Survey: EFL Courses for adults - CiteSeerX

80 ELT Journal Volume 55/1 January 2001 © Oxford University Press

SURVEY REVIEW

EFL courses for adultsBrian Tomlinson, Bao Dat, Hitomi Masuhara,and Rani Rubdy

Introduction Our intention in this review is to evaluate eight current adult coursespublished by major British publishers, and to draw attention to the trendsthey have in common. As such a comprehensive review of coursebooks hasnever appeared in the ELT Journal before, we have endeavoured to makeour review as rigorous as possible, in order to be informative about theparticular courses under review, and about course development in general.

The courses we have evaluated, which were submitted to us by fourleading UK publishers, are as follows:

π Language in Use and True to Life (Cambridge University Press)π Cutting Edge and Wavelength (Pearson Longman)π Inside Out and Reward (Macmillan Heinemann ELT)π Clockwise and Landmark (Oxford University Press)

The components of the courses are summarized in Appendix A.

NB the edition of Language in Use submitted for review was the original1991 edition and not the new edition published in 2000.

Our team consists of Brian Tomlinson from England, Bao Dat fromVietnam, Rani Rubdy from India, and Hitomi Masuhara from Japan.What we all have in common is that we have worked at the NationalUniversity of Singapore, and have experience of teaching English as aForeign Language, of researching approaches to the learning of foreignlanguages, and of materials development.

In order to conduct this review, we first of all agreed on a list of 133 courseevaluation criteria, which were developed from research into whatlearners, teachers, and administrators want from coursebooks. Thisresearch was carried out at the 13th National Conference for Teachers ofEnglish, San Jose, Costa Rica (January 1997), at the 8th MATSDAConference in Dublin (January 1997), at the IATEFL LiteratureSymposium in Dillingen, Germany ( September 1997), and on aworldwide scale for a major British publisher in 1998.

After agreeing on our criteria, each of us independently evaluated theeight courses. We all focused on di¤erent unit numbers, and started each

survey review

EFL courses for adults 81

evaluation with a detailed analysis of that unit in each of the coursecomponents at intermediate level. We then looked at other units at theintermediate level before repeating this procedure for the other levels ofthe course. Then we graded the course on a scale of 0–5 for most of our133 criteria, but on a scale of 0–20 for those criteria under the heading of‘Publisher’s Claim’, and of 0–10 for those under the heading of‘Flexibility’. Finally, we wrote evaluative comments for each of theheadings which the criteria were grouped under (e.g. ‘Flexibility’;‘Teachability’; ‘Design’). This procedure was carried out independentlyand in isolation by each reviewer, so as to avoid contamination ofjudgement. Here is an example of the criteria we used:

2 flexibility (Total grade = /100)

a) Would the course appeal to adult learners in any country?(Grade = /10)

b) Would the course be useful to adult learners in any country?(Grade = /10)

c) Does the course provide opportunities for learners to localizeactivities?(Grade = /10)

d) Does the course provide opportunities for teachers to localizeactivities?(Grade = /10)

e) Does the course facilitate a flexible approach?(Grade = /10)

f) Does the course provide opportunities for extensive reading?(Grade = /10)

g) Does the course provide opportunities for extensive listening?(Grade = /10)

h) Does the course provide opportunities for informal acquisition aswell as formal learning?(Grade = /10)

i) Does the course cater for di¤erent preferred learning styles?(Grade = /10)

j) Does the course prepare learners for the realities of language use in‘the real world’?(Grade = /10)

Finally, we collated and then averaged our scores for each criterion foreach course, before looking for distinctive convergence and divergence inour evaluative comments.

General review of the We have been very thorough and systematic in our evaluation courses procedures, and have attempted to be as fair, rigorous, and objective as

possible. However, we must start this report on our evaluation byacknowledging that, to some extent, our results are still inevitablysubjective. This is because any pre-use evaluation is subjective, both in itsselection of criteria and in the judgements made by the evaluators (Ellis

1998; Tomlinson 1999). We have attempted to compensate for this byestablishing a team of reviewers from di¤erent countries andbackgrounds, by evaluating the courses in isolation from each other, andby averaging our scores. But we must accept that the same review,conducted by a di¤erent team of reviewers, would almost certainly haveproduced a di¤erent set of results. It turned out that the four of usdi¤ered considerably in many of our prerequisites for a good coursebook,and disagreed completely in some of our responses to the coursebooksunder review. But we all agreed that a good coursebook, whilst helpinglearners to develop their procedural knowledge of grammar, shouldconcentrate on providing learners with engaging and purposefulinteraction with language in use. Another group of reviewers might haveconsidered the provision of grammatical information to be pivotal. Onlya thorough ‘whilst-use’ evaluation, and a rigorous longitudinal post-useevaluation, could reveal reliable evidence about the value of the coursesin a¤ecting learner attitudes and behaviour, and ultimately incontributing to the development of the communicative competence ofthe learners. All that we can do in this review is to present our informedand collective predictions as to the likely value of the courses.

Overall course criteria 1 Publishers’ claimsWe found that publishers seem to have become more descriptive and lessextravagant recently in their claims about what their courses do. Forexample, Language in Use, Wavelength, Landmark, and Inside Out, werefound to be fairly accurate in their claims about what they were providingfor the learner. However, it was felt that Reward and Cutting Edge weremore form-focused—and less communicative—than they claimed, thatTrue to Life just did not achieve the motivation, realism, and engagementthat it emphasized, and that Clockwise made exaggerated and unrealisticclaims to be ‘energetic’ and ‘dynamic’, and to provide ‘communicativepay-o¤s’ and ‘stimulate personal response’. Reward and Cutting Edge alsomake very sensible points in the Introductions to their teacher’s books,but they do not always help the teacher to achieve what they arerecommending (for example, cross-cultural awareness in Reward, andpersonalization in Cutting Edge).

One consequence of the trend to avoid criticism for unsubstantiatedclaims seems to be a reluctance to state the learning objectives of thedi¤erent levels of the courses. Instead, most of the courses seem torestrict themselves to a description of the content of units, rather thanrisk saying what they intend it to achieve. For example, True to Life lists‘Key features’, but does not state its objectives. Reward states task aims inits teacher’s books, but they tend to be such vague procedural aims as ‘topractise reading for main ideas’ (Intermediate Teacher’s Book, p. 43).Also, Clockwise lists ‘Series aims’; but they seem to be a mixture ofcontent, procedures, and vague aims, such as ‘to enable students to“perform” English in a more natural way’ (Teacher’s Book, p. 4).

