More Negative Impacts of Course Books

Having moved from a position a year or so ago where I was more open to course books, I’ve come to be quite strongly opposed to most of them these days.  The reason for this is not that I think they necessarily reflect ineffective teaching, but that overall course books have a very negative impact on the field of ELT itself.

Actually, course books are simply a result of previous ideas and assumptions about learning.  They are no more than a product of what I would consider to be unfavorable beliefs about teaching.  However, they now perpetuate those beliefs and, in my opinion, often represent an obstacle to change.  As many course book advocates point out, they are simply a reality in most classrooms.  Well, therein lies the problem if you ask me.

So, without further ado, here are some more reasons course books have a negative impact on ELT overall:

For Teachers

-  Promote a linear view of language learning

-  Promote an over-reliance on grammar

-  Force teachers to teach material without learner or teacher input

-  Reduces need for critical analysis of material and reflection

-  Restriction on flexibility and creativity as schools often want teachers to stick to the book

-  Books can come to be relied on too much and become a crutch rather than an aid

-  The teacher is forced to artificially manufacture interest rather than have it arise out of the students

For Students

-  Students assume completing pages = learning

-  Creates an obsession with grammar

-  Their needs, desires, and interests fall by the wayside because the book drives the course

-  Over-reliance on bite-sized communication, listening, reading, etc.

-   Besides finishing the last page, there is little sense of accomplishment or anything concrete to take home (as would be the case with project-based learning)

-  Cost

-  Loss of autonomy or having input into their own learning

-  Lack of engagement or interest in the material

-  Course books are for teaching, not learning.  Very little can actually be learned from a course book on its own.

For schools

-  The godawful assumption that the course book teaches the course not a teacher.  So many schools assume they can simply throw a teacher into a class, hand them a book, and say go regardless of the teacher’s ability and experience

-  Far too many schools adopt a course book as a rigid curriculum

-  Local culture is lost in the one-size-fits-all nature of course books

-  Progress becomes about number of pages done, not what was learned

-  Schools don’t offer development as following the book is thought to be enough

Any more you can think of?

Related Posts:

Negative Impact of Course Books Part 1

To Use or Not Use Course Books

Is Using Course Books Really a Bad Thing?

Bare Feet = No Course Book

Some Course Books Removing Negotiation & Choice

Scheduling in Course Book Abuse

The Negative Impact of Course Books on Teaching

[A note on this post:  I'm referring to course books used as a course, not course books being used as a tool or resource]

Course books do NOT help teachers learn how to teach. In fact, they all too often do the exact opposite. Following on from the last post, I’d like to continue looking at some of the negative effects of course books.

Following from my last post, a number of commentators in the dogme debate often claim that only experienced teachers can do it.  There seems to be the idea that course books not only offer structure and guidance for teachers, but that they also teach them how to teach.  Nobody is claiming this, but it follows logically from the idea that new teachers need a course book and, after learning from it, they can move on to other approaches that don’t require such crutches.

I would argue that course books actually unteach teachers. Quite honestly, I have never observed a single teacher that analyzed their course book to see what it’s doing and why (although I’ve met some trainers who do). I’m not saying some teachers don’t do this, I’m just saying I’ve never observed one.

On training courses teachers learn how to create lessons from scratch. They learn to identify aims and reflect on their practice. Course books tend to destroy this. I’m not saying this because I believe in it as a theoretical construct, I’m saying it because it is what I’ve seen again and again and again at schools I’ve worked at. With course books, there is a very strong tendency to take the book as is, walk into the class, run through the activities, and then finish. How many teachers actually look at the aims of the lessons and see if they are handled appropriately by the book, especially for their particular students? Not too many I’ve met. Instead, you often hear teachers say that someone very experienced wrote this course book and so I shouldn’t question them. They must have done a good job. Suddenly all analysis and reflection is thrown out the window!

What is it exactly that course books supposedly teach teachers? If they are actually teaching teachers something, why is it so hard for so many teachers to leave the course book behind? If the course books were somehow teaching teachers how to create effective lessons by osmosis, we wouldn’t see this issue. Instead, many teachers are completely lost the first time the book is taken away.

