My Favorite Coursebooks (or: Not All Coursebooks Are the Same)

There is a very lively discussion right now on Twitter and in some blogs (ex: here and here) about the value of coursebooks. What is being presented seems to come down to an either/or fallacy in which coursebooks are taken to be something monolithic that you either support or your don’t – that are either good or bad. These arguments also assume that every coursebook is the same, and all teachers utilize them the same way. All of this is, of course, nonsense, as the value of coursebooks and how they are utilized is not an easy thing to decide and is not uniform. The whole coursebook debate is something very complex that is being too simplistically argued. Furthermore, in my view, you cannot simply categorically reject all coursebooks, as coursebooks don’t all fit in the same category! That is precisely the point of my post today.

This debate has occurred many times, but Geoff Jordan’s excellent presentation at InnovateELT seems to be the catalyst of the most recent online debate. To summarize his main points, he argues that coursebooks have no value because they make these three assumptions:

  • that the declarative knowledge taught in these coursebooks, especially in terms of grammar, will lead to procedural knowledge;
  • that languages are learned by accumulating rules;
  • that learners learn what they are taught when they are taught it.

What Geoff Jordan is making here are valid arguments, with evidence to support them. The problem is, however, they cannot be levied against every coursebook. Take, for example, my two favorite coursebooks: Sourcework and Contemporary Topics.


Sourcework is a coursebook dedicated to helping students learn how to write research papers. It provides practice in research, summarizing, paraphrasing, making citations, organizing research papers, using evidence to make strong arguments, etc. It provides numerous research articles to help guide students in building their first research paper. I have used it numerous times on its own and to supplement other texts. It remains my favorite advanced writing text. How does it hold up to Geoff’s argument?

1. Assumption: declarative knowledge leads to procedural knowledge

You will not find grammar or vocabulary in this book. Yet, you will find declarative knowledge. Model sentences (e.g. paraphrased sentences), model paragraphs (e.g. introductions or body paragraphs with evidence) and model research papers fill the book, along with explanations of the why and how of writing techniques, style choices, APA citation formulae, etc. Will this translate into procedural knowledge? Possibly, but the book does not make the assumption that a little practice will lead students there. In fact, the book makes no assumption at all – it’s a book. Only the teacher can make such an assumption, and if they do, clearly they are wrong. The book is a guide, as is the teacher.

The point of the book is to give students a lot of writing practice (structured and free, with tons of teacher feedback) and a source of models and support for writing their own research papers. There is no guarantee that students will be able to complete this course and coursebook, toss it in the fire, and write beautiful research papers with nary a peek at some book or website to assist them. Then again, no course, coursebook, or teacher can promise that. (And even native speakers need help in writing these kinds of papers!) As Geoff has said, the link between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge is not clearly established, nor are the means to move between the two. So, there are few instances where we can guarantee that students internalize and automatize everything that is taught, whether they are in a grammar translation or dogme classroom. All we can do is provide meaningful practice, feedback, and revision – and pray that it works (spoiler: it often does).

2. Assumption: languages are learned by accumulating rules

There are no rules taught in this book, but there are skills, so this assumption could still apply to them. It begins with summarizing and paraphrasing, moving to researching, outlining, planning, writing, editing, etc. – what’s known as the writing process. Do these skills have to be learned in order to be a good writer? No. But, the skills do represent the usual order people take when they begin to write a research paper – perfect scaffolding for a fledgling university student. They read research, summarize and paraphrase it to better understand it, generate arguments, plan and draft, and finally revise their papers. If anything, the structure of this coursebook is simply following the natural writing process that most people – students and professors alike – go through. Nevertheless, the skills do kind of accumulate and culminate in some end product. Therefore, the assumption above is somewhat met. Here, writing skills accumulate in order to produce an end product. Does it devalue the book itself, the course, the teacher, or the skills learned? I highly doubt it.