2 Flexibility‘Whether one is drawing the content of courses from message formswhich are contrived exemplifications of the code, or from the message

82 Brian Tomlinson, Bao Dat, Hitomi Masuhara, and Rani Rubdy

forms which are sampled from actually occuring text, they need to bemade real for the learner. The message forms have to be made locallyappropriate to the di¤erent classroom contexts in which learners findthemselves.’ (Widdowson 2000: 30) This is the ultimate challenge forthe global course, and it has to be said it is not one which most courseshave achieved. Some of the courses in this review focus the learners’attention on ‘contrived exemplifications of the code’, and make littleattempt to make them real for particular groups of learners (e.g. the shortpassage about hating Christmas in Clockwise Intermediate (p. 36), and atext about weather in the Pre-Intermediate Personal Study Workbook forTrue to Life (p. 54). Others do give attention to ‘message forms sampledfrom actually occurring text’, but often manage to make them unreal byusing them in activities which have little apparent appeal or value to theadult learner (e.g. an extract from Jane Eyre in Reward Upper Intermed-iate Student’s Book (p. 38), which is followed by vocabulary andtrue/false questions). However, some of the courses do succeed inmaking their texts and tasks ‘locally appropriate’ (especially Wavelengthand Inside Out), and all of the courses try to personalize their activities byinviting the learners to use their own lives, views, and feelings, as contentto comment on (e.g. ‘Interview each other about your plans andambitions. Make notes under the following headings. Cutting EdgeIntermediate, p. 50).

We felt that most of the courses give little opportunity or encouragementto adapt the materials to the needs, wants, personalities, or styles of thelearners or teachers. Most of them favour analytical learners who like tofocus their conscious attention on discrete learning points, but few ofthem provide activities for experiential learners, and none provideactivities for kinaesthetic learners, who prefer to learn through physicalactivity. The emphasis in most courses is on explicit teaching ofdeclarative knowledge, followed by controlled or guided practice. In otherwords, PPP (presentation–practice–production) still rules, but with theemphasis now very much on the first two Ps. A lack of extended texts andtasks makes it very diªcult for the teacher to try to cater for experientiallearners by changing the order or focus of the activities.

As the above comments suggest, we were disappointed that contem-porary courses do not seem to have taken the advice of researchers andmethodologists, which is to cater for di¤erent teaching and learningstyles (e.g. Masuhara 1998; Oxford 1997) and to design books which canbe used di¤erently in di¤erent circumstances (e.g. Maley 1998). We wereparticularly disappointed to find that:

π extensive reading and the use of fiction is almost non-existent in manycourses;

π the claims made by many courses that they follow a discovery approachusually disguise an attempt to get learners to find a pre-determinedanswer (e.g. the discovery activities in Landmark Upper IntermediateStudent’s Book, p. 47, are trying to get learners to find the answers—which are in the Language commentary on p.129);

π text length is constant and brief;π choices are hardly ever given to learners;


π when communication activities or tasks are provided, they nearly alwayshave an overt language practice point (e.g. in Reward Upper IntermediateStudent’s Book (p. 35) a ghost story writing activity is used to practice‘linking words’, and on pp. 96–7 of Cutting Edge Intermediate Student’sBook, a lottery money task is used to practise ‘Giving and explainingopinions’, and ‘Agreeing/disagreeing’).

However, we did agree that Language in Use, Landmark, and Inside Out,especially, do try to ensure some flexibility by providing experientialactivities and opportunities for informal acquisition, and by encouraginglearners to personalize and localize their responses.

3 SyllabusA quick glance at the course overviews at the beginning of the student’sbooks reveals how language-focused the syllabus of courses has become.In most of the courses grammar is signalled as the main focus of mostunits, in fact, True to Life only has two columns—‘Language focus’ and‘Topics’. Although the main column in Reward is ‘grammar andfunctions’, 35 out of the 40 units in the Intermediate Coursebook focuson grammar. The exceptions are Inside Out and Landmark, which provideample grammar practice, but put the initial emphasis in each unit onskills.

Most of the courses give much greater prominence to listening andspeaking than they do to reading and writing (with the exception ofLandmark), although some of them have decided to focus on speakingand listening in the coursebook, and as in True to Life, ‘to limit theamount of reading material in the Class Book (but increase it in thePersonal Study Workbook) …’ (Teacher’s Book p. iv ). The decision seemsto have been taken that, in most of the courses, classroom time should bespent in listening and speaking practice, but that for those who want it,provision should be made in workbooks for reading and writing practice.Inside Out and Cutting Edge, for example, have a writing course syllabusin their workbooks, and Wavelength has a reading course in its workbook.

One of the consequences of downgrading reading is that in most coursesthere is no substantial content for the learners to respond to. The readingtexts which are provided are usually too short and bland to provideanything to think or talk about. The listening texts also tend to be fairlymundane interviews, or monologues about hobbies, jobs, journeys,customs, routines, etc. Many of them are quite realistic (and eveninteresting) but responding to them calls for very little cognitive ora¤ective engagement. An engaging poem or a controversial article wouldnot only provide opportunities for developing the skills required inexperiential reading, but could also provide meaningful content onwhich to base subsequent speaking and writing activities. In ourcomments when reviewing these courses, we kept using such terms as‘trivial’, ‘bland’, ‘dull’, and ‘not engaging’ about the topic content. Also,we felt that many adults would feel intellectually and emotionallyinsulted, as a result of being constantly asked to discuss such topics asbirthdays, mobile phones, hairstyles and ‘the most “foreign” ‘place youhave been to’ (Clockwise Pre-Intermediate Classbook, p. 47). The one


outstanding exception is Language in Use, which stimulates theexpression of thoughts and feelings about controversial issues (e.g. Lifeon Earth pp. 106–9 of the Intermediate Classroom Book). Moreover, itdoes so without imposing a correct attitude, and even, apparently,without any hidden agenda.

The language content of the courses focuses typically on language forcooperation—politeness and harmony—and rarely includes lexis orstrategies which could empower learners in situations involvingcompetition or conflict. Combined with the brevity and blandness of thetexts, this results in the creation of an EFL world ‘which is bland and dulland in which there is very little excitement or disturbance to stimulatethe emotions of the learner’ (Tomlinson 1998c: 20), which is ‘safe, clean,harmonious, benevolent, undisturbed and PG-rated’ (Wajnryb 1996:291), ultimately reduces and trivializes the content and the process oflearning. For example, Clockwise Pre-Intermediate Classbook hasconsecutive units on ‘Social Life’ (making arrangements, invitations, andsuggestions), ‘Meet the Family’, and ‘Nearest and Dearest’, and thenearest it gets to discord is teaching polite forms of disagreement in aunit called ‘Out of Touch’ (pp. 32–3). Clockwise Intermediate does,however, have one unit—‘Temper and Tears’ (pp. 44–5)—which is full ofanger, temper, and complaints. Wavelength and True to Life are mainlypeopled by nice young men and women getting on well with each other,but the Wavelength Pre-Intermediate Coursebook does have a suddenoutburst of ‘Jealousy and revenge’ in Unit 10, and the True to Life UpperIntermediate Class Book does include some angry people on p. 75, someothers having arguments on p. 85, and a mother and son getting irritatedwith each other in a scene from Harold Pinter’s A Night Out—a rareinclusion of literature (p. 90).

