alice, textbook review

8/2/2019 Alice, Textbook Review

1/16

Ventures- Basic (Students Book)

G. Bitterlin, D. Johnson, D. Price, S. Ramirez, K.L Savage (Series Editor)

Cambridge University Press 2008, 160 pp., ($18.32 with CD)

ISBN: 978-0-521-71982-7 (pack consisting of Students Book and Audio CD)

The predominance of teaching materials in the international ESL and EFL

contexts has been evident in the widespread presence of UK publishers allover the world. The recent 2008 Ventures Series is an example of a

packaged textbook series that includes a workbook, a students book, ateachers book and an audio CD. We will be looking at the Basic

Student Book which addresses the basic survival, or life-skills needed for

a class with low-proficiency, or even beginning learners. Looking at thetextbook within a unit, we can see some mismatches and discrepancies

between what the textbook would like to claim, and what it actually does.

We can therefore also question whether this widespread use of the Seriesis of real benefit to the learner in a specific proficiency and context-

related classroom.

I. Introduction: theoretical frameworksSavignon (2007) states: CLT thus can be seen to derive from a multidisciplinary

perspective that includes, at least, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociology, andeducational research. The focus has been the elaboration and implementation of programsand methodologies that promote the development of functionallanguage ability throughlearner participation in communicative events1. This idea of functionality in languagelearning as well as textbook analysis is important when addressing one of the theoreticalframeworks that is covered in this Ventures textbook. Indeed, a functional theoreticalframework is often used in life-skills or survival-skills books because it specificallyrelates to the What can you accomplish with language?.The functional-notionalsyllabus can be clearly seen by the functions column in the syllabus of the book. Inaddition, if we take the premise that this textbook is geared towards low-level proficiencylearners (as by the title Basic) , we can see that several main research aspects transpirein this textbook. For example, the aspect of life-skills, which might be needed in acommunity-based ESL program, for example, is a definite focus in our analysis. In otherwords, what can the student aspire to actually do with the language at this level? Kathleen

1 Savignon, S. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: whats ahead? (pp. 209).

Journal of Pragmatics. 39. p.207-220.


2/16

Graves states that communicative functions are the purposes for one uses language.2.She says In my experience, functions have been expanded to mean any kind oftransaction or interaction such as buying something, asking for directions, makingsmall talk, and so on. Functions were initially paired with notions, in constructing asyllabus. Notions include concepts such as quantity, distance, smell and texture.3

If we consider Savignons claim about British linguistics, with the idea that theseSeries were published in the U.K, we begin to have an idea of what contextual andtheoretical frameworks we can base ourselves on. Savignon asserts In Europe, thelanguage needs of a rapidly increasing group of immigrants and guest workers along witha rich British linguistic tradition that included social as well as linguistic context in thedescription of language behavior (Firth 1930, Halliday, 1978) led to the development of asyllabus for learners based on notional-functional concepts of language use4. If we thinkof this textbook with the framework of functional-notional, the idea of notions ishowever inherently linked to the abstract. This poses an immediate problem for thelearner of this textbook: that is, at this low-level, the beginner learner would probably not

have vocabulary needed to acquire abstract concepts. In effect, the whole syllabus in thistextbook is entirely geared towards a very practical, day-to-day uses of the language withthe question of What can you do with language?. Indeed, Graves says In terms ofsyllabus types, the functional syllabus can be the organizing principle for a course,however because functions need to be contextualized, they are often paired withsituations [..] Notions tend to be abstract in conceptualization, so teachers often find iteasier to make notions concrete in the form of topics.5. Indeed, the term notions seemsnot to work as well in this textbook as the idea of situations and topics.