3. Assumption: learners learn what they are taught when they are taught it

This book recycles over and over again the skills of the previous chapters. It is working on the assumption that you must constantly use all skills to write a research paper effectively. For example, in looking at body paragraphs and integrating evidence, one needs to not only find evidence to use, but decide whether to summarize or paraphrase it, and then figure out how to go about it. Clearly this is asking students to recall, re-apply, and recycle a fundamental writing skill (which may be why summarizing and paraphrasing were selected as one of the first chapters).

Beyond the coursebook, what will the students be writing in class? Will they write a single research paper and that’s it? Probably not. A good teacher would make sure students write multiple research papers, recalling, re-applying, and recycling all the writing skills they have learned while receiving support and feedback all the way. Unless students are truly only given the chance to practice these skills in a singular one-off fashion, this coursebook clearly does not meet the above assumption.


Contemporary Topics is a multi-level academic listening and speaking course (I believe they have 3 levels of books) that offers short 5-10 minute academic lectures (audio and video) as well as model study group student discussions (audio and video) to accompany vocabulary and listening skill building exercises, as well as group discussion techniques and presentation ideas. Each unit represents common academic courses that students will likely encounter (e.g. science, psychology, linguistics, anthropology). Each unit also follows the same structure, which, in truth can be a bit dull. However, the best thing about this book is that its sparseness and brevity of activities, which leaves it wide open for deeper exploration, adaptation, and supplementation. I believe this book was left intentionally sparse, knowing that the teacher will teach what students need to know in terms of grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary etc. It is up to the students and the teacher to explore the language – the book just gives a source for academic listening. However, it is still a coursebook, so how does it fare under the assumptions?

1. Assumption: declarative knowledge leads to procedural knowledge

There is no declarative knowledge being taught in this book. There are no grammar rules or pronunciation points. No why or hows here. Just some vocab exposure and listening practice – lots of it. Maybe one can argue that this book makes the assumption that hearing vocabulary will lead to true mastery of that vocabulary? If it does, that assumption, of course, is incorrect. However, I believe it is working on the assumption that multiple exposures to vocabulary through reading, writing, listening and speaking help cement vocabulary. I believe this because the vocabulary is presented in these different modes, and it is recycled throughout the book.

2. Assumption: languages are learned by accumulating rules

There are no rules in this book. Nothing gets accumulated. I’m not even sure that the lectures get lexically or structurally more complex – they all seem to be at the same level of difficulty. This book is operating under the assumption that listening needs to be at an appropriate level and improving listening requires motivating listening texts and repeated exposures.

3. Assumption: learners learn what they are taught when they are taught it

This book explicitly teaches one listening strategy and one speaking strategy for each unit. For example, it may teach that keywords that speakers use for defining words or concepts (“that is,” “or,” “in other words”), and it may teach phrases for disagreeing. These are discrete skills in an otherwise holistic coursebook. However, these are secondary to the listening practice. And the listening practice affords multiple chances to recycle this knowledge. Does this book fall victim to this assumption? I’m not sure. However, I know that when I use this book, I never assume students have learned the discrete skills, so we are constantly reviewing and recycling. I also never assume the two suggested listenings are enough for the students. I get students to listen many times, to the whole lecture, to parts of the lecture, with subtitles, without subtitltes, in-class with discussions or at home for homework – we do lots of different activities that go beyond the textbook.


I’ve presented my two favorite coursebooks to show that Geoff’s arguments, while valid, do not apply to all textbooks. The textbooks listed above are far from perfect. No textbook is, just as no teacher, class, or student is perfect. One could argue that the textbooks I presented here are not the type of coursebooks we often refer to when making these argument. But, then, what kinds of coursebooks are we referring to? You’ll find that there is no categorical coursebook that can be argued against, and by constantly changing the parameters of what a coursebook is or isn’t, we may have slipped into a No True Scotsman fallacy.

As you read in my examples above, I never divorced the textbook from the teacher. This is because there is more to what goes on in a language class than the textbook. Teacher agency in terms of following, not-following, utilizing, supplementing and/or adapting a textbook is very important. Student agency is of equal importance. Geoff’s arguments hold up much better if they are applied to teaching in general and not to the specific tools that the teacher uses.