The prominence given to grammar in most courses has led to a decreasein the attention given to skills development, to functions, tocommunication strategies, and to learning strategies. There is a token,and often rather fragmented attempt to include these important aspectsof a language course, but in most cases not enough attention is given tothem to facilitate useful learner development. This is particularly true ofClockwise and Cutting Edge, but less so of Landmark and Inside Out. Ofcourse, this does raise the crucial question of how many facets of alanguage course can be covered in a principled, coherent, thorough, andsystematic way in a coursebook. In opting for the centrality of grammar,most of these courses have inevitably marginalized aspects of learningwhich researchers and methodologists would consider to be importantfeatures of language learning.

A number of the courses include a teacher’s resource pack ofphotocopiable materials. Most of these packs feature communicationtasks which can be used to supplement the coursebook (for a discussionof tasks see Rubdy 1998). However, in most of these courses (e.g. Rewardand Clockwise) the activities provide guided practice of grammar andvocabulary rather than the opportunities to use language to achieveintended outcomes which they seem to promise. This is true also of thetasks in Cutting Edge, which claim to be ‘authentic’, and to ‘give students


the opportunity to develop their speaking skills in real life situations’, butwhich in most cases simply provide practice of given language. Forexample, in the Module 9 Part B Task of the Intermediate Student’sBook, the learners are told to ‘Discuss how you think the money shouldbe spent and agree on a budget together. Look at the phrases in the Usefullanguage box’ (p. 97).

Many of the courses include cross-cultural awareness activities, but inmost cases they are UK-centred, they describe English people’s reactionsto exotic places they have visited on holiday, they depict stereotypical andoften clichéd behaviour, and they tend to portray non-Western culturesas eccentric, and even bizarre. For example:

π In the Language in Use Intermediate Classroom Book, the learners listento people from di¤erent countries comparing their countries to Britain(p. 60).

π In the Wavelength Pre-Intermediate Coursebook, Julia tells her friendabout a holiday she had in India where the immigration oªcials laughedat her, and made her get back on the plane, because she did not have avalid visa (p. 39).

π The Clockwise Pre-Intermediate Classbook includes clichés aboutgreetings in di¤erent countries (p. 47).

π The Reward Pre-Intermediate Student’s Book states that people ‘sit onthe floor in Japan’ (p. 2) and that ‘men usually go to restaurants on theirown’.

The most noticeable exclusion is extensive reading. All the way up toUpper-Intermediate level most courses use very short reading texts onwhich to base intensive reading questions. Reward claims to encouragethe learner ‘to respond to the reading passage in a personal and genuineway before using it for other purposes’, but often the reading tasksdiscourage experiential reading (e.g. ‘Read Family life, and match thequestions with each paragraph.’ Reward Pre-Intermediate Student’sBook, p. 21). The one noticeable exception to this focus on intensivereading of short passages is Wavelength, which has a supplementaryextensive reading book containing four short stories.

4 Pedagogic approachNone of these courses really tries to cater for di¤erent learning styles orpersonalities. The emphasis is on the analytical learning of discretefeatures through practice and memorization (‘an emphasis onvocabulary memorization at word and phrase level’ (ClockwiseIntermediate Classbook). There are very few activities for experientiallearners, and hardly any at all for the majority of learners who preferkinaesthetic learning. Learners are rarely given choices of content oractivity, and there is little scope on most courses for teacher initiative inproviding learner choice. However, Landmark does provide some learnerchoice in its ‘Speaking personally’ sections, and Inside Out andWavelength often ask learners to give extra examples for themselves (forexample, in the Wavelength Pre-Intermediate Coursebook (p. 68)learners are asked to persuade the class to get rid of ‘one moderninvention or gadget which really irritates’ them).


Not all these courses attempt to engage the learners a¤ectively throughexcitement, emotion, or fun, which often do provide a stimulating butachievable challenge (Arnold 1999; Tomlinson 1998c). In fact, manyof them have an almost exclusively cognitive approach, and we allagreed that most of the courses underestimate the learners, and makemost of the activities too simple (especially True to Life). The exceptionsare Wavelength and Inside Out, which often provide a stimulatingchallenge, and aim at a¤ective engagement (Inside Out, is often alsofunny), while Language in Use and Landmark respect the learners asindividuals, and seek to engage them personally in many of theiractivities.

The most obvious pedagogic feature of many of these courses is that theyare teaching-centred, and seem to assume that what is taught will belearnt. There seems to be a reaction against the freer, open-ended,learner-centred days of the Communicative Approach, and a fear thatunless language is seen to be taught, books will not be bought. Thismight appeal to those administrators and teachers who blame theCommunicative Approach for causing learners to use inaccurate English(a view which is prevalent today, for example, in Singapore), but it in noway does it agree with what we know about learners having their ownsyllabus, and only learning what they need, and when they are ready tolearn (Tomlinson 1998a: 10–12). Most of these courses use the PPP(Presentation–Practice–Production) approach, which makes it clear whatis being taught. However, it has been criticized by many methodologists(e.g. Willis 1996) for imposing a uni-modal learning style, and for notreflecting the natural tendency to learn what you need to use rather thanwhat you are told to learn. This focus on teaching rather than learning isparticularly evident in True to Life, and in Clockwise, which despite itsclaims to develop fluency and to provide ‘clear communicative payoffs inevery lesson’ (back cover of class book) actually gives much moreattention to teaching language forms than it does to helping learners toacquire communicative competence. Some of these courses do useawareness approaches and task-based approaches, in addition to explicitteaching of language, but Cutting Edge, for example, puts more emphasison language practice and language summary than it does on its languageawareness activities (e.g. Intermediate pp. 62–3), and actually pre-teaches language items before asking learners to do tasks (e.g.Intermediate pp. 64–5). Wavelength and Inside Out are exceptions to thisteaching centredness, and we all agreed that, although they provideuseful teaching of language items, their main focus is on meaning andcommunication, and on encouraging learners at all levels to actually usethe language.

5 Topic contentWe all agreed that the topic content of many of the units, in many of thecourses, is distinctively trivial for adult learners. Topics tend to focus oneveryday routines, such as sleeping, going to work, watching television,and eating out, and most attention is paid to normal behaviour ratherthan to interesting divergence (e.g. in the ‘Map of the Book’ for RewardPre-Intermediate, the word ‘typical’, ‘routine’, and ‘customs’ is


mentioned in the content description of six of the first 20 units). Whilethese safe topics have the advantage of familiarity, they are hardly likelyto engage the learners a¤ectively or intellectually. True to Life andClockwise were considered to be particularly bland and conventional intheir choice of topics. Reward, Landmark, Cutting Edge, and Inside Outinclude some potentially engaging topics (e.g. ‘Social matters’. ‘Societyand the future’, ‘Rules and freedom’, and ‘Dilemmas and decisions’ inCutting Edge Intermediate). However, we often felt that the texts relatedto these topics were used mainly as examples of language features, andthat the activities were often superficial, and generally failed to exploit thea¤ective and intellectual potential of the topics. By contrast, we thoughtthat Language in Use and Wavelength not only included many importantand provocative topics, but also exploited them in ways whichencouraged a¤ective and intellectual engagement.