Within the theoretical frameworks, we can also think of communicativecompetence here. Savignon uses the term to characterize the ability of classroomlanguage learners to interact with other speakers; this ability to make meaning wasdistinguished from their ability to recite dialogues or to perform on discrete-point tests ofgrammatical knowledge6. Some of the questions we can ask ourselves about thistextbook is, with these frameworks of communicative competence and functionalityin mind: is meaning extracted from activities related to actual meaning-making or bydiscrete, grammatical or vocabulary knowledge? Does this book promote learnerautonomy? creativity? Are there problem-solving activities? Is it learner-centered? Isthere real interaction between students in the activities? Can we consider it to really be arepresentation of a communicative functions textbook? As per an article by N.S Prabhu(1992)7, does this book promote a routine-ish rhythm to the style of teaching?

2Graves, K. (2000).Designing Language Courses: A Guide for Teachers. (pp. 46). Boston:Heinle3Graves. (2000).Ibid4 Savignon. (2007).Ibid. p. 2095 Graves. (2000),Ibidp 466 Savignon. (2007).Ibid, p. 2097Prabhu, N.S. (1992). The Dynamics of the Language Lesson. (pp. 235).Journal of TESOL

Quarterly. 26 (2): 225-241.


3/16

II.Factual Description of the content/organization of the textbook

A. The syllabus

In the syllabus, eight different categories are addressed. They address the

four skills but also specifically include, in order:1. functions2. listening and speaking

3. vocabulary4. grammar focus

5. reading6. writing

7. life skills8.pronunciationIn addition, at the back of the book, several pages are included for the audio-script, mapsand grammar tables. Two aspects in the back of the book are important to note. First, for

each unit there are projects outlined, with ideas such as to make a class booklet, tocreate a community map. The second important aspect to note is that at the end of everyUnit, (Lesson F) leads to a students self-assessment. At the back of the book, there is apage for each unit with a self-assessment in the form of multiple choice/check-off forvocabulary and skills, and also to check if the learner is ready for the next lesson. Lastly,in the beginning of the book, four pages are devoted to the correlations that can be madewith standard exams, such as CASAS, EFF, SCANS.

B. Lessons within a unit

There is a total of ten units in the book, and within each unit there are six lessonswhich are divided into six different skills and linguistic focuses. In each lesson, there arethree different activities presented. Lesson A Get ready, involves three activities. Thefirst is a warm-up, usually involving introduction to new vocabulary (as well asassessment by the teacher if there is already familiarity with the terms) with a picture.The visual aid (used by many textbooks at this proficiency level) serves the purpose for aprompt for introduction of new items, also a warming-up. The second activity involved inthis lesson is a listening component. The third involves a group or partner work using thenew vocabulary. Lesson B involves a vocabulary focus which supplements and expandson the vocabulary dealt with in the Lesson A. In other levels of this Series, Lessons B andC involve a grammar focus. Here, the assumption is that a need for vocabulary is primaryto grammar due to, once again, the level of the learners. Then a practice exercise isincluded. The lesson finishes with an activity involving pair and /or partner work.

Lesson C is a grammar-focused lesson that introduces the structure in a chartform. The next activity is a practice exercise which checks comprehension of the form.The last activity in this lesson is a communication or production of the form in a pairor group activity. Lesson D is a reading lesson, which includes pre-reading, reading post-


4/16

reading exercises. The Basic Levels (there are 2 Levels in Basic) also have picturedictionaries included in the unit. Lesson E is a writing lesson which includes the pre-writing, writing and post-writing activities. The last Lesson F is called Another viewand has also three activities, first, a life-skills reading (specifically concerned withscanning and skimming in technical documents such as charts, schedules, ads etc..).

Secondly, another activity addresses preparation for test-taking with multiple choicequestions. The next activity is called Fun with Language which provides interactive,creative new sets of activities not provided in the Unit. The last activity is a wrap-up tothe lesson.

C. Sequencing of the units

As for the Units themselves, the very first three pages are a Welcome Unit inorder for students to obtain familiarity with the alphabet. Beginning with the first unit,after every 2 units, there is a review. Units 1 through 5 have a progression of going fromthe self to the other (which can be usual in life-skills ESL textbooks). The sequence goes

from the personal identification (Personal Information) to the less personal and todescribing friends and family; then to the community (Around town). The other 5 Unitsseem to be related to activities outside of class (shopping, daily living, leisure), in otherwords, what can the students accomplish with the language? Language is viewed here asa way to do things: work, leisure, daily living, shopping.

