Views about the English as a second/foreign language (ES/FL) textbook (as a medium) polarize. Learners, teachers and educational administrators in any ES/FL situation need a textbook, though it is unlikely that they regard the prescribed ES/FL textbook as an unmixed blessing. But the very idea of a fixed textbook -- of a pre-packaged set of learning/teaching materials -- appears to be viewed with disfavour in the English Language Teaching (ELT) literature where the trend in the last three-and-a-half decades has been towards greater negotiation and individual choice in the classroom.
This paper examines the anti-textbook argument, considers the alternatives to the textbook suggested by some experts, and finds the textbook having the potential to act as a support rather than a constraint, and fulfilling a range of needs that emerge from any teaching/learning situation. The paper also discusses the factors on which the supportiveness of the textbook depends.
Realizing the Possibilities of the ESL Textbook
1.0. THE TEXTBOOK PROBLEM
The textbook exercises enormous influence in English as a second/foreign language (ES/FL) teaching. It represents for both learners and students the visible heart of any English language teaching (ELT) programme. In traditional ES/FL situations such as the undergraduate General English courses in India, teaching is closely tied to the textbook. Given the content-based and memory-oriented nature of the examination, learning English in the Indian ESL context is often, in practice, not much more than learning summaries of the set texts by heart and reproducing them. As a matter of fact, if a question which does not have any bearing on the prescribed texts appears in the examination paper, it is trouble for the examination board! The teaching and learning of English as a second/foreign language is thus almost always textbook-dependent.
But the teacher of English has a love-hate relationship with the textbook. While, on the one hand, he needs a textbook that provides him and his learners with a range of professionally developed materials within tried-and-tested syllabus structures and allows him to spend his valuable time more on facilitating learning than on materials production, he is as often as not disappointed to find that the prescribed textbook is unsuitable for his own learners. I have interviewed hundreds of teachers of English about the textbooks prescribed for their undergraduate students. And I have undertaken research projects on textbooks, which involved interactions with a large number of English teachers. I noticed during those interactions a strong and widespread grass roots discontent with ESL textbooks.
This discontent is not confined to the grass roots. The textbook is viewed with disfavour even by ELT scholars and theoreticians. But there is a difference: while the chalkface grievance is against particular textbooks, the ones prescribed, the complaint of scholars and theoreticians is directed against the textbook as a medium itself. Their complaint is that, even as a medium, the textbook is a ‘problem’ (Swales 1980). It is because ‘the format of the textbook does not sit easily with the developments in ideas about teaching and learning that have come out of the applied linguistics debate in the last two decades’ (Hutchinson and Torres (1994) – ideas which value the dynamic and interactive nature of the learning process, and which, therefore, favour greater negotiation and individual choice in the classroom. In the ELT literature, therefore, there is considerable hostility to the textbook as a medium. But, as Hutchinson and Torres (op. cit.) point out what is happening in the real world – the practical world – as against the world of ideas is interesting: the textbook has not withered away; it survives. It not only survives but thrives and prospers; more and more textbooks are being written.
That the textbook survives and prospers is proof enough that, at the grass roots level, the textbook is needed. But, in most ESL situations, the possibilities of the textbook are not fully realized – both in terms of the design of textbooks and in terms of their use in the classroom. That is why the complaint against textbooks is so widespread. My concern in this paper is to discuss those possibilities. But, before that, I shall place them in the context by surveying the anti-textbook debate. My primary concern is with the ideological issues in the textbook debate, but I shall discuss a few practical factors also.
1.1 Practical Factors
1.1.1. The textbook ignores the linguistic-cognitive mismatch
One of the fundamental problems with General English textbooks in use at the undergraduate level is that they ignore the mismatch between the learners' linguistic and cognitive levels. Conceptually or cognitively, the undergraduate learner is mature. But, as far as his proficiency in English is concerned, he is little better than a child. An average student at the first-year degree level is unable to follow lectures in English; he finds it difficult to read even simple English with ease; and his productive abilities are much worse. But General English textbooks do not normally take into account this reality. The cognitive level of the books is in keeping with the cognitive level of the learners of this age group. But, unfortunately, the linguistic level of the materials is also high, because they consist of literary and semi-literary pieces, which are beyond the grasp of the learners – and sometimes of the teachers themselves!
