I

16

Anson Yang and Chan-piu CheungH O N G K O N G

N ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING, COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING (CLT)

and cooperative learning (CL) share a common characteristic: in a meaningful

task students are asked to exchange information among themselves in small

groups and/or with the teacher. This kind of student collaboration has two ben-

efits. First, the whole class actively participates in a task at the same time and

students can then compare their findings when the task is over; and second, the

meaningful task is rehearsed in class for later use in real communication outside

the classroom. In some ELT settings, Hong Kong for example, many obstacles

have deterred secondary school English teachers from using either CLT or CL

in their classes. These include large class size, lack of training in communicative

and cooperative techniques, and mistaking any group work for communicative

teaching and cooperative learning. One obstacle that most schools cannot over-

come is the extensive language syllabus prescribed by the textbook. Actually,

each level of a textbook is often a set of texts, which may include an all-in-one

J U L Y 2 0 0 3 E N G L I S H T E A C H I N G F O R U M

Adapting Textbook ActivitiesFOR CommunicativeTeachingANDCooperativeLearning

03-0107 ETF_16_25 9/5/03 11:13 AM Page 16

textbook, listening tapes, a grammar book, anda short story book. In theory, teachers have tofollow the rationale and sequence of each chap-ter; but in reality, for a variety of reasons, teach-ers skip items in the textbooks.

If the syllabus is too long and detailed, stu-dents’ abilities are low, or teachers have a heavyschedule of extracurricular activities, teachersmay choose only the essential tasks, that is thosethat require little or no class preparation. Whenthis happens, teachers have little flexibility toexplore the use of communicative languageteaching and cooperative learning in theirclasses. This article explains how textbooks canbe adapted so that classes include more com-municative and cooperative activities, especial-ly for teachers who are hesitant to use CLTand CL because of textbook constraints. Usingtwo microteaching classes taught in City Uni-versity of Hong Kong as examples, this articledemonstrates that even when teachers arerequired to have students complete tasks in thetextbook, they can successfully apply the prin-ciples of CLT and CL.

Defining Communicative LanguageTeaching and Cooperative Learning

Communicative language teaching began inBritain in the 1960s, in part as a replacementfor the earlier, highly-structured method of sit-uational language teaching. In this early model,students were given a specific situation or adilemma that they had to solve. The given sit-uations, more often than not, were irrelevant tothe needs of students. For example, teenagestudents role played as the manager and staff ofa company that was having a financial crisis.Unfortunately, many language textbooks arestill presenting this model of situational teach-ing. This is because textbooks are written for alarge readership in different countries whereEnglish may be the first, second, or a foreignlanguage. If a teacher uses such an activitywithout any adaptation, English students willbe distanced from the situation because thetask won’t be meaningful to them. Commu-nicative language teaching requires authenticcommunication, which includes a believablesetting, a normal speed in speaking, a range oflexical items suitable for the students’ ages, andan overall promotion of learning. Wilkins(1972) believes that people should learn a for-eign language for performing different func-

tions. Therefore, it is natural to introduceauthentic learning material in class (Nunan1991; Dubin 1995; Widdowson 1996).

Cooperative learning tasks go a further stepby encouraging students to work together andby promoting an equal opportunity for everystudent to participate in the activity. Improv-ing self-esteem, enjoyment of school, andinterethnic relations are key in this approach(Johnson, Johnson and Holubec 1993; Slavin1995). Cooperative learning also requiresstrategies for student collaboration and atten-tion to how strictly the teacher should struc-ture activities to help encourage effectivecooperation (Sapon-Shevin and Schniedewind1991). Indeed, many cooperative learningactivities combine a group component withother components in which the teacherdemonstrates and students work alone (Slavin1995). In most cases, both CLT and CLrequire teachers to provide language supportin terms of useful vocabulary and grammar sothat students are able to succeed in the task(Richards 1995). Students will benefit morefrom CLT and CL if they understand thatcommunicating and sharing with peers is alanguage learning strategy that they can applyoutside a class setting (Oxford 1990).

The Hong Kong government acknowl-edges the importance of such concepts in adocument stipulating that learners be provid-ed with greater opportunities “for purposefulcommunication both inside and outside theclassroom” (Curriculum Development Coun-cil 2002:5). According to the document, inthe learning process, teachers should helplearners to “learn how to learn” and “think andact independently” (Curriculum DevelopmentCouncil 2002:80). These notions apply notonly to Hong Kong; they should be guidelinesfor teachers in ESL/EFL settings everywhere.To apply the guidelines, teachers should bearin mind the following rules of thumb whenthey prepare for a communicative or coopera-tive activity:

1. The activity must be purposeful andmeaningful. Students should be givenconvincing reasons for doing the activ-ity, and they should know what theywill have achieved upon completion ofthe activity.