III. Evaluation of the textbook

My critique of the textbook will be vis--vis an imagined teaching context inmind, that is a beginning level ESL context perhaps in a community centered programwith students (adults) with various backgrounds, countries of origin and professions. Theaims of the book are acquiring literacy skills as well as life-skills, based on the theoreticalframework mentioned in the introduction. For a general overview, there is integration ofthe four skills plus function-related activities. The linguistic task is integrated in thefunction. There is also a clear representation of the present-practice-produce which canbe considered to have many mixed reviews within the SLA methodology. It seems alsothat the Life Skills Lessons at the end of each unit are exclusively dealing with readingand writing, the syllabus mentions specifically the skimming and scanning activities.However, there is no introduction of Life Skills in the other three skills of writing,listening or speaking. Therefore, is there really integration of the four skills?

Another difficulty is the dealing of grammar. Although in the syllabus there is agrammar focus, grammar is implicitly taught within the vocabulary and readingactivities. There are no grammar rules actually written in the book, therefore thetheoretical assumption is that, for this specific level, this book should have no explicitgrammar explanations taught in the class. This could potentially be a problem for meta-linguistic awareness on the part of the students, who, first of all, might feel reassured thatthey are learning grammar; and secondly, some students may have had a traditional


5/16

learning experience and might be used to having explicit grammar explanations, orwritten grammatical exercises. A grammar supplement to the textbook may be needed.

Another critique could be the clear lack of recycling and assessment at the end ofthe book: Savignon states Functions were based on the assessment of learner needs and

specified the end result or goal of an instructional program

8

. After each couple of units,a review is included in the book; however, a full comprehensive review and recycling ofearlier vocabulary terms are not included. In addition, the activities in the unit do notbuild on one another-therefore there is little schema activation from one unit to the next.Following Littlejohns (1998) framework, the textbook can be seen as tasks-as-workplans, in effect, pre-designed tasks which are offered as a frame. Maggie St Johncalls it framework materials where the teacher provides the frame. This frame, orsource, can be taken from the textbook. In effect, the entire textbook can be seen as aworkplan or blueprint. This task-as-workplan is in contrast with the idea of the task-inprogress or the negotiated syllabus; or task as outcomes which is the learning derivedfrom the task9.

On the whole, the teaching style in concordance with this textbook seems topromote a kind of routine. The way the lessons are sequenced within a unit, the way theactivities are sequenced (described in the factual description of the book), this textbookpresent many routine-like activities. This can be a negative aspect or a positive aspect.The routines of a classroom, as per Prabhu (1992) are not just routines but carriers of amore complex though less perceptible balance of the different forces at work10. There isa perhaps reassuring notion associated of routines, which could benefit the low-levellearner. In addition, the promotion of learner autonomy and creativity seems to behindered by this routine concept. At the low-level proficiency, does this systematictreatment of language reassure the learner and can put him/her in a comfort zoneinvolving the classroom context; or does this on the other hand, stifle the pedagogicinterest in the learner?

As can be seen from my previous discussion, keeping in mind the learner contextof a low-level proficiency is important when looking at this textbook. Indeed, thecontextual factors of an imaginary group of learners is important, as a textbook analysiscannot be done in isolation, as per Littlejohns (1998) claims when describing anevaluation and analysis. Perhaps the difficulty of discussing a low-level group oflearners is that communicative competence involves an association of differenttechniques such as Total Physical Response (TPR), the heavy reliance on the use ofvisuals, a heavy reliance on listening and group/pair work. This textbook uses theseactivities or techniques in large amounts. However, these associations may have more to

8SavignonIbid, p. 2099 Littlejohn (1998), The Analysis of language teaching materials: inside the Trojan Horse. (pp.