1.1.2 The textbook promotes content-based and memory-oriented learning
This problem is an offshoot of the one discussed in 1.1.1 above. Most of the ESL textbooks in use on undergraduate programmes are the literary-humanistic type, and the materials they offer are beyond the grasp of the learners. The teacher, therefore, resorts to what has been considered by generations of ESL teachers in India to be the only possible course in such a situation: ‘[…] lecturing, text explication, translation and dictation of notes’ (UGC 1989:18). Such a situation tends to promote content-based and memory-oriented learning, which draws a great deal of support from the examination which only seems to test memory of reproducible content.
1.1.3. The textbook lacks relevance and appeal
The relevance of an ESL coursebook depends upon whether it takes into account the purposes for which English is needed in a given context. The coursebook writer must, therefore, address himself to the following questions that Sridhar raises:
Should English be taught as a second language in order to promote the refinement of literary, aesthetic, and humanistic sensibilities or to develop competence in the use of the language in some well-defined communicative contexts? If it is the latter, what is the nature of this desired competence? That is, what are the skills that need to be developed? Are all the skills to be given equal importance, or are there priorities? If so, what are the priorities? What are the contexts in which the learners will be required to use the language? Are these ‘second language’ contexts or ‘foreign language’ contexts?
(Sridhar 1998: 35)
The appeal of a textbook depends, among other things, on whether the themes / topics of the book’s units and their language can engage the learners they are intended for. The textbooks in use on undergraduate programmes in India have often been criticized as being inadequate in these two respects. In marked contrast to the needs and interests of learners, they attempt to offer a literary orientation of the ideational content, neglect the spoken form of English, and do not provide the learners with adequate exposure to a variety of styles and registers of contemporary English.
1.1.4. The textbook lacks cultural appropriacy
At least two reasons account for the abundance of target-language culture elements in the General English textbooks in use on our undergraduate programmes: one, the books consist predominantly of texts written by British and American writers in which the use of western cultural content is inevitable; and, two, textbook writers seem to have the orthodox yet unsubstantiated belief that language and culture are inextricably intertwined and that teaching a foreign language means teaching its culture. As a result, the set texts abound in unfathomable mysteries for the average undergraduate student. Knowing well that unravelling the mysteries for the students will be a futile exercise, the teacher takes the easy way out by resorting to reduction and reproduction.
It is not at all my case that a language can be taught without its culture. ‘Cultural competence’ (Wallace 1988: 33) is, in fact, necessary for comprehension and interpretation. But, as Alptekin (1993: 140) points out, given the lingua franca status of the English language, which implies that its native speakers are not its sole owners, it is possible to express elements of any culture in English. In fact, ‘English already represents many cultures, and it can be used by anyone as a means to express any cultural heritage and any value system’ (Smith 1987: 3). Considering that familiar schemas facilitate foreign language acquisition, in particular, comprehension (Johnson 1982; Hinds 1984; Nunan 1985; Carrell 1987), the learner’s cognitive processing can be facilitated by providing him with culturally indigenous materials. The English textbooks in use on most undergraduate courses are lacking in this respect.
1.2. Ideological factors
1.2.1 The textbook pre-empts learning
This argument has been put forward by Prabhu (1990), and I shall be drawing heavily upon him here.
In most ESL situations, textbooks are centrally produced. The idea behind central production is this: textbooks are produced by experts, and their expertise should be available to a large number of people.
But, paradoxically, centrally produced materials defeat their very purpose, because they can only focus on very general needs; they cannot address the specific needs of individual learners. The result is what Sheldon calls ‘the dashing of expectations at the chalkface’ (Sheldon 1987: 1).
There is another dimension to this problem. It concerns quality – the mismatch between what quality means to the textbook writer, and how quality is perceived by the classroom teacher. Textbooks normally attempt to ensure quality by means of a careful and detailed determination of inputs and their arrangement in a well-considered order. If this quality is to be preserved, then all teachers who use a particular textbook, irrespective of their teaching situations, must use the materials in the textbook in the form in which they are provided in the textbook. The quality will get diluted when the content or the form is altered. This is what quality means to the textbook writer.
But, for classroom teachers, quality means something different. Learning is dependent not on materials themselves but rather on an optimal approximation between teaching inputs (which come from the textbook) and learners’ own investment. The input and the investment will never match because learners’ investment differs from classroom to classroom. So, teachers can ensure quality only by altering or adjusting the inputs in the light of their perception of the learners’ states.
[...]
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.