2. The activity must be authentic. The itemstaught in the activity must suit students’

E N G L I S H T E A C H I N G F O R U M J U L Y 2 0 0 3 17

03-0107 ETF_16_25 9/5/03 11:13 AM Page 17

ages, habits, and environment. Studentsmust be able to use the items for academ-ic and non-academic purposes.

3. Teachers should feel free to adapt text-book activities.

4. Mechanical drills should not be the onlyactivity in pair or group work.

5. A diversity of activities is needed.

The following sections on listening andgrammar illustrate common mistakes made byteacher trainees who too rigidly adhered to thetextbook’s prescribed lessons and exerciseswithout regard for the guidelines offered abovefor a successful communicative or cooperativeactivity. The sections also show how thetrainees then modified or might modify theirlessons to make them more authentically com-municative and cooperative.

Microteaching 1: Listening

For a lesson on listening, English teachertrainees were taught to use pair and groupwork to maximize cooperative learning. In amicroteaching class, a trainee followed a lessonin Oxford Junior English 2A, the most popularEnglish textbook in Hong Kong for studentsaged 13 (Etherton, Kingston, McArthur andLeetch 1999). The objective of the lesson is forstudents to identify objects from a spokendescription. The situation is that a woman’shouse was burgled and five pieces of jewelrywere stolen. The police have retrieved somejewelry and want the woman to describe thestolen items. In the student book, 17 pieces ofjewelry are shown. Students are to listen to thedescription recorded on the accompanyingtape and then match the description with thepictures in the book (see appendix A).

In this microteaching class, the traineeclearly explained the classroom language andprocedures in the lesson plan to her “students”(in reality, her classmates). She first introducedthe vocabulary words: gold, silver, bracelet,necklace, ring, earring, diamond, emerald, andruby, according to the guidelines in theteacher’s book (appendix B). She then playedthe tape and had students identify the objects.After the listening task, she put students ingroups and had them check their answerswithin the group. Then, still following theguidelines suggested in the teacher’s book, thetrainee asked each student to describe one

piece of jewelry shown in the book to theother members of the group. The traineeexplained that she considered this series ofactivities meaningful and authentic becausestudents had to talk to each other to find theanswer. Actually, the task as presented in themicroteaching class was neither meaningfulnor authentic because rarely would a13-year-old student need to describe lost jew-elry. At best, the activity could only be a weakversion of CLT (Holliday 1994). A smallchange was suggested by another trainee: stu-dents could pretend that they were shoppingfor jewelry with their mother in an Englishspeaking country and they could translate forthe mother, who speaks little English. This isstill a weak version of CLT because if studentshave to pretend, authenticity is reduced,although it may still be somewhat meaningful.

It was suggested that cooperative elementsbe incorporated into this task, thereby chang-ing the activity from situational languageteaching to a game. Of course, teachers shouldintroduce necessary vocabulary words beforethe cooperative activities, which include the“three-step interview” and “think-pair-write”processes described below (see Kagan 1992and Jacobs, Lee and Ball 1997).

Before the three-step interview, each stu-dent is given three letters from a to q, each ofwhich represents one of the 17 pieces of jewel-ry that should be described. Then students sitin groups of four and do the following three-step interview. In step one, each student in thegroup writes what she has just heard describeditem by item. In step two, each student writeswhat she wants to know more about from thedescription just heard. Then in step three, eachstudent tries to find the answers within thegroup (think-pair-write). When all have fin-ished, the teacher writes the numbers 1 to 5 onthe board, representing the five pieces of stolenjewelry described by the woman on the tape.The teacher then plays the tape, and studentswho think they have the letter correspondingto that piece of jewelry will race to stick theirletter under that number. The group with themost correct matches wins the game. The gamechanges the activity from a weak CLT versionto a stronger one, plus the game is meaningfuland authentic. The teacher only needs to pre-pare pieces of paper with the letters on them,and to write the numbers 1 to 5 on the board.