191). In B. Tomlinson (ed.)Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.10 N.S Prabhu (1992). The Dynamics of the Language Lesson (pp. 234).Journal of TESOL

Quarterly. 26 (2):225-241


6/16

do with the level of the learners than with communicative competence itself. Moreover,there seems to be, perhaps again due to the low-level of the learners, a copious amount ofinput from the teacher; making it more teacher-centered. This will be discussed in anexample in our in-depth study. These concepts again might have more to do with thelevel of the learners, rather than really utilizing the theoretical frameworks such as

communicative competence or functionality.

A conflict may arise, because of the low-level, between too much input and asense of overwhelming feeling from the learners. How much input is enough in atextbook? How much learner creativity and autonomy be present in a textbook for low-level learners? Many SLA theories have noted the importance of teacher input. As wewill see in our in-depth analysis, this is an important question to ask. For example, ineach of the Lesson D-Life Skills, the learner output is only reading and writing. There areno speaking skills, learner output, nor pair or group work in these lessons. The focus is onreading and writing, with completion-based exercises. There is no opportunity for writinga full paragraph. All the activities and four skills are centered around the sentence-level.

In other words, the input in this textbook does not go beyond the sentence level, anddoesnot address the discourse level. There are longer exercises for writing included in thebook, however they do not involve any creative writing. Therefore, is this reallycommunicative? Doesnt a Life-Skills lesson need to involve oral communication? Forexample, in the unit which will described in depth, which involves identifying buildings(banks, library, school, supermarket), shouldnt there be a Life-Skills activity dealingwith what happens at a bank? What do you say when you want to check out a librarybook? These suggestions might make the Life-Skills Units more communicative andmore real-world and authentic.

IV. Close examination of a unit: Unit 5, p. 58 to 69

Littlejohn states: For a snapshot impression of the general nature of a set ofmaterials, I have found it useful to analyze about 10% to 15% of the total material,ideally chosen around the mid-point11. Therefore, I have chosen, out of the total of tenunits in the book, to concentrate on Unit 5, Around Town, (pp. 58-69). I have decidedalso to analyze the types of teaching activities in detail, as per Littlejohns three-foldframework (p. 211-213 in Appendix). Based on this framework, we can obtain an idea ofthe types of implicit teaching and pedagogic beliefs from the authors of the textbook.Moreover, the definition of a task is in order at this point. A task, based on Breen (1987)is defined as any proposal contained within the materials for action to be undertaken bythe learners, which has the direct aim of bringing about the learning of the foreignlanguage12. In addition, three key components are identified when discussing task: first,it is a process through which learners and teachers go through. Second, there is classroom

11Littlejohn (1998). p. 19612Littlejohn. (1998).Ibid. p. 198


7/16

participation involved. Thirdly, there is some kind of content that the learners are to focuson (Littlejohn, 1998: 198)

From the data I analyzed for each activity in the unit (specifically pages 59 to 63),I was able to arrive at certain conclusions involving the theoretical concepts that are

implicit in the book. The first component I analyzed for was turn-take whichspecifically relates to the role in classroom discourse that the learners are expected totake. Are they expected to respond to direct questions, to initiate language not suppliedby the book, or not to take any direct role at all?. I found that all the activities in the unitrequired a response of some kind, in a guided oral or written form using language thatwas largely supplied by the textbook. The learner is expected to express him/herselfthrough language which has been narrowly defined (Littlejohn: 1998, Appendix, p,211). No initiation is required of the learners, using language that is not supplied by thematerials, for example, free writing, or free discussion. The activities in this book wereall guided, with a specific script or prompt of some kind. Here, we may think of theconcepts of learner autonomy, creativity and schema activation. The learners are not

asked to discuss some of the vocabulary related to what they know about places. In thissense, always having guided and controlled activities may be interesting for thepromotion of teacher input and routine, but is it really communicative? Learner-centered?

