Job Discussion Forums

[Sashadroogie]

Based on a casual conversation from the staffroom, I think it would be interesting to see what other posters think of a question raised there.

Namely, have ELT course books been 'dumbed down' for teachers' use over recent years?

When I look back at 'Kernel Lessons', or the mighty 'Headway', and compare them to New English file, for example, it does seem to me that EFL teachers do not need to do too much in the way of lesson-planning or adaptation, like we did before. But does this mean that course books have become better, savvier, replete with photocopiable resourses, or does it reflect a growing awareness that lots of EFL teachers cannot be depended upon to exploit material independently, owing to inability?

Answers on a postcard to....

[spiral78]

Interesting question. I think the publishers have very much shifted to catering to teachers who really don't put much into preparation. We use NEF here for a few low-level groups (not typical among our students) and find that a few of our teachers really LIKE working with these materials. The teachers who gravitate towards this particular course fit a pattern of preferring 'old school' teacher-centred methodologies and often limit their own input into a course to deciding that chapter 4 is really best addressed prior to chapter 3 or something like this.
Our current manager (who has zero background as an educator and hasn't really got the whole picture of what we do) is a huge proponent of all book-based, all the time. She's encountered huge resistance - - - - - from students and faculties, along with the better-qualified and more interested and enthusiastic teachers.
I don't know if my little slice of 'real life perspective' is typical, but it seems to me that the books do indeed cater to teachers who like the 'turn to page 42 and we'll do the exercises together' approach.

I won't even try to get into my own feelings about turning over a course to publishers who by definition do not know our students, their goals for learning, or our teaching context.....

let's just say I'm a course and curriculum developer by choice (and education and experience).

[steki47]

The "McDonalization" process is happening everywhere. In every industry. But, yes, I have seen it in EFL textbooks. Honestly, I don't see it as a serious problem. The teacher's editions have lots of notes and support for teachers. This is great for new teachers who don't have a repertoire of activities. As one gains experience, you can add your own ideas.

[Glenski]

I don't think the material in EFL/ESL textbooks has been dumbed down. I've been in the game for about 12 years.

If anything, textbooks have provided students with more activities to do, to the point that you sometimes can't finish a chapter in the same amount of time anymore and have to skip things (or assign them as homework). I think the books are being created now to take advantage of more ways of learning (kinesthetic, visual, aural, etc.), so they have more things in them, and more & more books include CDs, whether you use them in the class or assign them as HW or drills.

I applaud a good teacher's manual. Give a newbie or a tired veteran some new ways to teach the same old stuff! Don't assume either person knows it all. Touchstone is an incredible series with fantastic teacher manuals. And, you don't have to follow anything to the letter at all, but the text and manual help a teacher do so much more than before. Dumbing down? No, smartening up!

[lostdegaine]

I've been teaching for 25 years. I have to admit I miss the late 80s when books like Great Ideas and Challenge to Think were popular. I had much more fun doing them than wading through Headway.

[mozzar]

As a fairly new teacher I've found that books can be extremely useful for the lower levels who prefer a more structured approach a book can bring - the books are more often than not developed by people with extensive experience and are better targeted, perhaps, than any course material I could prepare. They also have far more resources in regards to listening exercises using different voice actors.

For the more advanced students though I think it's better to use more specific material to suit their needs. When beginning a language you always have to learnt the same stuff but as you progress you can diversify.

[johnslat]

OK, I'll admit it. I have never used any text as anything more than a "take-off" point. Since most places I've taught do it backwards (i.e. pick a text and then design the syllabus around it,) I necessarily have to follow the syllabus.
But, of course, there is no such thing as "the perfect text," so I take from it whatever I think is useful, skip what I think isn't (which is often a lot,) and make up the difference with my own materials.
Regards,
John

[coledavis]

I think there has been 'dumbing down', but I don't consider this to be about making the teacher's job easier. It's the content.

May and Might have become the same.

Everybody says 'ing' without any g. Now diction is far worse than when learners started by over-emphasising it.