18 J U L Y 2 0 0 3 E N G L I S H T E A C H I N G F O R U M

03-0107 ETF_16_25 9/5/03 11:13 AM Page 18

The insertion of cooperative elements in thegroup work also promotes equal learningopportunity and teamwork.

Microteaching 2: Grammar

In a micoteaching class for grammar, anoth-er teacher trainee delivered a lesson on the pas-sive voice, also using Oxford Junior English 2A.(The grammar lesson is part of a chapter basedon a reading about an elderly man who prac-tices traditional Chinese fishing using cor-morant birds.) She taught the grammar part(appendix C) by following the steps given inthe teacher’s book (appendix D). She firstintroduced the differences between active voiceand passive voice, then she had the “students”(her classmates) do exercises A1 and A2(appendix C) on identifying the subjects andthe voice of the sentence. Next, she asked thestudents to complete the fill-in-the-blanksexercise in A3 (appendix C), which is based onthe reading about traditional fishing. After thestudents had finished, she had them sit ingroups of four and check their answers amongthemselves. The trainee said she considered thisactivity communicative because, in her words,“students had to help each other in a meaning-ful task, which is to check the correct answers.”

Admittedly, teaching grammar to ESL/EFLstudents may sometimes involve mechanicaldrills, but even drills should require students tothink. However, the exercise this trainee usedrequired little effort on the students’ part. Infact, exercise A3 is more like a vocabulary exer-cise than one for passive voice because theverbs have all been transformed into their par-ticipial forms. Students only need to under-stand the meaning of the verb and then readthe noun immediately preceding each blank inorder to decide whether is or are should beinserted before the participle verb in the blank.

A small change to the lesson plan can max-imize cooperative learning in this lesson. Stu-dents could still be asked to complete exercis-es A1 and A2, but they should close theirbooks for exercise A3. Then, instead of merelyfilling in the blanks, each student should usefive of the ten verbs used in A3 to rewrite orsummarize the story of the elderly fisherman,which they had read earlier, in passive voice.The teacher can then introduce the coopera-tive activities “round robin” and “numberedheads” described below.

After students have finished their individualsummaries, they work in groups of four. Eachstudent takes a turn reading her short piece tothe other group members until everyone hasread their complete summary out loud (roundrobin). Students then compare their versionsand choose the best one. When the teachercalls a number, the student in each group withthat number will deliver the best version cho-sen by the group (numbered heads). After allgroups have presented, the teacher chooses thebest summary. Students then complete the fill-in-the-blanks exercise of A3.

Such modification allows more communi-cation among students and stresses autonomyand creativity, because students choose theirown five verbs and decide what they shouldinclude in their summary. This modificationalso allows the teacher to check on how wellthe students understand passive voice, not onlyits written structure but also its pronunciation.

As a cooperative follow-up activity to fur-ther consolidate the understanding of passivevoice, the teacher can prepare small blankcards for students. Students sit in groups ofthree, and each student receives eight cards.Student A in each group writes a subject oneach card, student B writes a verb, and studentC writes an object. Then they shuffle the 24cards and place them on their desk facingdown. Each student takes a turn turning overthree cards. When the three cards consist of asubject, a verb, and an object, together thegroup members create a complete sentence inpassive voice. If the three cards do not repre-sent the three categories, they have to beturned face down again and three other cardsare turned over. The game continues until theteacher signals the end, after which the teachercan check to see which group has the mostcorrect sentences. This activity stresses struc-ture and creativity because students have toprovide their own words, and their sentenceswill not be the same as those created in othergroups. This will also be a good chance for stu-dents to explore the differences between tran-sitive and intransitive verbs, since the lattercannot be used in passive form. The teachercan also write the best sentences on the boardso that the rest of the class can learn from theirpeers in other groups.

E N G L I S H T E A C H I N G F O R U M J U L Y 2 0 0 3 19

03-0107 ETF_16_25 9/5/03 11:13 AM Page 19

Conclusion

New teachers always feel an obligation tocomplete all tasks in the textbook. Althoughthey might have learnt about the usefulness ofCLT or CL in their teacher training, they can-not always put them into practice because ofbusy class schedules and other administrativeduties. However, as Jacobs and Hall (In press)point out, it has never been suggested that aclass be organized in cooperative groups all thetime. It is impractical to think that one or twoapproaches can work wonders for all students,even when they have identical educationalbackgrounds. In fact, teachers have to makechanges from time to time when delivering alesson. This article suggests small modifica-tions of activities, so that even when teachershave to follow textbook tasks, they can easilyadapt them for communicative teaching withminimal extra preparation for themselves ortheir students. Also, this article shows that asmall change of task can make it more authen-tic for students and enhance the cooperativelearning potential of a textbook activity.