Also, I have found that most of the activities require the students in respondingto the specific content in the textbook. This idea could provoke a mismatch between theidea of learner-centeredness and the activities themselves. Indeed, Littlejohn also statesIf, for example, the materials claim to be learner-centered yet we find that by far mostof the tasks involve the learners in responding and in working with content supplied bythe materials, there would appear to be a serious mismatch13. If the textbook is supposedto be communicative, and learner-centeredness is not promoted, maybe, once again this isbecause of the low-level of the learners at these Basic level which requires moreteacher-centeredness simply because of the amount of teacher input needed? Maybe inthe more advanced levels of the Series, the theoretical framework of learner-centerednessis more salient. Also, at no place in the unit the student is required not to take on anydirect role at all, for example when listening to a grammar explanation.

Indeed, no grammar explanations are given in the textbook. In effect, even inreceptive skills, the listening components in each unit are always accompanied by anotherskill. In other words, the textbook always has Listen and doing something else with thislistening, either writing, repeating, pointing, etc.. In this sense, the listening skill is nottreated as an isolated skill but in a way that seems to be communicative in this textbook.

Another positive aspect in my analysis of activities is that meaning-making isclearly promoted. Every activity I analyzed in terms of focus, defined as whether thelearner is asked to focus on the meaning of the word, its form or both; meaning wasespecially salient. The reason for this may be also because no focus on grammatical formis made explicit in the book (for example, nowhere in this unit is the word prepositions)In this textbook, the vocabulary lessons are compiled with grammar-therefore there is no

13 Littlejohn (1998).Ibid. p. 200


8/16

focus on form to be made. However, one example of this focus on meaning in the unitcould be problematic. Visually, the pictures could also be problematic at certain points.For example, on page 59-C-Talk with a partner, this activity could appeal to a studentsvisual and phonological memory, without having to understand the meaning of the wordsthemselves. In other words, the pictures are exactly the same as p. 59B: if the student

recognizes that this picture is associated with the word, he/she could memorize thepictures to the words. The focus here would be on the visual patterns, not the actualmeaning of the words. A solution to this visual issue would be to have different pictures,photographs from a real street. The students could even take pictures of various places intheir neighborhood for an in-class task.

Another example of a potential problem with visuals is the picture dictionary onpage 65. How is this picture dictionary different from the vocabulary focus on page60, number 1 in terms of content? They both have a picture and the word associated withthe place described in the picture. However, the picture dictionary could potentially beconfusing because of the addition of the word by. The addition of this word could be

confusing for students, not only because of the association between the words and thepictures, but mainly because of the preposition (which is not explained in the unit) addedto explain the mode or means of transportation. Students might also be confused by theon foot and not by foot. Lastly, the picture dictionary, if addressing modes oftransportation, should probably include all the means of transportation like by plane,by horse, which could add more meaning and even a socio-cultural component to theactivity. For example, the teacher could engage in class discussion of how do you get towork or school from your home in your country? How did you arrive to this city (orplace?) from your home country?

As for the operation feature, or the mental process required for the activity; thetextbook belief is that the students can master, at this level, simple repetition orretrieval from short-term memory of items within the lesson. The repetition can beselective (the student has to choose which word) or identical repetition. There are, insome activities, oral repetition where the learner is supposed to reproduce exactly what ispresented (example in Listen and Repeat, p. 63.B). This could potentially turn intochoral repetition. At this level, there are various opinions on the benefits or negativeaspects of choral repetition. But is it really communicative? I believe that it iscommunicative because the students are obtaining the maximum amount of input.However, the question of whether that input comes from the teacher or the learner can bediscussed in terms of teacher-centeredness. This , however, I believe is notcommunicative. Also, although there are reviews after each couple of units, ,there is norecycling of vocabulary items within the unit pertaining the the previous one. All of thecognitive work, within the activities, seems to be focused on the retrieval of immediateshort-term memory or phonological working memory. Another SLA methodologyconcept is in the idea of error-correction. In these activities, there seems to be no explicitvocabulary or grammatical statements, therefore all the potential grammatical or syntaxerrors, especially oral, seem to be implicit in the textbook.


