Choice can be overwhelming. This photograph was taken in Prague and shows just one shelf, in one cabinet, in a whole shop full of Russian dolls. I had no particular criteria in mind for my souvenir. Would four or five generations suffice, or did I want to go into double figures? Did I want glossy, primary colours or untreated woodwork and delicate glitter? It was quite the retail minefield. Teachers, it seems, can suffer from the same sense of overload when selecting materials for classroom use. McGrath ¹ invites readers to imagine such a situation – that they work in an institution where teachers are free to choose the books they teach with. I am fortunate enough to work in such an institution and have been asked to make that selection on a number of occasions. As it happens, the time is nearly upon us to choose the next course book for use with the intermediate level general English class which I co-teach so I’ve decided to work through McGrath’s suggested steps, although I anticipate that these will be modified for relevance as I go. He is emphatic that before any analysis or evaluation can take place, it’s essential to consider the context: it’s less a question of which course book is ‘best’ and more one of which is most suitable.

Context analysis and survey of learner needs

a. McGrath suggests the following for inclusion on his list of learner factors which must be considered, drawn from a number of sources. My comments follow.

1. Age range: 16 upwards. There is no upper age limit for enrolment on our courses. At present, the oldest student in the class is in her mid-fifties.
2. Proficiency level in the target language and homogeneity within the learner group: This is described as an intermediate level class. However, this is a simplistic label for many reasons. Firstly, there are the same individual strengths and weaknesses present across the current class as there are in all classes. Secondly, operating as it does under continuous enrolment, new learners will join the class on a weekly basis as time goes on. Where degrees of homogeneity exist, they are in a permanent state of fluidity.
3. First languages: Varied. At present, these include Italian, Azerbaijani, Thai, Arabic, Slovak, French and Turkish.
4. Academic and educational level: This, again, is varied. Some learners are pre-university. Others have completed their undergraduate studies and hope to continue to a Master’s. Others are more career than academically-oriented.
5. Socio-cultural background: Coming from such diverse cultures, it is impossible to make any generalisations here. The diversity itself is the most important consideration.
6. Occupation: The majority of learners are pre-employment. Those who have returned to studying later in life come from a wide range of careers although these often have involved an international aspect.
7. Reason for studying the target language: Three main reasons emerge. Firstly, as preparation for further academic study. Many of my general English learners intend to progress on to prepare for IELTS and eventual university applications. Secondly, for social, media and travel centred reasons. In recognition of English’s role as a world language, learners see competence in it as necessary when spending time outside their home country and in some cases for the consumption of media even when within it. Thirdly, for career purposes. Many learners see demonstrable skills in English as the key to future career success. This applies regardless of intended profession.
8. Attitudes to learning: These are generally but not universally positive. As self-funding, self-selecting students, motivation levels are usually high. However, some long-term learners, staying six or nine months or more, can find a dip in motivation when they reach a plateau.
9. Previous language-learning experience: All learners in the class, including those arriving, have had some prior experience of English instruction. The nature of this, its effectiveness, how much it was enjoyed and how long ago it occurred are all variables.
10. Language learning aptitude: There are big differences here and I believe that the methods used by previous instructors have a bearing on how successful a given learner will feel in my class. For example, those who are invested in the importance of repetition and rote learning may struggle to adapt to a classroom where this rarely occurs.
11. General expectations: It would be interesting to replicate McGrath’s study in which he sought students’ metaphors for course books. I imagine there would be different responses to the role it should play. As regards expectations of their own and the teacher’s role, I find that most learners arrive expecting to take a more passive role than the teaching demands of them but are soon keen to meet those expectations.
12. Specific wants: The most commonly explicated desire is for maximum speaking practice. Many learners feel that the tuition they have received previously has focussed excessively on grammar usage and reading comprehension.
13. Preferred learning styles: This is not a question I ask, as to my knowledge the backing for the concept from research is minimal.
14. Sex distribution: At present, as is generally the case, there is an equal balance between the sexes.
15. Interests: A range of the every day along with, individually, the more unusual. As would be expected in such a diverse class, there is great interest in each others’ cultural backgrounds.

