See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281495809

To What Extent Do Popular ESL Textbooks Incorporate

Oral Fluency and Pragmatic Development

Article in TESL Canada Journal · January 2013

DOI: 10.18806/tesl.v30i7.1149

CITATIONS READS

94 1,994

2 authors, including:

Tracey M. Derwing
University of Alberta
126 PUBLICATIONS 16,337 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tracey M. Derwing on 20 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Articles

To What Extent Do Popular Esl Textbooks

Incorporate Oral Fluency and Pragmatic
Development?
Lori G. Diepenbroek and Tracey M. Derwing

We examined several popular integrated skills textbooks used in Language Instruc-

tion for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) and English as a second language (ESL)
programs for pragmatics and oral fluency activities. Although many instructors
use other resources to supplement classroom instruction, the textbook is still the
backbone of many language courses. We wanted to know to what extent textbooks
focus on pragmatics and oral fluency, as well as the range of activities featured in
each. In light of the recent federal evaluation of LINC programs in Canada, which
indicated extremely limited improvement in speaking and listening skills as a
result of language instruction, it is important to know which textbooks offer the
best opportunities for pragmatics and fluency development. We determined that
very few textbook series are consistent in their inclusion of pragmatic content in
terms of scope, quality, and quantity. As might be expected, oral fluency is not a
major focus in integrated skills texts; however, those activities that are intended
to enhance fluency development could easily be improved by an instructor.

Nous avons examiné plusieurs manuels intégrés que l’on emploie dans les pro-
grammes Cours de langue pour les immigrants au Canada (CLIC) et Anglais
langue seconde (ALS) pour les activités portant sur la compétence pragmatique et
la fluidité orale. Même si plusieurs enseignants ont recours à d’autres ressources
pour compléter l’enseignement en classe, le manuel demeure la base de plusieurs
cours de langue. Nous voulions déterminer dans quelle mesure les manuels por-
tent sur la compétence pragmatique et la fluidité orale, et examiner la gamme
d’activités qu’ils proposent. Compte tenu de l’évaluation des programmes CLIC
récemment entreprise par le fédéral et qui a révélé que l’enseignement de la langue
mène à une amélioration extrêmement limitée des aptitudes à parler et à écouter,
il est important de savoir quels manuels offrent les meilleures possibilités pour le
développement de la compétence pragmatique et la fluidité. Nous avons déterminé
que très peu de séries de manuels offraient régulièrement un contenu pragmatique
relativement à l’envergure, la qualité et la quantité. Comme on pouvait s’y at-
tendre, les manuels intégrés ne mettent pas l’accent sur la fluidité orale; toutefois,
les enseignants pourraient facilement améliorer les activités visant le développe-
ment de la fluidité orale.

TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA 1

Volume 30, special issue 7, 2013
It may seem strange to examine general skills textbooks for oral fluency and
pragmatics content; after all, it makes sense that oral/aural skills would be
developed best through speaking and listening activities designed to meet
second language (L2) students’ specific needs. Nonetheless, there are several
reasons that textbooks are sometimes the backbone of adult L2 programs, not
the least of which are the demands on an instructor of a five-hour-per-day
teaching schedule. The intensity of such programs precludes complete reli-
ance on teacher-created materials. In addition, many Language Instruction
for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) programs, as well as intensive English as
a second language (ESL) programs, simultaneously hold several classes at the
same proficiency levels. In order to standardize the content, a particular text-
book may be chosen and used in each classroom, thus ensuring some degree
of common ground when the students move on to the next proficiency level.
Although textbooks should not be viewed as “the syllabus” for programs,
they can provide a measure of continuity that may be lacking in a program
without such a tangible learning resource.
Furthermore, new teachers often need direction for ideas of what to teach
(especially if the program in which they work does not have an elaborated
curriculum). They may also need some help in terms of how to introduce a
given concept, and new teachers may benefit from assistance with regard to
the sequencing of material. A textbook can be an invaluable resource in each
of these instances (Masuhara, 2011). For all of these reasons, textbooks can
take a prominent place in many language classrooms (Bragger & Rice, 2000;
Chapelle, 2009). Bragger and Rice note that textbooks are used “for curricu-
lum design, for lesson planning, as a basis for assessment, and perhaps too
often, to define their [instructors’] approach to teaching” (2000, p. 107). As
Bell and Gower (2011) have pointed out, textbooks often offer a compromise
for language classrooms that, although not necessarily optimal, may address
the needs of multiple parties, including students, instructors, program direc-
tors, and publishers.
Although “speaking” and “listening” are traditional skill areas in lan-
guage teaching, both descriptors cover a lot of ground, and, until the early
1990s, there was little differentiation of the many aspects that these two areas
encompass. However, over the last 25 years, L2 researchers have begun to
explore pragmatics, the “secret rules of language” (Yates, 2004, p. 3; see also
Ishihara & Cohen, 2010), oral fluency (Riggenbach, 1991), and pronuncia-
tion (Munro & Derwing, 1995). We will not address the role that pronuncia-
tion plays in popular general skills texts here (see Derwing, Diepenbroek, &
Foote, 2012, for a discussion of pronunciation in ESL textbooks), but we will
assess the listening and speaking aspects of pragmatics and fluency in 12
series of general skills ESL texts (see Appendix).
Recently, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC, 2010) conducted an
evaluation of LINC in which they assessed two comparable groups of ESL
newcomers; one group registered for and took LINC classes, while the other