9/16

In terms of communicativeness, the question of who with?, with whom are thestudents interacting with? there seems to be, from the analysis of my data, a largeamount of actual pair work or group work. Most of the activities I found could bedescribed as learners in pairs, simultaneously. This can be a strong argument forcommunicative competence or functionality. That being said, are the students really

interacting? For example, in the pair work on page 63-B, if the teacher put up a set ofpictures of the words on the board and pointed to different ones, would it have the samepedagogical effect? If the purpose of this exercise is to correct students pronunciation,will the teacher be able to do this in pair work? Is the goal of this pair work, due to thefact that the student does not have to create any kind of new expressions or new words inorder to negotiate meaning with his/her partner, really all that communicative? Becauseof the specific nature of pair work being so linguistically guided and so controlled, isnt italmost like choral repetition?

Another question based on the claims of this book, the question now is whether itis functional. As mentioned previously, the Life-Skills Lessons are reading and writing

activities. In this specific lesson (p. 68-69), the activity on page 69 A Fun with language.Read and math is exactly the same as the matching exercise on page 60. Albeit withdifferent content, the activities are exactly the same. Therefore, how is the exercise in theLife-skills lesson different from the rest of the lesson? No specific focus on life-skillsare made, and it seems like the rest of the lessons and activities are mixed in with thisLife-skills. Another example is the puzzle on page 69. How does this activity addresslife-skills? There seems again to be a mismatch between the belief of having a textbookwhich addresses life-skills, and the actual activities and exercises presented in theLessons which are supposed to address these skills. This is deeply problematic and seemsto be another serious mismatch between the beliefs and actual applications of thepedagogical and linguistic beliefs of this Ventures textbook.

The next question posed by Littlejohn is about the content and the input tolearners. For most of the data I collected from the activities presented in the unit, thereseems to be a lot of input in terms of visuals and words presented in writing or orally.Most are individual linguistic items, words not going beyond the single word input, orsometimes very short conversation. Nothing is beyond the segmental level (nosupersegmental or discourse) which leaves us to think that learner autonomy andcreativity is not taken into account into the basic claims of this book. In effect that thistextbook claims to be communicative, there seems to be a difficulty to accommodatebetween the low proficiency level of these students which hinders their ability to fullythemselves in English; and, on the other hand, the strictly guided (written or oral) andcontrolled activities which do not - or can not- give students a lot of opportunity toexpress themselves. This is perhaps one of the major paradoxes and difficulties whenaddressing communicative competence in a textbook for a low-level group of students.

A positive outcome of my data analysis, as well as an aspect we can derive as amajor claim, is that the expected output from students in the activities in this unit ishighly stressed on oral output. For a Life-Skills centered approach, the need for oralexpression seems to be coherent. Although there is also written, listening and reading


10/16

output, it does not seem to be the center of the lesson. But this can create a dichotomybetween the lessons which integrates the four skills and the life-skills lesson whichonly addresses reading as an isolated skill. Also, there is no oral output beyond thesentence-level. The majority of oral output is focused on specific words or linguisticitems. The items tend not to be decontextualized, however in some examples, there is

some decontextualization. For example, words describing places (hospital, drugstore etc)on page 62 can be easily replaced with other words with other pictures. There is no storydescribing, or activities describing for example, what do you buy at a bakery?, or whatdo you do in a laundrymat which could lead to different verbs and adjectives andsupplement the unit a little more in terms of input and real-world connection.

The last two parts in the analysis of my data, as per Littlejohns framework,included source, where the content comes from; and nature which refers to the typeof content required in the operation. Overwhelmingly, I found the source to be suppliedby the materials. In other words, the content of the activities were supplied by thematerial of the textbook. Almost no authentic material is presented in this textbook. For

example, the pictures are not authentic and do not represent any real photographs. Onlyone instance of 2 real photographs of a man talking on the phone, and a woman doing thesame thing (p. 63-3. Communicate) are presented in the unit. One solution, asmentioned previously, would be to have real photographs or even an activity involvingstudents taking real pictures of places in their neighborhood, or choosing real imagesfrom the Internet for a task.

