Comments on Exceptions to Thornbury's Rule?

Latest Articles in this Channel:

01/21/10--07:17: Lindsay Clandfield commented on 'Exceptions to Thornbury's Rule?' (chan 1966112)

Hi Jason

Thanks for a thought provoking post and the invitation.

I would agree that in large part Thornbury is right about the grammar syllabus. I've read his arguments on it, and saw the debate between him and Michael Swan on this issue at IATEFL.
Serious hat-tipping to you Jason and your Boost series on making something else the organising principle. I really need to get a hold of Boost to see this.

A couple of points. First of all, organising things according to skill, while it no doubt worked in the context of your book could be called into question by those who are trashing the idea that skills can be seperated and that integrated skills are the "only" way to go. So I am not sure it would be a marketable organising principle. BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN BOOST CLOSELY and I realise that you do intergrated skills at the end of your units and I'm sure it works. However, you asked about "marketable".

To answer your question about grammar syllabus, I freely admit that with the courses I've worked on we have included the pretty standard grammar syllabus. Of course there are slight changes, new descriptions, some things have moved a bit but I don't see in my work any great departure. But I'm comfortable with that as a teacher, and as a materials creator.

Is it the most prominent? No, I don't think so. Certainly with intermediate and higher levels the most prominent element was the choice of texts and topics (the units in Global are organised as binomials, e.g. Rise and Fall, Food and Drink etc). For the upper intermeidate we started with all the different extracts from literature we wanted to include and went from there. However, if you look you will still see the grammar backbone, at least more strongly at the lower levels.

Finally, as you know Jason, the creation of the syllabus is so multi-faceted it's like an enormous jigsaw. There's functional language, lexis, skills work plus other things like learner training and it goes on and on. Add to that when you send it out for reviews and evaluation by teachers (Global was piloted in nine countries) and it gets more complicated.

So, grammar syllabus in my case yes. Only organising principle no. But I think that's okay, and courses like Boost or Widgets or others that do other things are fine too. The more choice the better, really.




01/21/10--07:45: Jason Renshaw commented on 'Exceptions to Thornbury's Rule?' (chan 1966112)

Thanks for some great comments, Lindsay. It's great to have a coursebook writer and editor of your reputation and experience drop some thoughts here!

Reading your thoughts and experiences, it reminded me of a couple of things that are probably crucial in Boost!'s success (to date):

1. It was, from the start, intended as a follow-up series beyond the 'standard' 6-level YL/elementary/primary coursebook, almost all of which (that I can recall) used grammar as their organising principle. Hence, teachers and learners may be more ready to start focusing more on real skillwork rather than more of the same? If, then, Boost! 'feeds' off series that have a distinct grammar syllabus, it might be a bit iffy to suggest it is completely separate from it. Or else, it takes advantage of it... Don't know!

2. Dividing the books into separate strands (but unifying themes and topics across all the strands) means teachers can pick and choose which skill strands they want to focus more on with their learners. So schools often use reading and writing strands simultaneously, and then may go on to do listening and speaking together. I've always advocated that the grammar and vocabulary strands (which work with all four previous macro skills in a highly integrated way) should be the last to be tackled in the series.

Interestingly enough, the order of popularity (for different strands, going on a couple of royalties statements here!) is:
1. Speaking
2. Writing
3. Grammar
4. Reading
5. Listening
(Vocabulary too early to say)

It would appear from this that by pre-teen or young teen ages, for non-beginners, schools/teachers want more speaking and writing - either because they feel this has been neglected too much in previous coursebook series, and/or because these productive skills have started to become a bigger priority in some contexts.

Final point - regarding the separated versus integrated skills issue...

Yes, we were concerned about this from an educational design as well as marketing perspective right from the start. That's why there is an emphasis on using multiple strands together, but - while there is a particular focus on a style of skills in one strand - there is definitely integration of skills on every page, and a huge page-length emphasis on it at the end of each 4-page unit.

One thing I'm interested in is to see if people differentiate clearly between "credible" and "marketable" when it comes to coursebook design...!

Totally agree with you, Lindsay, about the syllabus design being so jigsawish and multi-faceted. I don't think a lot of teachers realise that some writers (myself included here) spend just as much time on the design and planning of the syllabus and content as they do the actual unit writing! Things tend to come out looking pretty smooth on the coursebook pages, but it's a long and bumpy ride getting to that final stage.




01/21/10--14:09: Alex Case commented on 'Exceptions to Thornbury's Rule?' (chan 1966112)

I agree with Lindsay that with higher level books nowadays, e.g. Inside Out from about Int or Upper level and Natural English, the book has been mainly organised around topics and then the grammar that ties in with the topic or text has been tackled. Not sure that works any better than a grammar syllabus as a teaching methodology, but it should at least lead to more interesting and less contrived texts. Topics and texts are never going to be a huge marketing boost in General English("Look everyone, we have a unit on texting!"- cue Beatles style hysteria from the crowd), but is grammar really marketable when everyone is doing it ("Look everyone, we do simple past before present continuous"- teachers at conference passing that publishers' stand swoon)?