6 VoiceIn general, the voices of the authors in these courses are neutral andsemi-formal. The learners are given instruction(s) impersonally in thevoice of an expert talking to a novice and the author rarely talks to theadult learners as equals, or shares experiences with them. This approachavoids the risk of learners—especially those from authority-respectingcultures—being irritated or o¤ended by a quirkily personal voice, but itmisses the opportunities for engagement and stimulation which havebeen found to result from authors chatting to learners in personal ways(Beck, McKeown, and Worthy 1995; Tomlinson 1998a: 8–9). True to Lifewas considered to be patronising at times (e.g. p. 44, Task 2 of True to LifeElementary Class Book), while Clockwise was thought to be sometimesbrusque and unfriendly, and Cutting Edge, Inside Out, Reward, andLandmark were described as neutral, but not unfriendly or disrespectful.However, we agreed that Language in Use and Wavelength managed to beneutral, yet at the same time friendly and supportive in their authorialvoice.

7 InstructionsWe were surprised at the lack of clarity and specificity in many of theinstructions. For example, Landmark and Inside Out were criticized fortheir ambiguous use of pronouns, lack of clarity in reference, insuªcientseparation, lack of specificity about what to do and how to do it, lack ofexamples, and insuªciency of signalling and highlighting. Pages 42–3Landmark Upper Intermediate Student’s Book and Unit 1 of Inside OutWorkbook Intermediate (both chosen at random), illustrate most of thesefaults, and some of them can also be found on almost every page of mostof the other courses. However, whilst sharing many of the negativefeatures mentioned above, Reward and True to Life do at least clearlysignal and highlight their instructions, and Wavelength usually achievesclear highlighting, separation and staging.

8 Teachability‘Teachers can … be said to be the central figures in materialsdevelopment’, and yet their needs and wants are rarely given muchconsideration in coursebook development (Masuhara 1998: 239–40).


Not surprisingly, many of the courses reviewed did not satisfy all of ourcriteria for teachability. Although most of them consider the obviousneed to help teachers to minimize their preparation time, very fewprovide help in adapting the global course to specific situations, or caterfor di¤erent teaching styles or personalities, or (most important of all)make e¤orts to make the courses interesting for the teachers. We foundthat most of the courses (especially True to Life) impose an approach onthe teachers, and we agreed that many of them (especially True to Life,Clockwise, and Reward) would not be very interesting to teach. Howeverwe agreed that:

π Language in Use gives some useful advice to teachers in its teacher’sbooks;

π Cutting Edge facilitates some adaptation through useful cross-referencingand suggestions on how to use the additional material in the ResourceBank and Workbook;

π Wavelength o¤ers the teacher a choice of interesting extra materials;π Landmark o¤ers the teacher some scope for localization and adaptation;π Inside Out makes clear to the teacher the principles and objectives of its

activities, gives helpful suggestions, and provides some scope for teacheradaptation.

Coursebook- 1 Appearancespecific criteria It is surprising that with the exception of Landmark and Reward, very few

of these courses have made any serious attempt to appeal to adults, andthat some of them (especially Clockwise) seem almost childish inappearance. In fact, a teacher visiting our offices flicked through thecoursebooks and commented that they looked just like school textbooks.

We considered most of the coursebooks to have unattractive covers(especially Landmark and Inside Out) but to be very visually attractivethroughout especially Landmark and Inside Out. We considered Languagein Use to have an attractive cover, and to be visually very attractivethroughout. Whereas Cutting Edge was thought to have a rather gaudycover, and not to be very attractive inside.

A distinctive feature of most of the books when we flicked through themwas how European they look. Despite what seems to be a token attemptto include a few photographs of other continents and cultures, this wasparticularly true of Reward, Clockwise, Cutting Edge, Landmark, and InsideOut.

2 DesignSome of the courses were considered to be cluttered and dense, with toomuch text crammed onto each page, and not enough white space toprovide relief and clarity. Clockwise Intermediate and UpperIntermediate, and Cutting Edge were thought to be particularly guilty ofsuch clutter, and also of a lack of clear separation and sequencing, so thatwe found it very diªcult to focus our attention on some of their pages(e.g pp. 50–1 of Clockwise Intermediate Classbook, and pp. 36–7 ofCutting Edge Intermediate Student’s Book). On the other hand, we foundthat Reward, and Language in Use made good use of white space, and


always made the sequence and separation of their activities clear (e.g. pp.24–5 of Reward Upper Intermediate Student’s Book).

3 IllustrationsOne distinctly positive feature of most of these courses is the use ofinteresting illustrations. Language in Use, in particular, has a rich varietyof modern, attractive, and intriguing illustrations (including photo-graphs, drawings, cartoons, and art), which give the books an aestheticappeal, and are often used to stimulate curiosity and engagement. This isparticularly true of the Upper Intermediate Classroom Book, which, forexample, uses intriguing modern paintings as the basis for personalinterpretation activities (pp. 20, 39, 89, 90, 94). The same is also true toa lesser extent of Inside Out, Cutting Edge, and Landmark. However, wefound that Clockwise has only a few rather small and unattractiveillustrations (except in the Pre-Intermediate Classbook) and that theillustrations in True to Life are neither interesting, attractive, orfunctional. A number of other courses contain many illustrations whichhave no apparent function other than to decorate the book. This isparticularly true of Reward Upper Intermediate Student’s Book (e.g. pp.12 and 77) and Clockwise the Intermediate Classbook (e.g. pp. 44 and62–3). On the other hand, some of the books use many of theirillustrations as a resource for language activities, especially Wavelength(e.g. pp. 40–1 and pp. 66–7 of the Pre-Intermediate Coursebook) andInside Out (e.g. pp. 54–5 and pp. 93 of the Intermediate Student’s Book.

4 Reading textsWe all agreed that the most notable and regrettable features of thereading texts are their brevity, and the restricted range of text types. Evenat Upper Intermediate Level the typical text is no more than half a pagelong, and either describes a person, place, or routine, or narrates anevent. Rarely are the learners encouraged to read extensively for pleasure,rarely are they invited to engage with argumentative or provocative texts,and rarely are they given opportunity to enjoy a story or a poem areequally scarce. Instead, most units in most courses ask them to read avery short text intensively before answering related comprehension orlanguage questions. There is little attempt to help the learners to developreading skills and confidence, and hardly any attempt at all to help themdevelop the positive approach to free reading which has been shown tofacilitate language acquisition (Elley 1991; Krashen 1993; Tomlinson1998b). The notable exceptions are Language in Use, which does providesome provocative texts, and invites the learners to respond to thempersonally (e.g. p. 68 of the Upper Intermediate Classroom Book) andWavelength, which provides opportunities for ‘reading for pleasure’ (e.g.p. 53 of the Pre-Intermediate Coursebook).