Lastly, as for the nature, the type of cognitive content as required by theoperation, I found that the content, for all the activities, pertained to linguistic items. Inother words, there were no words, phrases, or sentences carrying a specific message (fora real-world task). This is another reason why this is problematic when dealing with alife-skills, or survival-skills, textbook because the learner needs to be able to tie thelinguistic content to a specific purpose. In other words, the question addressed in a basicclaim of this book: What can you accomplish with language?, seems difficult.Moreover, no meta-linguistic comments (grammar rules for example) or the creation of afictional text (oral or spoken) are required. No higher-order cognitive skills mediatedthrough language are presented in this unit.

V. Summary of overall assessment

This textbook seems to exemplify some of the SLA methodological strugglesbetween what one would like to accomplish and what can realistically be accomplished.In effect, the numerous theoretical frameworks that the authors of this textbook focus on:communicative competence, communicative functionality, issues with grammar,interaction, authentic and real-world materials, input and learner output, learner-centeredness etc seem to have difficulty with the low-level of the Series. A survivalskills, or life-skills textbook needs very specific components within these theories. On thesurface, this book appears to address the basic notions of communicative competence: theintegration of the four skills, appropriate to this level. However, looking a bit deeper, we


11/16

can find some discrepancies and mismatches. The idea of functionality is not addressedin a way that matches the claim for expressing life-skills. The integration of the fourskills is not addressed in a way that matches the claim for functionality. The ever-presentpresent-practice-produce is still very much the case in this textbook. Also, there seemsto be semi-authentic with the use of visuals, but in fact very few real authentic visuals are

represented. Cultural and social appropriateness seems not to be addressed. The treatmentof language focus tends to be systematic and heavily controlled by a teacher-centeredclassroom context. Overrall, this textbook can be seen as an attempt for adherence tocommunicative frameworks. It shows perhaps a problem for suitability in addressing atextbook for low-level ESL learners. In conclusion, although the attempts are clear; therestill seems to be some conflicting ideologies within the pedagogical and methodology ofESL learning.


12/16

Works Cited/Bibliography

Graves, K. (2000).Designing Language Courses: A Guide for Teachers. Boston: Heinle

Littlejohn, A. (1998). The Analysis of language teaching materials: inside the TrojanHorse. In B. Tomlinson (ed.),Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp. 190-216.

Prabhu, N.S. (1992). The Dynamics of the Language Lesson. TESOL Quarterly .26 (2):225-241.

Savignon, S.J. (2007). Beyond Communicative Language Teaching: Whats ahead?.Journal of Pragmatics. 39 (1):207-220.

Checklist adapted from:Grant (1987:122-6), Appendix 3.1 Extracts from an evaluation checklist

Littlejohn (1998:1997): Appendix 2.3: Extract from textbook analysis


13/16

APPENDIX I: More information of the content/organization of the book

I.A The Ventures package

I. B. Description of the cover of the book

As mentioned in the abstract, these Ventures Series include a package . The packageincludes Students book with a self-study Audio CD (included at the back of the book)which is comprised of every listening activity in Lessons A through D in a Unit.There is also a Teachers Edition (with an Audio CD and CD-Rom). A Class Audioprogram is also included where all the audio listening activities are accessible (the entirelistening activities are in the CD, not only the ones on the Student CD but also the oneson the Teachers CD).A Workbook (it is not online but a physical book) is also included and specifically hastwo pages of activities for each lesson in the Students Book.A material called Add Ventures in also included, is three-fold and it is available forstudents to have additional practice: the first part of the material is for those who are at a

level slightly lower than the Students Book or who require additional practice. Thesecond part is for students who are at the Basics level, and the third part of theworksheet are for students who wish to go beyond the materials that the Series provide.A Literacy Workbook is included in the package which provides specific help andassistance for students who are pre-literate or semi-literate (p. ix) in their ownlanguages. The second part of the Literacy Workbook is for students who are literate intheir native languages, but who are unfamiliar with the Roman alphabet. One interestingnote is that the Workbook is divided between left-hand pages (for the pre or semi-literate)and the right-handed pages for the students literate in a non-Roman alphabet language.Therefore if for example, a student from the Middle East whose writing goes from rightto left will be visually more familiar with the right-handed page.


