Coursebooks, and using one well

The criticism is misdirected. The dependence is a resourcing fact.

Coursebook dependence attracts criticism in professional discussion and is a predictable outcome of unpaid preparation time. Given that reality, the useful question is how to use one well rather than whether to use one.

Using one well is mostly about selection and supplementation. A unit chosen because it fits what this class needs, with the parts that do not apply cut and one activity added that connects to the students' actual purpose, is a good lesson. Working through a unit page by page because it is next is not.

The most valuable supplementation is usually local and cheap: a text from something the students will actually encounter, a recording of unscripted speech, a task drawn from the university or workplace they are heading to. None of that requires design skill.

The parts of a coursebook most worth cutting are usually the ones nearest the beginning of a unit, which are designed to introduce a topic to a class that has not chosen it. A class that has a reason to be there does not need warming to the subject.

It is worth saying that many teachers in this sector are extremely good and are working under conditions that would not be accepted elsewhere in education. The structural critique here is not a criticism of them; it is an account of why sustaining that quality depends so heavily on individual goodwill.