Cassettte/CD ROM- One of the components of global courses which has become more specific criteria interesting and e¤ective in the current generation of language teaching

materials is that which provides the learners with opportunities to listento the language being used. Many of the courses in this review havemanaged to provide listening material which is realistic (if not alwaysauthentic), varied, and sometimes engaging. This is especially true of


Language in Use, which sounds natural even at the beginners level, whichincludes a variety of genres, text types, voices, and accents, and whichdoes provide some experience of extensive listening. The same alsoapplies to Inside Out and Wavelength, although these courses weresometimes criticized for sounding obviously scripted and acted.Unfortunately, it cannot be said that the listening material in Reward,True to Life, or Clockwise is particularly natural, varied, or engaging. Wefound Reward lacked spontaneity, variety, and a¤ective appeal (though itdoes include some non-British accents); True to Life struck us as rathermonotonous and ‘Cambridge upper middle class’, and we thought thatClockwise was contrived, obviously acted, and not very engaging.

Teacher’s Book- We found that there were basically three types of teacher’s book:specific criteria

Those that give very little useful information or advice to the teacher andare uninteresting to read (i.e. True to Life and Clockwise).

Those which give clear and detailed procedures to the teacher for usingthe book but do not provide many extra possibilities, or do anything tohelp the teacher to adapt and localize the course (i.e. Reward, Inside Out,and Landmark).

Those which provide useful suggestions for adaptation, as well as usefuladditional activities for the teacher to choose from (Cutting Edge,Wavelength, and, especially, Language in Use).

Unfortunately, except those for Language in Use, all of the teacher’s booksare unattractive in appearance and poorly designed—the almostinevitable consequence of being a financially unprofitable component ofa global course.

Workbook- The workbook is another course component which seems to have specific criteria improved in the current generation of global adult courses. We liked the

fact that many of the activities in many of the courses are personalized,that the reading and writing activities are quite interesting, that there is avariety of activity types, and that there is varied revision of what has beentaught in the coursebook. These qualities are particularly evident inLandmark, Language in Use, and Inside Out, but not quite so evident inWavelength, or in Cutting Edge, which was considered to have too manyform-focused activities).

Video-specific Only two of the courses have video components. The Reward video criteria component was considered to be ‘boring’, to use a very restricted number

of genres and text types, and to concentrate far too much on a runningstory about a very corny TV company sta¤ed by a number of gross andunconvincing ‘character types’. The True to Life video was thought to berather amateurish in its acting, and the script was thought to lack clearprinciples and objectives. It does, however, have some potentiallyinteresting scenes.

We all asked the question, ‘What is the point of including an expensivevideo component when so much interesting material is available o¤-airthese days?’ Nobody could think of a convincing answer.


All of us independentally agreed that Clockwise is disappointing, and thatit satisfies very few of our criteria.

What we all liked about Clockwise was:π The attractive and supportive design, lots of white space, clear divisions

between activities, and clear indications of sequence in the Pre-Intermediate Classbook.

π Some fairly realistic and quite interesting listenings at the Intermediatelevel (e.g. in Unit 06 ‘Change of State’, and Unit 07 ‘Taking Chances’).

What we all disliked about Clockwise was:π The excessive focus on language form, and the consequent neglect of

communication.π The textbook-centredness of the approach: although it gives information

to the learners, it does not provide them with enough opportunities touse it for communication, and does not encourage them to think ordiscover for themselves.

π The lack of potential for a¤ective engagement in most of the activities.π The lack of challenge o¤ered to the learners.π The triviality of much of the content.π The neglect of writing skills.π The consistent brevity of the reading texts, and the lack of variety of text

types and genres.π The obvious scripting of the listening texts at levels below Upper

Intermediate.π The minuteness and lack of function of many of the illustrations.π The ambiguity and lack of clarity of many of the instructions, none of

which are supported by highlighting or examples.π The exaggerated claims made about the approach and potential value of

the course.

We gave Clockwise an overall average rating of 54.1%

Cutting Edge Some of us liked Cutting Edge more than others, but none (Pearson/Longman) of us rated it very highly. What we liked about it was:

π The respect given to the learners.π The opportunities for personal response.π The attempts to engage a¤ect.π The opportunities for choice o¤ered to teachers and learners.

What we did not like about Cutting Edge was:π The excessive focus on language form.π The lack of real-life tasks.π The lack of opportunities to use language for communication.π The limitations imposed by the short texts and the guided activities.π The way the engagement potential of the reading and listening texts is

ignored in favour of text-based language work.π The very ‘heavy’ units, which have too many unconnected activities.π The way every page is ‘cluttered’ with text, and devoid of any white space.π The ambiguity and lack of clarity of the instructions.π The apparent assumption that teaching = learning, made evident by an

approach which is based on giving information about grammar andvocabulary, and ignoring everything we know about the need to motivate


Specific evaluation of the individual courses

Clockwise(Oxford UniversityPress)

and engage the learners, and to provide them with comprehensible inputand with opportunities to use language rather than to just practice it.

We gave Cutting Edge an overall average rating of 64%.

Inside Out In general we like Inside Out, and would be happy to teach it.(Macmillan Heinemann ELT) What we liked about it was:

π It stands out as being di¤erent from the stereotypical coursebook.π The author’s excitement and enthusiasm are evident.π It makes use of current insights from learning research.π It respects the learners.π It promotes learning rather than teaching.π It includes a varied range of interesting spoken and written texts.π It attempts to engage the learners both a¤ectively and intellectually

(especially in the listening activities).π It encourages personal response.π It encourages student initiative.π It promotes creativity and independent thinking.π It gives priority to meaning.

What we did not like about Inside Out was:π That the engagement potential of a text is often ignored in favour of text-

based language work (e.g. ‘Pacific Heights’ on pp. 77–8 of theIntermediate Student’s Book).

π The lack of attention to communication skills.π The paucity of the writing tasks.π The poor quality of the instructions.π The lack of opportunity for extensive listening and reading.π The underuse of fiction.π The orientation towards western culture (e.g. Intermediate Student

Book, Unit 3, p. 28. ‘Chat up lines’, and Intermediate Workbook, p. 13).

We gave Inside Out an overall average of 73.8%.