b. McGrath suggests a further 10 items for consideration in his category of learners’ needs and suggests analysis of syllabi, past examination papers and diagnostic tests as potential sources of information here. This is problematic for me, in that learners enrolled on this general English course are not expected to take an exam, tests are administered at the discretion of the teacher and there is no syllabus in use. The diagnostic test used assesses grammar only. Of course, it is possible to refer to examples of students’ previous written work and to draw upon my existing experience of teaching them – but this would only cater for the needs of my existing learners. Not the ones who will arrive on Monday, or the following Monday and so on. In fact, by the time I have reached the end of the process of course book selection, the order has been placed and delivery eventually received, more than half my current learners will have moved on to be replaced by unknown new arrivals. As such, it will not be possible for me to address specifically questions as to language forms or functions required. This situation in itself calls for an adaptive approach to teaching from any course book as I discussed in this post. What follows is extracted from McGrath’s longer list, which he bases on a number of sources.

1. Dialect: As their learning is UK-based, the primary dialect of instruction is standard British English. However, as discussed above, one of the main sources of motivation for my learners is the status of English as a world language. That implies that instruction should equip them to communicate with any English speaker. Further, materials should provide positive L2 user role models for learners.
2. Language-skill emphasis: As mentioned above, it is not uncommon for learners to mention that previous instruction has focussed too stringently on grammatical accuracy and failed to provide sufficient opportunities for communicative practice. However, this is only one aspect of the language-skill divide and in any case is a generalisation.
3. Contexts or situations of use: Most situations of present use could be categorised as informal, although learners need to recognise and be able to produce language at varying levels of politeness and distance. Some learners aspire to academic study at an English speaking institution and for this, would require more formal language. However, it is outside the remit of this course to provide that.
4. Balance of receptive / productive use and language-system emphasis: Given the diversity amongst the learners, their individual strengths and weaknesses and the fluid homogeneity within the class, it is important to aim for a balance of receptive and productive skills to ensure everyone’s needs are met.
5. Attention given to mechanics: McGrath refers here to spelling, handwriting and punctuation. In a world where the majority of written communication takes place via a keyboard and can be mediated by a spellchecker, the demands that these concerns once placed on students are fading fast.

c. The next category McGrath puts forward is teacher factors. I co-teach this class with a colleague so the following comments are intended to pertain to us both.

1. Language competence: The class is mixed-nationality so any ability on the part of the teachers to speak or understand the learners’ individual language is purely coincidental. We are both native users of the target language.
2. Familiarity with the target language culture: We are both British nationals. However, this question makes an assumption about the strength of the connections between the English language and British culture and whether these links function in the same way as those between, say, the Slovak language and Slovakian culture. It also points to questions about what the ‘target culture’ is when English is conceived of as a world language.
3. Methodological competence and awareness: We are both experienced teachers and practised adaptors of materials. We have used a range of different course books previously
4. Experience of teaching the kind of learner for whom the material is being selected: We both have extensive experience in teaching general English at intermediate level in classes similar to the present one. This will be our second consecutive term as co-teachers with this class.
5. Attitude to teaching and to learners: I hope this would be characterised as a positive, open-minded, learner-centred attitude.
6. Time available for preparation: We are fortunate to be afforded more of this than some other teachers, but whatever time is made available is never enough! The administrative demands of continuous enrolment impact upon this too.
7. Beliefs and preferences about teaching: These are obviously individual to each of us. Given that we are co-teachers, it is necessary to maintain an open mind on issues such as method, insofar as these are a feature of course books and only one can be selected.

d. The final section in McGrath’s context analysis relates to the institution and requirements of the specific programme. I have omitted sections which do not apply here.