Oh, and coffee table book accessibility. If I hear any more about Princess Diana and current pop stars and alternative therapies (discussed almost uncritically) and horoscopes and (I don't want to think about it any more).

What is wrong with teaching people old-fashioned - no, correct - English and allowing people to learn pop culture nuances as an afterthought? I don't believe that people will find themselves on a limb if they don't happen to know some daft ephemera; they'll pick those up as and when they visit that particular country, if those expressions, or indeed that country, still exists.
Sorry, I have a cold. Maybe it is contributing to my crustiness.

[Sashadroogie]

Crustiness! Ha! Great word. Get well soon.

My own view is that course books today come complete with everything a teacher would need in the classroom. As has been posted, teachers' books have been beefed up considerably, photocopiable worksheets aplenty, CDs for everything. All very welcome, may I hasten to add. It does indeed make life easier.

However, I sometimes find that it can be too easy and encourages lazy practices. Teachers can just slavishly follow unit after unit unthinkingly, always assured that they can fill the lesson time with some juicy ready-made game still hot off the presses (well, OK, the photocopier). But all groups get the same dose of English File or whatever, regardless of their needs.

I seriously doubt that some of my younger colleagues could adapt a dry old Headway text and make a productive lesson based around it. I think that takes a touch more teaching ability, and certainly the ability to plan lessons effectively.

Maybe I'm just a Luddite, back to the future. Maybe I'm a crusty chappy myself. I mean I am happy, very happy, with current course books. But I still feel something is lacking nowadays - can't put my finger on it. Sort of like when I started buying those new shiny discs that played music with lasers, but sounded so cold....

[coledavis]

One of my colleagues agrees with you, Sashadroogie. He calls it like drawing by numbers.

[jr1965]

[coledavis]

[jr1965]

Cole,

Don�t get me wrong. I�m not saying that textbooks shouldn�t go beyond topics such as sports, film, celebrities, dating. I�m just saying that these are perfectly acceptable lesson themes, particularly if you�re working with teens (and especially if they�re low-level learners). And all can be used to generate a lot of practical language.

[coledavis]

Yes, I agree that there is nothing wrong with everyday themes, just that I think that more substantial issues could be addressed in addition.

Ok, as an example: how about the social psychology experiment by Milgram on conformity? Plenty of action, implied or actual (if you can get a recording). The people apparently electrocuting somebody who gets test answers wrong are in fact the ones being tested, for their conformity to authority figures. It opens up other areas - pick your topic for exclusion or inclusion - Hitlerism (the original reason for Milgram's experiment in America, social experiments, authority, the use of torture. And ask if time (Milgram was decades ago) or nation or gender are factors - the answer, I think, is generally negative. They recently tried it out on a television programme, I think in France.

For upper intermediates, you've got room for passive (scientific reporting). For intermediates, you've got -ing and -ed (torturing. tortured; observing, observed). etc.

[Kofola]

The real problem with text books, I think, is that they are aimed at the teenager/young adult market and are pretty dumb when you are teaching intelligent adults 30+. People in this age category discuss kids, cars, the housing market, work etc - none of these are dealt with in the general English books. The way they put their language together is different as well; they tend to philosophise more/wonder about things. This kind of functional language is rarely covered. Conjunctions are also neglected.

These textbooks don't take into consideration that the older the adult the larger the gap between reading skills and grammar knowledge. So, often while the grammar points will be relevant, the texts are too easy and demotivating, because they assume that the student is an idiot. Go up a level and the texts are fine, but the grammar points are not general enough or are exam oriented.

Business books are even worse. Massively inappropriate for the managers and CEOs I teach as they approach the topics as if the student knows nothing about it. Plus why does every business book have a section on the environment - have yet to meet anyone with a) control over environmental policy in the company and b) the slightest bit of interest in it. Probably a quarter, if you're lucky, of the topics will be vaguely relevant, the rest will be a total waste of time and there is nothing on the subjects that really interest people: delegation, organisational change, motivation etc.