Language in Use We are very impressed by the 1991 original edition Language in Use, and(Cambridge would recommend its use.University Press)

N.B. We would like to emphasise that our evaluation above (and inAppendix B) is of Language in Use (1991) and not of the New Edition ofLanguage in Use (2000).We have all seen a copy of the New Edition ofLanguage in Use Pre-Intermediate and we are all agreed that this editionwould not have been evaluated as highly as the original if we hadsubjected it to a criterion referenced evaluation. We are all disappointedthat the New Edition seems to have lost the aesthetic appeal, the potentialfor engagement and the encouragement of creativity of the orginal. It hasalso lost nearly all the reading texts and gained lots of little bits oflanguage for study instead.What we liked about it was:

π It encourages creativity.π It aims at a¤ective and intellectual engagement.π It encourages personalization.π It treats learners as individuals.



π It tries to cater for students of mixed backgrounds and abilities.π It aims at skills development.π It contains a rich variety of ‘real world’ spoken and written texts.π It is very attractive in appearance.π Its attractive illustrations are often usefully functional.

What we did not like about Language in Use was:π It is too form-focused.π It does not contain enough communication activities.π It does not have enough experiential activities (despite its claims to do

so).π It gives little attention to extensive writing.π It neglects extensive listening and reading.π It does not use enough fiction.

We gave Language in Use an overall average score of 74.5%.

Landmark We liked Landmark, and would recommend its use, especially for (Oxford University learners who want to be stimulated to think for themselves as well as toPress) learn language.

What we liked about Landmark is:π It respects the learners and the teacher.π It has an adult tone.π It encourages learner enquiry, and provides opportunities for self-

discovery (e.g. Upper Intermediate Student’s Book, p.9).π It attempts to engage a¤ect.π It provides potentially motivating exposure to English in use through a

diverse range of realistic listening and reading texts.π It provides some opportunities to develop the skills of extensive reading.π It has a potentially useful writing component which has just the right

balance of guidance and freedom.π It helps to develop thinking skills in English.π It provides some extension activities for ambitious students.π It has an aesthetic appeal.

What we did not like about Landmark was:π The predominant focus on language forms.π The lack of attention to communication skills.π The excessive control and guidance provided in many of the activities.π The limitations imposed by the brevity of the texts.π The unrealistic harmony of the world created by the course.π The Anglo-centricity of the listening texts.π The lack of opportunities for localization.π The poor quality of the instructions.π The underuse of fiction.

We gave Landmark an overall average score of 73%.

Reward We all agreed that Reward is in many ways the stereotypical middle-of-(Macmillan the-road language course which is unlikely to disturb or delight anybody,Heinemann ELT) and is therefore likely to sell very well.

What we liked about Reward was:π It attempts to raise cross-cultural awareness.π It attempts to engage a¤ect by giving opportunities for personal

response.π It gives respect to the learners.π It chunks the course in a way which makes it manageable for teachers

and for learners.π Some of the listening and reading texts are potentially motivating.

What we did not like about Reward was:π The limitations imposed by the short texts and the guided activities.π The way the engagement potential of a text is often ignored in favour of

text-based language work.π The excessive focus on the the explicit teaching of grammar rules.π The de-contextualized presentation of vocabulary and grammar.π The lack of opportunities for learners to make discoveries for themselves.π The lack of attention to communication skills.π The low priority given to writing.π The cursory, rather superficial, coverage of most of the teaching points.π The underuse of fiction.

We gave Reward an overall average score of 62.4%.

True to Life We were all very disappointed by True to Life, as we had had quite high (Cambridge expectations of it when we read the title, noticed the authors, and University Press) skimmed the coursebooks.

What we liked about True to Life was:π Some of the scenes on the video.π Some of the listening material.π The title.

What we did not like about True to Life was:π The absolute centrality of grammar.π The almost exclusive focus on language form.π The neglect of spontaneous communication and fluency activities.π The discrete nature of most of the activities.π The lack of any attempt to engage a¤ect.π The exclusive catering for analytical learners.π The lack of interesting texts.π The lack of variety of genres and text types.π The lack of imagination and creativity.π The triviality and lack of apparent transferability of many of the

activities (e.g. in Task 2, p. 29 of the Pre-Intermediate Class Book,learners in pairs are invited to ask the teacher 15 questions about his orher shoes).

π The neglect of writing skills.π The lack of opportunities for extensive listening and reading.π The potential for boring both learners and teachers.

We gave True to Life an overall average score of 54.1%.


Wavelength There are many things which we liked about Wavelength, and we would (Pearson Longman) happily recommend it and use it ourselves.

What we liked about Wavelength was:π It attempts to engage a¤ect by giving ample opportunities for personal

response.π The respect given to the learners.π The way that grammar is given major attention, but is not allowed to

destroy the reality of texts and tasks.π The priority given to meaning.π The realism of the world created by the course (e.g. arguments and

competition, as well as agreement and cooperation).π The use of narrative and of humour to engage interest and attention.π The many interesting and useful suggestions, and the optional material

o¤ered to the teachers.π The scope for learner choice, initiative, and personalization.π The provision of some extensive reading activities.

What we did not like about Wavelength was:π The predominant focus on language.π The lack of attention to communication skills.π The limited range of genres and text types.π The limitations imposed by the brevity of many of the texts, and the

inadequate guidance provided for many of the activities.π The mechanical nature of many of the exercises in the workbooks.π The low priority given to writing.π The predominance of conversational English in the listening texts.

We gave Wavelength an overall average score of 70%.

After our rigorous evaluation of the eight courses, our conclusion is thatwe would all be happy to teach or recommend Inside Out, Landmark,Language in Use, and Wavelength, they are all genuinely adult courses,and have the potential to motivate both teachers and learners.

See Appendix B for a summary of the scores which each course wasgiven for each criterion heading.

General trends in We all agreed that we had noticed and welcomed the followingcurrent courses positive trends in course development:Positive trends

π An increase in attempts to personalize the learning process by gettinglearners to relate topics and texts to their own lives, views, and feelings(especially in Language in Use and Inside Out).

π An attempt to gain the a¤ective engagement of the learners by involvingthem in texts and tasks which encourage the expression of feelings(especially in Language in Use and Wavelength).

π A greater attempt to create ‘reality’ in the texts produced for the audio-visual components of many of the courses.

π A greater potential for engagement in the audio-visual components ofmany of the courses (especially in Wavelength).

π A larger range of accents, genres, and personality types in the audio-visual components of many of the courses.

π Better quality teacher’s books, which are easier to use (e.g. by having a


page from the student’s book, and a guide to using it on the same double-page spread), more respectful to the teacher, and more useful as a source of additional material, and ideas for alternative or extraactivities.

π Better quality workbooks, as regards the engagement value of thecontent, and the attractiveness of the appearance (especially Landmarkand Wavelength).

π A multiple trialling of the materials, as evidenced by the lists ofacknowledgements to the institutions involved in the trialling.

All the above are welcome trends, but we all agree that most of themneed to go even further. This is particularly true of the trends towards thepersonalization of activities, and the engagement of a¤ect.