Now, there is one thing teachers seem motivated to learn from course books, and that’s the grammar. Most course books are still designed around grammar mcnuggets and 90% of all conversations in the teacher’s room is how this grammar point works and how to teach it. In fact, course books don’t actually teach grammar to the teachers. Usually the teacher has to go to a grammar book, ask an experienced teacher, or research on the Internet to really get a hold of a grammar point. Interesting, isn’t it? If the teachers can’t learn the grammar from the books, why do we assume the students can?

Because all the course books focus on is grammar, that’s what most teachers identify as a good teacher – one who has a lot of grammar knowledge. In effect, the course books are teaching teachers the wrong thing.

As we’ve seen, rather than help teachers develop, course books actually take away the need to become capable identifying aims, creating lesson material, analyzing material for appropriateness, and reflecting. They also give the false impression that good teaching is dependent only upon grammar knowledge.  None of this even gets into the negative impacts it has on the way students and government administrative bodies view language learning because of them.

As I’ve stated many times and places before – there are some advantages to course books but these are severely outweighed by their disadvantages.

Some reasons for using coursebooks can be found here, so I’d prefer not to rehash that too much.  I’d like to focus comments on these 3 issues:

1)  Do you think that course books can have a negative impact on teaching & specifically teacher development?

2)  In your own experience, how many teachers critically engage with their course books?

3)  Do course books promote the idea that a good teacher is nothing more than a grammar guru?

Related Posts:

More Negative Impacts of Course Books

To Use or Not Use Course Books

Is Using Course Books Really a Bad Thing?

Bare Feet = No Course Book

Some Course Books Removing Negotiation & Choice

Scheduling in Course Book Abuse

Reflections of a Teacher’s Take on the Course Book Debate

Lessons from Scratch

Once again the course book issue has raised its head in the blogosphere.  It probably started with Kalinago’s Dogme Challenge meme and now with one of Jason Renshaw’s latest post.  There is an excellent discussion there and I highly recommend checking it out.  There are a number of really important issues to come out of it that I would like to take a look at.

The first one is this old argument that dogme or any materials light methodology are only for experienced teachers.  I find this idea very questionable.  I think of my own TEFL course, courses I’ve trained on, and courses I’ve seen.  How many TEFL or CELTA courses have large segments on using a course book effectively?  Very few that I’ve seen.  Most courses teach teachers to create lessons from scratch.

If they were able to create lessons with almost no experience and no course book in training, why do we assume they lose this ability when they suddenly enter a real teaching position?  I would argue that most teachers start to learn how to teach on initial certificate courses and forget once they enter the industry with its reliance on course books, disinterest in supporting and developing teachers, and lack of a career-oriented community of teachers and many schools.

I really just don’t buy this idea that new teachers on the block cannot teach without a course book (although I would consider a well-thought out curriculum as a guide to be useful for new teachers).  If initial training courses focus on lessons from scratch and educating teachers on how to find and build materials, I see no reason why this would be a problem.

Of course at first it may take more time to be able to build lessons quickly, but that’s the case with any teacher.  Even in schools where a book is used, I still often see new teachers spending 4 hours planning a 2-hour lesson.  Having the book didn’t seem to diminish planning time unless the teacher did no more than grab the book and run through the exercises in order, which, in that case, you don’t even need the teacher there!

I remember when I first got rid of a book.  I spent hours finding material and creating lessons, but I had no guidance.  Through practice and experience I learned how to do it very quickly.  It takes me very little time to create lessons these day regardless of if I use materials in the class or not.

I am also currently running a  TESOL training course which pushes an anti-course book methodology.  None of the trainees are having undo trouble creating lessons.  Sure it takes a while, but even after their first week of practice teaching they start to get better and quicker at it.

In the end, this idea that new teachers need a course book as a crutch is not supported by the way we train teachers nor by claims that it somehow takes less work to create good lessons with them.

Your thoughts?