1. Public or private sector: Whilst the college receives some public sector funding, the department in which this course is operated is privately funded.
2. Role of the target language: English is the only subject presently studied by my intermediate general English learners, in the vast majority of cases.
3. Time available & timetable: This ‘full time’ course runs every weekday from 9am-12.30pm with a half-hour break. This equates to 15 hours per week.
4. Class size: This is variable, up to a maximum of 14. It is often much smaller.
5. Physical environment: Our current classroom is of medium size but is well equipped. The college itself is large and access to other rooms is possible.
6. Additional resources available: We are fortunate to be well resourced. Our classrooms feature IWBs, projectors, speakers and computers. The college benefits from a large open-access library. There is wife access and photocopying facilities are available.
7. Aims of the programme:
8. Form of evaluation: 
9. Freedom given to teachers:

 

Textbook analysis  

McGrath explains the distinction between analysis and evaluation as the former being a process leading to verifiable description whereas the latter involves making judgements. He suggests that the analysis stage should take place at three levels. In many cases, this stage would take into account a large number of possible publications. In my case, our choice is limited by a number of factors – recently used books, books frequently used for supplementation, budgetary constraints necessitating a selection from among existing resources. These factors have narrowed my choices down from the considerable number of course books on the market to two choices: Soars & Soars’ New Headway (4th edition) Intermediate or ‘Clare & Wilson’s Speakout Intermediate. 

a. The most basic level of description in McGrath’s evaluation framework, which is based on Littlejohn, ², concerns ‘what is there‘. This edition of Headway ³ was published in 2012 while Speakout ⁴, in its first edition, was published in 2011. According to the back cover of Speakout, it is aimed at adult learners, whereas Headway simply states its suitability for students at all levels. Physically speaking, the two publications are similar. They are both produced in colour, on glossy paper and appear robust. Both consist of a number of components. Headway has a students’ book, teacher’s book, teacher’s resource book and disc, audio CDs, student workbook with CD, interactive practice CD-ROM and student and teacher websites. Speakout is similar, although different terminology is used on occasion and it includes ‘activeteach’, which is an ebook version with integrated interactive whiteboard software.

Speakout has ten units, each containing two ‘input lessons’, a ‘functional lesson’ and a ‘dvd lesson’. Headway is divided into 12 units, with each unit containing grammar, vocabulary, ‘everyday English’, reading, listening, speaking and writing. In both cases, there are clearly laid out contents pages which provide orientation to teachers and learners. One big difference between the two course books is the role of DVD. Speakout is partnered with the BBC and the main listening activities in each unit are delivered through DVD based lessons.

b. The second level of analysis asks ‘what is required of users?’  I decided to look at an example unit from each publication to answer this question. First up, unit 3 from Headway. The ‘starter’ task is a whole class speaking activity, ‘fortunately / unfortunately’, which is followed directly by grammar input. Learners read a short text about Van Gogh and fill the gaps in questions about his life, which involves their deciding on appropriate auxiliary verbs for past tense questions. They listen to check their answers, before reading a longer text about Van Gogh. They then answer the questions they created earlier with a partner – the first time in the lesson a partner is mentioned, which indicates that a lot of solitary work is expected to have taken place up to this point. Further language examples – past continuous, passives in past tenses and used to – are extracted from the longer text and there is some pronunciation work based on weak forms and contractions. The next page is taken up with controlled practice exercises of various kinds and includes a section entitled ‘discussing grammar’, which invites learners to practice their use of metalanguage by naming different constructions used to refer to past time and justifying their use. The vocabulary section focusses on sound-spelling relationships, or lack thereof and requires learners to transcribe individual words from phonemic script. The reading lesson, based on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet rendered in a comic-strip style, begins with some prediction tasks, followed by gist and detailed comprehension questions. A follow up activity involves learners listening to actors delivering Shakespeare’s original lines whilst they follow along in a modern day English transcription. Two sections remain, the first entitled ‘listening and speaking: the first time I fell in love’. This begins with the students interpreting quotations such as ‘love is what is left when being in love has burned away’, saying what they understand by them. They then listen to three monologues (Sarah, Tommy and James) who recount their first experience of falling in love. This is followed by checking in groups and discussion questions, complete with more quotations from Shakespeare. The unit is wrapped up with ‘everyday English’, which involves students’ simultaneous listening and reading of a conversation between A, B and C, which exemplifies the use of question tags for eliciting agreement as well as grading adverbs. Following analysis of this conversation, learners are instructed to ‘write down some opinions’ on suggested topics and have similar conversations.