Negative trends We also agreed that we had noticed and regretted what we considered tobe the following negative trends:

π The insistence on a return to the ‘central place of grammar in thelanguage curriculum’ (Soars and Soars 1996), which seems to contradictwhat many of the teachers and learners in the research referred to on p.1said they want from a course. This goes against many of the findings ofSecond Language Acquisition Research (see Tomlinson 1998a, pp.5–22), and in some of the courses reviewed often resulted in the sacrificeof the potential cognitive and a¤ective engagement of a text or task inorder to focus on the explicit teaching of a ‘new’ feature of grammar, thisis also noticeable in the new edition of Language in Use Pre-Intermediatewhich is far more grammar-centred than the original 1991 edition.

π The assumption that adult learners are mainly interested in listening andspeaking, and a consequent neglect at reading and writing (activitieswhich can be extremely valuable for facilitating language acquisition,even if the skills developed are not the priority needs of the learners).

π The assertion that authenticity of text and task is not necessarily valuablefor the learner, and that a ‘reality’ which is contrived to match the level ofthe learners is likely to be more beneficial in terms of language learning.

π The assumption that today’s adult learners have short attention spans,can only cope with very short reading and listening tasks, and will onlyengage in activities for a short time.

π The neglect of extensive reading and extensive listening as a means ofengaging the interest and attention of learners, and as a source ofexposure to language in use (with the conspicuous exception ofWavelength and Inside Out).

π The assumption that most adult learners do not want and would not gainfrom intellectually demanding activities whilst engaged in learning thetarget language.

π The absence of controversial issues to stimulate thought, to provideopportunities for exchanges of views, and to make the topic contentmeaningful to adult learners (with the notable exception of the 1991edition of Language in Use).

π The lack of adult content, and especially of topics which requireintellectual and/or a¤ective investment from the learners.

π The scarcity of real tasks which have an intended outcome other than thepractice of language forms.



π The token attempt to make use of a discovery approach, which usuallyconsists of being helped to reach a pre-determined answer, and thenbeing asked to check the answer in a grammar summary (e.g. CuttingEdge).

π The neglect of literature as a source of potentially stimulating texts, andas a means of engaging learners in meaningful interaction with thetarget language—despite the many claims by methodologists of thepotential value and appeal of literature (e.g. Du¤ and Maley 1990; Lazar1993; Tomlinson 1994 ,1998b)

π The apparent abandonment of the extended project as a means ofengaging learners in motivated and meaningful encounters with thetarget language in use.

π The continuing predominance of analytical activities, and a neglect ofactivities which could cater for learners with other preferred learningstyles (e.g. kinaesthetic activities).

π The neglect of activities which could make full use of the resources of themind by stimulating multi-dimensional mental responses which are atthe same time sensory, cognitive, and a¤ective (e.g. Masuhara 1997 )

π The lack of activities aiming to stimulate the imagination of the learners.π The excessive increase in the number of course components (Reward, for

example, has seven components per level) with a noticeable drop increative energy for the multi-component courses (either from authorfatigue or from bringing in extra writers to write workbooks, etc., whomay not be initiating members of the team).

This last point prompts us to ask ‘What is the rationale for multiple-component courses?’ and ‘What are the e¤ects of multiple-componentcourses compared to the e¤ects of courses which have only a fewcomponents?’ A number of publishers have told us that they only publishmultiple-component courses because their rivals do, and that they wouldbe happy to jettison many of the money-losing components (such asvideos and resource packs) and to return to the days when a courseconsisted of a student’s book, a cassette, and a teacher’s book. The mostapparent e¤ect of multiple-component courses seems to be writer,learner, and teacher exhaustion. So perhaps we should go back to thecheaper, simpler, and more coherent days of three component courses—especially as the courses which we liked best in this review seem to bethose with the fewest components.

Conclusion We all admitted at our final meeting that we had been pleasantlysurprised by the qualities of many of the components of the courses wehave evaluated. We were all delighted by the move towards stimulatingmore personal responses from the learners, pleased by the attempts ofmany of the courses to encourage humour and fun, and impressed by therealism of many of the audio components of the courses. However, wewould all welcome a greater provision of extended experience of thelanguage in use, a reduction in the attention given to explicit knowledgeof grammar, and an increase in the attention paid to helping learners notonly to achieve accuracy, fluency, and appropriacy, but to achieve e¤ect aswell. And, finally, we would all be delighted to welcome back literature andother genres which give adults something to think, talk, and write about.


ReferencesArnold, J. 1999. A¤ect in Language Learning.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Beck, I. L, M. G. McKeown, and J. Worthy. 1995.‘Giving a text voice can improve students’understanding’. Research Reading Quarterly 30/2.Du¤, A. and A. Maley. 1990. Literature. Oxford.Oxford University Press.Elley, W. 1991. ‘Acquiring literacy in a secondlanguage: the e¤ect of book-based programmes’.Language Learning 41: 375–411.Ellis, R. 1998. ‘The evaluation of communicativetasks’ in B. Tomlinson (ed.). Materials Developmentin Language Teaching. Cambridge. CambridgeUniversity Press.Krashen, S. 1993. The Power of Reading.Englewood, Colarado: Libraries Unlimited.Lazar,G. 1993. Literature and Language Teaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Maley, A. 1998. ‘Squaring the circle—reconcilingmaterials as constraint with materials asempowerment’ in B. Tomlinson (ed.). MaterialsDevelopment in Language Teaching. Cambridge.Cambridge University Press.Masuhara, H. 1997. ‘Factors Influencing ReadingDiªculties of Authentic Materials for AdvancedLearners of EFL’. Unpublished PhD thesis.University of Luton.Masuhara, H. 1998. ‘What do teachers really wantfrom coursebooks?’ in B. Tomlinson (ed.).Materials Development in Language Teaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Oxford, R. 1997. Language Learning StrategiesAround the World: Crosscultural Perspectives.Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.Rubdy, R. 1998. ‘Task’. ELT Journal 52/3: 264–5.Soars, J. and L. Soars. 1996. ‘An introduction toNew Headway Intermediate’. Headway Teacher’sMagazine 5: 2–5.Tomlinson, B. 1994. Openings. London: Penguin.Tomlinson, B. 1998a. ‘Introduction’ in B.Tomlinson (ed.). Materials Development inLanguage Teaching. Cambridge. CambridgeUniversity Press.Tomlinson, B. 1998b. ‘And now for something notcompletely di¤erent’. Reading in a ForeignLanguage. 11/2: 177–89.Tomlinson, B. 1998c. ‘A¤ect and the coursebook’in IATEFL Issues 145: 20–1.Tomlinson, B. 1999. ‘Materials development forlanguage teachers’ in Modern English Teacher 8/1:62–4.Wajnryb, R. 1996. ‘Death, taxes and jeopardy:

systematic omissions in EFL texts, or life wasnever meant to be an adjacency pair’. Sydney:ELICOS Association 9th Educational Conference.Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-basedLearning. Harlow: Longman.Widdowson, H. G. 2000. ‘Object language and thelanguage subject: on the mediating role of appliedlinguistics’ in The Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics 20: 21–33.

