The raven's got his coursebook paint brushes out again... Image: fotologic
In a recent post, I explored the idea of handing much more in the way of question selection and composition over to students, and later probed some of the reasons why this might not appear to be attractive in standard ELT coursebooks.
Something else I've been pondering of late (partly as a result of what I felt was somewhat unconstructive criticism of CUP's "slugging" style of grammar syllabus application in my review of their new title Interactive -- unconstructive because I didn't suggest alternatives) is how to "do" grammar in different ways through coursebook units.
As a bit of an experiment, I targeted these two notions ("open" learner-composed questions and alternative approaches to grammar instruction) and went to town on one of my own coursebook units to see what might emerge. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts as a classroom teacher in response to the hypothetical changes, and/or (if you decide you like the ideas) perhaps they are something you'd like to experiment with in your own teaching methodology.
In both cases here, what I've mapped out are things I've already used extensively in my own classroom teaching. However, I haven't really tried to realise them in formal coursebook format.
Below you can see the two middle pages ("core" if you like) of a 4-page unit from the lowest level of my Boost! Reading Skills strand. This is generally meant for use with learners aged 10-13, who have already completed 4-6 levels of your common Elementary/Primary coursework series.
Small and fuzzy here, I know, but following an initial page oriented around facilitating schemata and discovery/noticing of a particular type of reading skill, these two central pages work through a basic sequence of:
C: A reading text
D: Very simple/general comprehension questions
E: Skills-based comprehension questions
F: Vocabulary development based on the text
Pretty straightforward I guess (and the last page of the unit, overleaf, applies integration of skills around the same theme/topic to involve listening, speaking and writing), but -- I think -- a little too predictable and perhaps not capitalising enough on chances to (a) get the students more involved with their own questions, and (b) not featuring anything in the way of grammar noticing/development.
So I took to these pages with my digital cut and pasting skills, and came up with pages that look like this:
The changes can be seen at the bottom of each page, respectively. Now the overall sequence of activities for these two core pages is:
C: Reading text
D: Spaces for learners to create their own questions about the text and apply them with classmates
E: Skills-based comprehension questions
F: Vocabulary development based on the text
G: Noticing and personalisation of grammar chunks/patterns based on the text
Looking at the first change (D), the general comprehension questions have been replaced with open spaces for learners to think of their own questions to ask a classmate about the text. They can apply these questions and then jot down the response(s) given to them:
Note that the unit still provides pre-set, targeted comprehension/skills questions on the next (facing) page, but with this new format, before any coursebook questions are tackled, the learners are encouraged to attack this on their own first (hopefully along the lines and according to principles outlined in my earlier post here) and get interactive with classmates.
The other major change (in this case, actually an addition in the form of G) is the inclusion of a simple grammar activity, drawing on language featured in the input text:
The idea here is to take a couple of chunks/patterns from the text, highlight them in context, and then offer learners the chance to apply them to themselves.
Given the original text was written to be comprehensible according to level demands, but not according to a pre-set grammar syllabus (and hence without the "input flooding" technique), these grammar "chunks" are more or less natural. They have been selected on the basis of them being patterns which learners could potentially personalise with their own information in a variety of situations.
You'll notice there is an absence of deliberate rules and charts with elaborate illustrations of different forms and functions.
In essence, these are grammar "ribbons", not "banners"...
It is proposed that learners have a good chance of grasping them based on the contextualised (comrehensible) input, but also that uptake will be facilitated by actually trying to apply and adapt them for their own communicative information.
The general idea is that every second page of every unit would feature a grammar application like this one, irrespective of whether the focus of the double page is on reading, listening, writing or speaking skills. This ought to make it easy for learners and teachers to skim back and forwards to refer to, review, and practise. Perhaps, towards the end of the coursebook (or alternatively, at the conclusion of units with more pages), these chunks are presented again in expanding charts that are more representative of the typical grammar charts (with highlighted functions, forms, examples, etc.) we're used to seeing in coursebooks.
However, to summarise (and to risk repetition for the sake of clarity) this approach to grammar selects grammatical chunks and patterns according to:
- input that is originally designed to be topical, interesting and comprehensible (NOT according to a premeditated grammar syllabus: the grammar emerges from the input and not vice-versa);
- what can be made personalisable and useful for the learners' own communication;
- a "manageable load" that can be remembered and practised without having to dedicate too much time and effort to it.
So here are my key questions:
1. For the open, learner-generated and applied questions, does this risk a reaction from teachers (or even learners) along the lines of "waste of space, not good value for money: there ought to be pre-set questions here!"?
2. Is the approach to grammar here likely to be feasible and attractive to teachers and learners?
3. Which of these coursebook formats would you prefer to see in front of your learners? The original one from the start of the post, or the adapted one I've come up with (featuring the open questions and grammar chunks/patterns)?
Your thoughts, responses, questions are -- as always -- precious!
=D