References

Curriculum Development Council. 2002. Englishlanguage education: Key learning area curriculumguide (primary 1–secondary 3). Hong Kong:Education Department.

Dubin, F. 1995. The craft of material writing. InMaterial writer’s guide, ed. P. Byrd. Boston:Heinle and Heinle, pp. 67–78.

Etherton, P., A. Kingston, G. McArthur and P.Leetch. 1999. Oxford Junior English 2A:Teacher’s book. Hong Kong: Oxford UniversityPress.

Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate methodology andsocial context. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Jacobs, G. and S. Hall. (In press). Implementingcooperative learning. In Methodology in lan-

guage teaching: An anthology of current practice,eds. J. C. Richards and W. A. Renandya, NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, G., G. Lee and J. Ball. 1997. Cooperativelearning: A sourcebook of lesson plans for teachereducation. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Coopera-tive Learning.

Johnson, D., R. Johnson and E. Holubec. 1993.Circles of learning (4th ed.). Edina, MN: Inter-action Book Company.

Kagan, S. 1992. Cooperative learning. SanClemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.

Nunan., D. 1991. Communicative tasks and thelanguage curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 2,pp. 279–295.

Oxford, R. 1990. Language learning strategies: Whatevery teacher should know. Newbury House:New York.

Richards, J. 1995. Easier said than done. In Gettingstarted: Materials writers on materials writing,eds. A. C. Hidaldo, D. Hall, and G. M. Jacobs,Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Cen-ter, pp. 95–135.

Sapon-Shevin, M. and N. Schniedewind. 1991.Cooperative learning as empowering pedagogy.In Empowerment through multicultural educa-tion, ed. C. E. Sleeter, Albany, NY: State Uni-versity of New York Press, pp. 159–178.

Slavin, R. 1995. Cooperative learning: Theory,research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allynand Bacon.

Widdowson, H. 1996. Authenticity and autonomyin ELT. ELT Journal, 50, 1, pp. 67–68.

Wilkins, D. 1972. The linguistic and situationalcontent of the common core in a unit/credit system.Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.

ANSON YANG teaches TESL and literaturecourses in the Department of English andCommunication at City University of HongKong.CHAN-PIU CHEUNG is Project DevelopmentOfficer in the Curriculum Development Insti-tute of the Hong Kong Government.

20 J U L Y 2 0 0 3 E N G L I S H T E A C H I N G F O R U M

03-0107 ETF_16_25 9/5/03 11:13 AM Page 20

E N G L I S H T E A C H I N G F O R U M J U L Y 2 0 0 3 21

AP PE N D I X AAdopting Textbook Activities… • Yang and Cheung

Reprinted with permission of the Oxford University Press from Oxford Junior English Third Edition Teacher’sBook 2A by P. Atherton, A. Kingston, G. McArthur, and P. Leetch.

03-0107 ETF_16_25 9/5/03 11:13 AM Page 21

22 J U L Y 2 0 0 3 E N G L I S H T E A C H I N G F O R U M

AP PE N D I X BAdopting Textbook Activities… • Yang and Cheung

Reprinted with permission of the Oxford University Press from Oxford Junior English Third Edition Teacher’sBook 2A by P. Atherton, A. Kingston, G. McArthur, and P. Leetch.

03-0107 ETF_16_25 9/5/03 11:13 AM Page 22

E N G L I S H T E A C H I N G F O R U M J U L Y 2 0 0 3 23

AP PE N D I X CAdopting Textbook Activities… • Yang and Cheung

Reprinted with permission of the Oxford University Press from Oxford Junior English Third Edition Teacher’sBook 2A by P. Atherton, A. Kingston, G. McArthur, and P. Leetch.

03-0107 ETF_16_25 9/5/03 11:13 AM Page 23

24 J U L Y 2 0 0 3 E N G L I S H T E A C H I N G F O R U M

AP PE N D I X DCommunicative Language Teaching Revisited… • Yang and Cheung

Reprinted with permission of the Oxford University Press from Oxford Junior English Third Edition Teacher’sBook 2A by P. Atherton, A. Kingston, G. McArthur, and P. Leetch.

03-0107 ETF_16_25 9/5/03 11:13 AM Page 24