From my analysis of this unit, it seems like the material is targeted for the most part towards the individual learner, although there are some whole-class activities and opportunities for pair or group work. The presence of the book itself would be significant. That is to say, the opportunities for learners to be looking down at their page appear to be maximised. Unsurprisingly, the equivalent unit from Speakout unfolds quite differently.

The first lesson is built around a text entitled ‘life on planet teen’. It begins with some interest-generating discussion questions which are quite open-ended. For example, ‘what is the best thing a parent can do for a teenager?’. The first reading task asks learners to make any connections between the previous discussion and the text read, before a summary completion cloze text. There are true / false questions to test ability to read for details, followed by a vocabulary task and discussion questions. The grammar component of this unit is ‘future plans’, which encompasses a number of different forms exemplified in the text. There are controlled and freer practice activities on the page, and the ‘language bank’ at the back of the book is signposted. This is followed by some vocabulary work, a collocation matching task with verbs of communication, incorporating concept checking and pronunciation work; a speaking task follows this. There is then a writing task in which the students learn to use note form. A listening task provides the text for the second language point of the unit, future predictions. Extracts from the text are combined with a guided discovery task, followed by controlled and freer practice, again supplemented by the ‘language bank’. This is followed by a section on idioms, which includes example sentences, true/false concept checking questions on the nature of idioms and an error correction task – at all stages, learners are prompted to check with their partners or to work in pairs, as is the case throughout the majority of this unit. There are two further sub-sections in this unit, the first of which is based on the function of dealing with misunderstandings. There is a lead in task, followed by a vocabulary matching activity, then the language – ‘I didn’t catch any of that’, for example – is provided through a listening text. This is followed practice activities, culminating in a role play. The last sub-section is a lesson based around a DVD clip, taken from ‘The Virtual Revolution’, a BBC documentary. There is a lead in task which also provides the opportunity to check key vocabulary. The text is introduced through a short program introduction, which is accompanied by gist questions. The DVD itself is accompanied by an ordering task and followed by a matching task. The follow up takes the form of group discussion questions. An additional, less structured speaking task follows, with useful language introduced in an introductory listening exercise. The final task is writing – learners are required to write a memo introducing a new office policy using a set of notes provided. Additionally, there is an end of unit review.

Both books have notes on grammar usage in the back pages – Speakout’s version (the ‘language bank’) also contains practice exercises. Speakout additionally contains a ‘vocabulary bank’, with further language relevant to each unit, whereas Headway favours a ‘wordlist’, which appears to summarise new words introduced. Both books have additional materials for communicative tasks and a list of irregular verbs and audio scripts. Headway also contains a separate writing task pertaining to each unit.

c. The final stage of course book analysis, as suggested by McGrath, involves looking at what is implied. This involves a consideration of the claims being made by the authors and publishers and attempting to discern any inherent assumptions about the language learning process. The teachers’ manuals serve as informative sources on the stated beliefs that informed the production of the two publications.

From the opening page of the Headway teachers’ book come the following comments:

“Headway has made a significant contribution to English Language Teaching for over 20 years”

“Traditional methodology: a grammatical syllabus with controlled practice; systematic vocabulary work, and reading and writing activities.”

“The upfront, systematic, and effective treatment of grammar is a hallmark of Headway. At the intermediate level, we increase students’ awareness of grammar by comparing and contrasting structures with similar items”

Speakout’s authors make the following remarks on their equivalent page:

“Before we started writing Speakout we did a lot of research to find out more about the issues that teachers and students face and how these can be addressed in a textbook for the 21st century. The issues that came up again and again were motivation, authentic content and the need for structured speaking and listening strategies”

“With access to the entire archive of the BBC, we have selected some stunning video content to motivate and engage students. We have also created tasks that will encourage interaction with the materials while providing the right amount of scaffolding”

I would argue that these opening comments provide valuable insights into the values behind the two books they represent. Headway’s make immediate reference to their successes over their 20-year history. Conversely, Speakout, as a new publication, distinguishes themselves from the alternatives with their claim of readiness for the 21st century. I counted 11 the words ‘grammar’ and ‘grammatical’ 11 times on the first page of Headway’s teachers’ book; the equivalent page in Speakout contains 10 usages of ‘authentic’ or ‘real’. This observation, coupled with the quotations above point very clearly to the ethos of the respective writers.