01/21/10--15:31: Alex Case commented on 'Exceptions to Thornbury's Rule?' (chan 1966112)

Actually, Natural English was a bad example as it has a random looking grammar syllabus for an entirely different (and somewhat original) reason. Sure there are other examples though. Didn't the old Matters books (Upper Intermediate Matters) etc, let the topics somewhat guide the grammar syllabus?




01/23/10--07:22: Dominic Cole commented on 'Exceptions to Thornbury's Rule?' (chan 1966112)

Hi

Will certainly check out your series properly - there is a crying need for this sort of "alternative approach"..

It's a different world - sort of - but my long time fave IELTS course book is Insight into IELTS, largely because it does treat the skills separately.

Just to make you smile/wince, the battle I am fighting at the moment is against a system of student assessment that is solely based on a 30 question/30 minute, every Friday morning test. The test is on the grammar/vocabulary from the course book. No speaking/writing/reading/listening allowed - that wouldn't be objective.

Better not tell you where I work - until that is I storm out in disgust that no one else seems upset but me.




01/23/10--18:07: Marcos Benevides commented on 'Exceptions to Thornbury's Rule?' (chan 1966112)

I agree with Lindsay that ultimately the more choice of different types of texts the better, and also that there is more freedom to move away from grammar as an organizing principle at intermediate and advanced levels. But I don't necessarily think that 'topics' by themselves are a huge step forward, because these tend to often be disconnected from each other thematically, and thus too readily lead back to grammar for lack of anything through which to organize exercises. Grammar still sneaks in through the back door that way, making it a grammar-based syllabus in the end.

In my work so far, the aim has been to start with a broad semester-long theme and then develop a sequence of authentic, cohesive tasks and subtasks that gradually increase in complexity. By increasing task (not language) complexity, one can push the students to require more and more complex language to accomplish the tasks, and those language needs can then be addressed by the teacher in the classroom. It is, after all, easier for the teacher to do this than for a textbook to try to predict which grammar form should be taught next to a particular group of students--especially at higher proficiency levels.

I will say, however, that my books so far are decidedly niche. I wish there were a greater demand for my kind of 'strong' TBL approach, but sadly, there is not. Teachers who agree with it tend to be the ones who also hate using textbooks, and just make all their own materials. (Actually, at one point we were toying with the tagline "Widgets: A textbook for teachers who hate textbooks"!)

Still, anything that can allow teachers rather than textbooks to direct the sequencing of languages and skills in a class, the better. Perhaps one reason Jason's Boost series has been so successful is its modular approach, which makes it easy for teachers to mix and match from the available books.





01/25/10--00:36: Sputnik commented on 'Exceptions to Thornbury's Rule?' (chan 1966112)

Very interesting. I have yet to get hold of Boost or Global, but I am a big fan of Innovations which really puts grammar in its place and just seems fresher both to me and to the students.




01/31/10--17:47: Alex Case commented on 'Exceptions to Thornbury's Rule?' (chan 1966112)

I'm just experiencing exactly what Marcos has described with Inside Out Pre and Int as I try to design a minimal grammar syllabus of language development for teachers around them.

Not a huge fan of Innovations, though haven't seen the new editions, as it seems to be (British) native speaker model stuff that most people will never need and will even sound weird using, and probably make themselves incomprehensible to their French, Chinese and Columbian colleagues. Was great when I was working in the UK, though




02/05/10--09:49: Jennifer Lebedev commented on 'Exceptions to Thornbury's Rule?' (chan 1966112)

Hello Jason! Interesting topic to consider from different angles. I've had experience as a classroom teacher, a program administrator (with the power to choose materials for the curriculum), and a materials writer. One truth is that what materials writers produce isn't always what a school or teacher is looking for. But I think materials writers should produce what they believe in because educators are divided when it comes to methodology, so each well-written textbook series will have its following.(BTW - This is similar to each YouTube channel having its own following among ELLs and ESL/EFL teachers.)

I agree with Lindsay and Marcos. Having choices is a good thing. I think a grammar-based syllabus can produce good results for some learners. Others may benefit more from a skills-based approach. In both cases, the success partly depends on the competency of the instructor using the material.

Furthermore, some school programs can separate the skills and have courses for writing, conversation, etc. Others believe in a whole language approach or simply the budget is limited to only one textbook per student, and therefore the school only buys books that have an integrated skills syllabus.

Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion. (I've added you to my blogroll.)
Best wishes,
Jennifer