14/16

B. Description of the cover of the book: a few comments

The colorful picture on the cover seems to have an immediate appeal. However, itis deemed important to address some of the underlying themes that can be seen through acareful analysis of this picture, in order to address the major theoretical frameworks inthe textbook.Three main planes are shown. The first plane portrays various men and women, fromdifferent ethnicities and performing various jobs: a florist, a mailman, a baker, amongothers. There is also a gender differentiation: the men are mailmen and work inagriculture (specifically the man to on the right with the basket of vegetables); and thewomen are florists, food shoppers and bakers. They all look very happy. One positiveaspect is that in this gender differentiation, the women are not specifically portrayed asthe providers, and the men are not either. The second plane is a picture of white

residential houses with palm trees in front of them. This immediately centers the readersattention to a possible country with these kinds of houses, perhaps in a hot climate wherepalm trees grow. The third plane is the depiction of a city with a skyscraper view. Thesetwo planes seen together can offer some disconnects, perhaps dichotomies between theurban city view and the residential , exotic houses. Perhaps this offers an discrepancyin association between the culturally Western city landscape, and the non-Westernhouses. (For example, I have seen these kinds of houses in the French Carribean islandsand in the Middle East).

As a conclusion, the cover picture seems to offer a kind of culturally awarenessand sensitivity to where people live, what people do. I think it is a good idea to have thisawareness in a specific class context where students may just have arrived from theirhome countries. However, I would be a bit wary of the cultural connotations, especiallyWestern connotations that could potentially be associated with this picture. We canremember that due to their low proficiency in English, especially in an ESL context,students may not have been able to find a job yet, and looking at a textbook with thesubliminal message of See how happy people are in their jobs, may not be well-received by some students.

That being said, we can notice that all of the authors of the Ventures team live inCalifornia, and made their professional teaching or pedagogical experience in SanFrancisco or San Diego. This cover could be a picture of San Francisco perhaps,(incorporating the city landscape and the residential areas with palm trees). However, thisanalysis can only be seen when reading the authors profiles in the beginning of the book(p. xiv). Perhaps the actual learners will not be worried to read about the authors team intheir textbook. Perhaps also the actual vocabulary and syntax in these teaching profilesare too complex for beginning ESL readers? In this case, why include them in thetextbook? Is this an ESL requirement for UK publishers to have teacher profiles?


15/16

Appendix II. Comprehensive checklist evaluation

I.Indended audience

Age-range School Location

II. General: Book as a whole

1.Materials is there a CD, CDRom, DVD, YES PARTLY NOTeachers Book, Workbookincluded with this package?

2.Does the book seem attractive? YES PARTLY NO(use of pictures, photographs)

III. Your students: Does the book suit your students?

1. Does this textbook seem appropriate YES PARTLY NOfor the level of your learners?

2. Given the specific needs of your students, YES PARTLY NOdoes the syllabus in the book attend toyour objectives for the class?

3. Given the age and the cultural background YES PARTLY NOof your students, would they enjoy using it?

4. Does the vocabulary in the book YES PARTLY NOseem difficult for your students?

IV. Your pedagogy: Does the book suit the teacher?

1. Do you plan to supplement this book with YES PARTLY NOanother book (grammar, etc..) or other materials?

2. Are the recommended methods and approaches YES PARTLY NOsuitable for you, your students and your classroom?

3. Are the approaches easily adaptable if necessary? YES PARTLY NO

4. Does the book achieve an acceptable YES PARTLY NObalance between the relevant languageskills and integrate them so that work inone skill area helps the others?


16/16

5. Are there clear appendices YES PARTLY NO(references, answer keys,word lists,projects, self-assessment,grammar points, audio scripts)

as well as a clear content list in the beginning of the book?

6. Is there a good balance YES PARTLY NObetween what the assessment/examination/administrationrequires and the review assessments in the book?

alice, textbook review

Documents