Clearly, despite its avoidance of the term, Speakout does contain grammar input along with its BBC-derived authentic content, but the way such material is presented gives us further information about how the writers see language learning. Language appears to follow a text in Speakout – the learners are asked to read or listen to something, their attention is drawn to particular extracts, they are asked to notice particular features and extract rules based on this. In the Headway grammar lesson, on past tenses, students are required to decide whether the past simple or continuous, active or passive, subject or object question is required in 15 different cases. The short text which they have read is intended to ‘inspire’ the concept of the question; presumably learners are supposed to call upon their existing grammar knowledge to complete the task. In the absence of this, input from the teacher would be necessary. These contrasting approaches also cast light on the intended role of the teacher – it would appear that the Headway classroom would have a much greater degree of teacher-centricity when compared with Speakout.

There are also differences in how the two publications approach functional language. In Speakout, this appears to be achieved lexically, through the contextualised introduction and practice of fixed and semi-fixed phrases. For example, the section in unit 3 contains: ‘Can you say that again?’ / ‘Could you repeat the last part’ / ‘I don’t get what you’re saying’ and ‘What exactly do you mean?’. By comparison, grammar takes a more central role in this section of Headway’s unit 3 – from the conversation which opens the lesson, learners extract the rules around question tags for eliciting agreement: ‘We had a great time in Paris, didn’t we?’ / ‘The weather was lovely, wasn’t it? / ‘It’s a lovely day today, isn’t it?’ and  ‘The French really love their food, don’t they?’ before considering how to use adverbs to grade adjectives: ‘It’s bad’ / ‘It’s just awful!’ / ‘It’s absolutely awful!’. The Speakout lesson culminates in a guided role play, whereas Headway instructs learners to ‘write down some opinions on’ every day topics. No scaffolding is provided for the suggested task of asking for and giving opinions in pairs. What does this tell us about the two publications? It seems a statement of the obvious that there was a good reason for the 11 occurrences of the word ‘grammatical’ on the first page of Headway’s teacher’s book – from my comparative analysis of the two units, it would seem that even the so-called ‘communicative’ lessons have a heavy grammar focus.

 

Evaluation

At this point, McGrath would suggest a ‘first glance evaluation’, to dismiss any titles that are clearly unsuitable, as such economising as far as possible on time. If choosing from every title on the market, this would clearly be wise. As it is for me, the choice has already been narrowed to x or y. So my thoughts turn to how to begin the evaluation process, which given that it involves making judgements rather than simple description, I expected to be more complex.

Tomlinson ⁵ debates the usefulness of checklists of evaluation criteria and concludes that most of those put forward are flawed in one way or another. In some cases, this is due to lack of clarity on the part of the author as to the aforementioned distinction between analysis and evaluation; some contain questions which are simply not possible to answer, or not possible without resources that the average teacher-evaluator would lack; in others the failure appears to result from lacking genralisabilty – Tomlinson and McGrath are both emphatic on the point that evaluation is context-specific.

So, if a published checklist is not the answer to question of how to evaluate a course book, then what is? Tomlinson suggests, referencing his own earlier ⁶ work, that such formalised lists are unrealistic. Instead, teacher-evaluators are encouraged to ‘develop their own principled criteria which take into consideration the context of the evaluation and their own beliefs’. He advocates this as a first step in the process, and emphasises the importance of returning to the principles and allowing them to inform decisions. And that, I think, is what I have done! The principles which I generated, following discussion with my peers are summarised here. I have returned to them to evaluate materials I have produced here and here. All that remains is my judgement on the case of Headway vs. Speakout…