The reviewersBrian Tomlinson is Reader in Language Learningand Teaching in the Centre for Language Study atLeeds Metropolitan University, and Founder andPresident of MATSDA (the Materials DevelopmentAssociation). He has worked in languageeducation and teacher development in Indonesia,Japan, Nigeria, Singapore, Vanuatu, and Zambia,and has given conference presentations in over 40countries. His numerous publications includeDiscover English and Openings and MaterialsDevelopment in Language Teaching.Boa Dat is a Fellow at the National University ofSingapore, where he teaches Vietnamese. He haspreviously taught English at the NationalUniversity of Vietnam, and is currently workingfor a PhD with Leeds Metropolitan University. Hehas published a number of articles on speakingskills, and given presentations in The Philippinesand the USA. He is also a well-known cartoonist inVietnam and Singapore.Hitomi Masuhara is Lecturer in Lesser-TaughtLanguages in the Centre for Language Study atLeeds Metropolitan University. Previously she wasa Fellow at the National University of Singaporewhere she taught Japanese and Cross-culturalStudies. She has also taught English at NagoyaWomen’s University, and on the MA in L2Materials Development at the University of Luton.She has published a number of articles and books(including Use Your English and Active Japanese) andgiven conference presentations in every continent.Rani Rubdy is a Senior Lecturer in the Departmentof English Language and Literature at the NationalUniversity of Singapore, where she teachesundergraduate and postgraduate courses onlanguage education and the teaching of ESP. Priorto this she taught at the Central Institute ofEnglish and Foreign Languages in Hyderabad.Her current research interests are classroom-based research and curriculum innovation, andshe has published a number of articles andreviews, including some for the ELT Journal.


ComponentsLevelsApp

endi

x A

: Sum

mar

y of

cou

rse

com

pone

nts

revi

ewed

(fur

ther

com

pone

nts

may

now

be

avai

labl

e)Pu

blis

her

Cam

brid

ge U

nive

rsity

Pre

ssM

acm

illan

Hei

nem

ann

ELT

Oxf

ord

Uni

vers

ity P

ress

Pear

son

Long

man

Cou

rse

Lang

uage

in

True

to L

ifeIn

side

Out

Rew

ard

Clo

ckw

ise

Land

mar

kC

uttin

g Ed

geW

avel

engt

hU

se

Publ

icat

ion

of

1991

1995

200

019

9520

00

200

019

9820

00

Firs

t Lev

el

Stud

ent

Do¤

, A.

Gai

rns,

R.

Kay

, S.

Gre

enal

l, S.

McG

owen

, B.

Hai

nes,

S.

Cun

ning

ham

, S.

Bur

ke, K

. C

ours

eboo

k C

. Jon

esS.

Red

man

; V.

Jone

sV.

Ric

hard

son;

B

. Ste

war

t.P.

Moo

r.J.

Bro

oks.

Aut

hors

J. C

ollie

, W

. For

syth

.; S.

Hai

nes.

; J.

Nau

nton

.S.

Sla

ter.

Targ

et L

earn

ers

Youn

g A

dults

/A

dults

Youn

g A

dults

/Yo

ung

Adu

lts/

Youn

g A

dults

/Yo

ung

Adu

lts/

Youn

g A

dults

Yo

ung

Adu

lts/

Adu

ltsA

dults

Adu

ltsA

dults

Adu

ltsA

dults

Adv

ance

d–

––

γ–

––

–

Uppe

r-Int

erm

edia

teγ

γ–

γγ

γγ

–

Inte

rmed

iate

γγ

γγ

γγ

γ–

Pre-

Inte

rmed

iate

γγ

–γ

γ–

–γ

Elem

enta

ry–

γ–

γ–

––

γB

egin

ner

γ–

––

––

––

Star

ter

–γ

–γ

––

––

Stud

ent’s

Boo

kγ

γγ

γγ

γγ

γTe

ache

r’s

Boo

kγ

γγ

γγ

γγ

γR

esou

rce

Boo

kγ

γγ

γγ

–γ

γC

lass

Cas

sett

esγ

γγ

γγ

γγ

γC

lass

CD

Rom

––

–γ

––

–γ

Wor

kboo

kγ

γγ

γγ

γγ

γSt

uden

t Cas

sette

sγ

γγ

––

–γ

–

Stud

ent C

D R

om–

γ–

––

––

γTe

sts

γγ

γ–

––

γ–

Rea

der

––

––

––

–γ

Rea

der C

D R

om–

––

––

––

γV

ideo

–γ

–γ

––

––


App

endi

x B

: Sum

mar

y of

eva

luat

ion

Cou

rse

Clo

ckw

ise

Cut

ting

Edge

Insi

de O

utLa

ndm

ark

Lang

uage

In U

seR

ewar

dTr

ue to

Life

Wav

elen

gth

Tota

l Gra

de54%

64%

74%

73%

75%

62%

54%

70%

Ove

rall

Cou

rse

440

50%

57%

68%

71%

72%

57%

49%

66%

1pu

blis

her’

s cl

aim

s40

57%

67%

79%

80%

78%

67%

51%

70%

2fle

xibi

lity

100

39%

51%

61%

62%

66%

51%

39%

61%

3sy

llabu

s65

56%

65%

66%

75%

70%

55%

52%

71%

4pe

dago

gic

appr

oach

110

45%

62%

68%

73%

73%

53%

45%

65%

5to

pic

cont

ents

3560

%66

%75

%74

%81

%62

%54

%69

%

6vo

ice

1060

%70

%80

%83

%75

%75

%68

%73

%

7in

stru

ctio

ns20

59%

58%

70%

65%

65%

71%

70%

70%

8te

acha

bilit

y40

48%

58%

66%

64%

75%

58%

53%

62%

9du

rabi

lity

2064

%35

%76

%79

%74

%65

%59

%69

%

Cou

rseb

ook

135

58%

65%

77%

72%

73%

67%

58%

66%

1ap

pear

ance

2563

%69

%74

%66

%76

%64

%54

%70

%

2de

sign

4558

%60

%78

%73

%73

%72

%74

%65

%

3ill

ustr

atio

ns

3058

%68

%77

%75

%73

%66

%52

%67

%

4re

adin

g te

xts

3553

%64

%79

%74

%71

%65

%46

%65

%

Cas

sett

e (&

CD

Rom

)55

63%

68%

80%

69%

76%

61%

60%

68%

Teac

her’

s B

ook

45

53%

64%

81%

70%

72%

66%

70%

69%

Wor

kboo

k25

N.A

.58%

69%

75%

71%

63%

65%

66%

Vid

eo30

N.A

.N

.A.

N.A

.N

.A.

N.A

.53%

44%

N.A

.

Survey: EFL Courses for adults - CiteSeerX

Documents

Transcript of Survey: EFL Courses for adults - CiteSeerX