Job Discussion Forums

[basiltherat]

A part time colleague was shuffling through our supp material library one day last week and claimed he was surprised to see some quite old textbooks from years gone by.

"Gee ! You're not still using this, are you ??", he said, flipping through a copy of Meanings Into Words (first published in 1983).

Since I have been responsible for stocking the library from the very beginning (it hadnt existed before), I asked him why he was so surprised.

"This is ancient. No one uses this stuff anymore !"

I am not suggesting that we should rush to use anything from publications like English 900 (can anyone remember that series ?) which adopted a completely different methodology from the ones now. But some tasks in older publications; such as from Meanings Into Words, work as well if not better than some of the exercises provided imn many of the more recent published textbooks.

What do you think about stuff like MIW. Do any of you still use textbooks from years gone by to supp ?

regards
basil

[Teacher in Rome]

Absolutely.

I don't generally use the books as such, but I "adapt" the ideas and put them into different contexts.

Other old stuff that I have dipped into for inspiration is Streamline - not for the methodology, but for the cartoon style. Some students really like to see picture stories and it can be a break from a more text-based approach.

I also like the old Pairwork A and B (Peter Watson-somebody).

[dyak]

I like old books too. They're far more adaptable as there's much less spoon-feeding, and often the material is more challenging. I find old books are more colloquial, certainly the British ones, and they don't sound as forced as some of the newer ones. Leafing through the fossilised remains of 'True to Life', 'Pre-Intermediate Matters' and 'Reward' is quite amusing.

[dmb]

I have a soft spot for the NECC. I t was the first book that I ever 'taught' from and I still dip into it occasionally. What was your first course book?

[Stephen Jones]

"Streamline 1" is still the best thing around for teaching basic grammar points.

the advantage of "Meaning Into Words" is that the activities are short. You don't get the "�Jo qu� s�?" response from bored teenagers which often greets any attempt at lengthier discussion. It is however somewhat boring, though the levels the two volumes deal with are the most difficult to teach in my opinion.

I would probably still consider using the first, blue, Meaning Into Words again. I definitely wouldn't use it two years on the trot.

[basiltherat]

[Ben Round de Bloc]

[ls650]

[Will.]

I have an edition from 1941 that I find invaluable, it is full of great stuff of real interest to students.