And, it should be obvious to all by now that there is no one correct way to teach a language. Textbook, no textbook, CLT, TBL, dogme, learning styles, data-driven learning, explicit, implicit, grammar, communication – all these are minor variables in a very complex process that we can only seem to make educated guesses at. Out of all the factors that affect teaching the most, time and time again teacher plausability seems to have one of the greatest effects. I highly recommend reading this article by NS Prabhu to learn more about teacher plausability and why there is no best teaching method.

6 thoughts on “My Favorite Coursebooks (or: Not All Coursebooks Are the Same)

  1. geoffjordan says:

    Very good post, Anthony. I had thought about ESP, EAP, etc. coursebooks but decided to concentrate on the main “General English” ones. Still, I should have made this clear. In any case, your post makes very interesting reading. One thing though – using even the coursebooks you mention might lead to the implementation of a product syllabus, with the disadvantages I’ve suggested that this entails.

    • Anthony Schmidt says:

      Hi Geoff! Thanks for the comment. The books I chose are indeed EAP books, but they’ve also been used in more “General English” contexts as well. I think my main problem was the blanket use of the word “coursebook,” especially when your arguments (the assumptions) should be more directly aimed at teaching in general. They are not only the assumptions of some coursebooks, but also of teachers themselves. So, teachers should strive to circumvent them whenever and however possible. The rallying cry against a single teacher tool such as textbooks, in my opinion, is not well directed. Most of the time, teachers have little choice about the textbooks they get, but they do often get the choice of how to use or not use them. For example, my students are assigned a coursebook, but I am free to use it or not use it as I see fit. If teachers are operating along these incorrect assumptions, then that is a problem worth discussing.

      Regarding the product syllabus, I fail to see how the second coursebook I mentioned (Contemporary Topics) can lead to that, and a product is a necessary part of the writing classroom, so Sourcework is guilt as charged for that one. When I used Sourcework, however, I pretty much followed the process syllabus outlined in your presentation. We did the first half of the course as a skills learning section (learning paraphrasing, summarizing, reading and taking notes, drafting, etc.) and then for the second half of the course, they read, researched and wrote about topics that interested them, at their pace, and with me as simply a guide. True, I didn’t get them to plan this stage of the course, but we definitely made decisions together, it was internal to the learner, and it was done with the learner. Perhaps it was a hybrid product/process syllabus.

      Thanks again for the comments!

      • Hi again,

        Any dichotomy deliberately simplifies things and thus Breen’s product / process dichotomy needs to be seen for what it is: an argument for a process syllabus. You’re quite right – again! – to suggest that in practice the lines are blurred. I agree with all the points you make, which emphasise the teacher’s role in implementing what he / she is given to work with. However, at the severe risk of sounding pedantic, I repeat my general claim that we need to involve learners more in what we do, and that, rather than skilfully work within the restrictive chains, sorry, the necessary limitations, of a coursebook, we select for ourselves (“ourselves” being teacher and learners together) the bits and pieces of material that best suit our mutually-agreed purposes.

  2. Matthew says:

    Geoff: “using even the coursebooks you mention might lead to the implementation of a product syllabus, with the disadvantages I’ve suggested that this entails”

    Anthony: “a product is a necessary part of the writing classroom”

    ^ Great point…and isn’t this generally true of more than just ‘the writing classroom’? What I’m saying is, are we at risk of being blinkered if we take an ‘all process’ stance? It sometimes seems to be where we slip to in our critique of coursebooks, etc.

    I would of course agree that MANY (not all!) coursebooks tend to unhelpfully (to say the least!) ignore process and favor/inspire product oriented teaching over process oriented learning, but aren’t you we distorting things by perhaps painting a far too dichotomous picture of process vs. product? (Geoff you do acknowledge this in your final comment above).

    This is been a good read for me, thanks Anthony, Geoff, and Rose.

Comments are closed.