues and that may explain it, I suppose.

But, having said all of that, I ask again, where are the grammatical and usage errors that, it is claimed, so mar the quality of the texts?