Some years ago, I was working as Development Editor on a major new General English coursebook series. The stakes were high and a great deal of care was being taken over each book's content and presentation. One morning, I was hunting for a photograph to illustrate a simulated 'problem page' reading task. I settled on a black and white, head and shoulders shot of a woman smiling and holding a cigarette. The picture seemed perfect, just the right blend of integrity, sympathy and sophistication.

The page proof, once completed, was submitted to my senior editor for approval. It was returned within minutes. Scrawled across the photograph in red were the words: 'No alcohol, no cigarettes, no swimsuits'.

There are countries in the world where images of women smoking are considered offensive. More pertinently, there are countries in the ELT market where images of women smoking are considered offensive. And herein lies the moral of the story: General English coursebooks are governed by the Benthamite principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. Consequently, GE syllabuses tend to be predictable and linear, approaches broadly communicative and activities informed by the PPP model of ELT practice.

It should be said that there are those for whom these statements constitute a defence of the coursebook rather than the reverse. Writing in the compendium The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (Carter and Nunan eds, 2001), Brain Tomlinson observes:

Proponents of coursebooks

Proponents of the coursebook argue that it is the most convenient form of presenting materials, it helps to achieve consistency and continuation, it gives learners a sense of system, cohesion and progress, and it helps teachers prepare and the learner revise. (67)

This is particularly true for smaller language schools characterized by a brisk student turnover and an inexperienced teaching staff. Such schools generally host learners who may express a need to study English but have no explicitly-stated learning goals. In such an environment, the coursebook represents the most feasible and economical way to provide a structured learning programme.

Opponents of coursebooks

Opponents counter that a coursebook is inevitably superficial and reductionist in its coverage of language points and in its provision of language experience, it cannot cater for the diverse needs of all its users, it imposes uniformity of syllabus and approach, and it removes initiative and power from teachers. (Tomlinson, ibid)

Implicit within both excerpts is the assumption that coursebook and syllabus are one and the same thing. The syllabus in question will have been devised for the kind of target audience outlined above. In other words, it will provide the greatest good for the greatest number and fit when nothing else has been put in place.

It will not, however, be adequate to the needs of learners studying for specific vocational or academic purposes:

Necassary tools

We must not lose sight of the fact that students do not study EAP for general purposes but to equip themselves with the necessary tools to study specific academic subjects. (Jordan, 1997, 249)

The key phrase here is 'necessary tools'. A General English coursebook may pay lip service to the notion of learner autonomy. It may feature periodic recycling units designed to have students reflect upon their learning. It may ask them questions about how they intend to pursue their language learning outside the classroom. But it will not equip learners for a subject-specific course of study. Coursebooks, while they may strive to create a balance of the four 'skills,' are nonetheless not skills-based. Unsurprisingly, coursebooks, promote language learning rather than skill gathering.

In a programme designed to prepare young learners for success at tertiary level, it is arguable that inculcating effective study skills is more important than teaching the language. (And this is doubly salient in the case of learners from a pedagogically impoverished education system.) A General English coursebook will not, cannot and should not take the place of a syllabus designed to meet the specific needs of specific learners in a specific situation. It can, at best, serve as a source of activities or ideas.

Implicational heirachy

When constructing the ESAP course, Liz Hamp-Lyons argues for an implicational hierarchy:

Needs analysis leads to the specification of objectives for a course or set of courses and to an assessment of the available resources and constraints to be borne in mind, which in turn lead to the syllabus(es) and methodology. The syllabus is implemented through teaching materials, and then evaluated for effectiveness. (Carter and Nunan, op cit, 127)

It is noteworthy that materials come last in the hierarchy and are even then subject to evaluation and revision. It is noteworthy also that Hamp-Lyons employs the term 'teaching materials' rather than 'coursebook'. Materials can be revised, improved, expanded or otherwise adjusted for fit. A coursebook can merely be replaced or, at best, buttressed with a hodgepodge of exercises from extraneous sources.

Conclusion

The General English coursebook, then, has an ancillary, if any, role to play in the ESAP syllabus. This remains true even if the course demands a conventional achievement test as part of its assessment programme. To allow a General English coursebook to serve as de facto syllabus is to short change our students. It is to do them, and ourselves, a grave disservice.

*ESAP: English for Specific Academic Purposes

References

Hamp-Lyons, L. 2001. English for Academic Purposes. In Carter, R and D. Nunan eds, 'The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages'. Cambridge, C.U.P.

Jordan, R.R. 1997. English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge, C.U.P.

Nunan, D. 2000. Expressions. Boston, Heinle and Heinle

Tomlinson, B. 2001. Materials Development. In Carter, R and D. Nunan eds, 'The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages'. Cambridge, C.U.P.