2 lori diepenbroek & tracey derwing

group did not pursue any language instruction. As expected, the LINC group
showed significantly more improvement in reading and writing in English
than the comparison group, but, somewhat surprisingly, there was no differ-
ence between the instructed and uninstructed groups in terms of listening
and speaking. In follow-up focus group interviews, former LINC students
complained that there had been insufficient emphasis on speaking and listen-
ing in their classes. A multiyear longitudinal study of two groups of L2 learn-
ers (Mandarin and Slavic language speakers) also documented former LINC
students’ lack of opportunity to develop oral/aural skills in the classroom
(Derwing & Munro, 2013; Derwing, Munro, & Thomson, 2008). These stud-
ies indicate that listening and speaking skills are underrepresented in many
English language classrooms, which suggests that oral/aural aspects of prag-
matics and fluency are also underrepresented. For these reasons, it is all the
more important to gain a sense of what is available in popular ESL textbooks.

Pragmatics
Research indicates that pragmatic improvements can be made through
instruction (Crandall & Basturkmen, 2004; Rose, 2005; Takahashi, 2010).
Findings also indicate that many pragmatic aspects of language, such as
conversational implicature, are learned slowly and/or with great difficulty
if not taught explicitly (Bouton, 1994). Both explicit and implicit instruction
seem to foster the development of pragmatic competence (Koike & Pearson,
2005; Rose, 2005). The opportunity to receive feedback also appears to facili-
tate pragmatic acquisition (Koike & Pearson, 2005). Two types of pragmatic
knowledge are involved in second language learning: sociopragmatic, that
is, knowing when a speech act (or suitable utterance) is necessary; and prag-
malinguistic, that is, knowing which semantic formula or speech act to use
(Cohen, 2005; Jiang, 2006).
Given the importance of pragmatic instruction in the classroom, the rel-
evance of the textbook to this instruction becomes key. A concern voiced in
some research is the nature of the coverage that pragmatics receives in text-
books, in terms of both sequencing and quantity (Vellenga, 2004). Although
there seems to be a widely accepted sequence for grammatical topics, there
appears to be little research on the order in which pragmatic topics should be
taught. The Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) Support Kit (Centre for Cana-
dian Language Benchmarks, 2012) recently offered a framework for sequenc-
ing pragmatic topics. The article provides suggestions for appropriate topics
at various proficiency levels, while acknowledging that the pragmatics is-
sues taught should be based on the real-life needs of the learner. In Nguyen’s
(2011) survey of pragmatics material in an EFL textbook series, pragmatics
topics such as advising and apologizing were not incorporated across all lev-
els in the series, even though these are complex and challenging speech acts
that may require additional attention. The speech act of “opening a conversa-

TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA 3

Volume 30, special issue 7, 2013
tion” was practiced at all three levels of the series surveyed, while “closing
a conversation” was not, even though it is questionable whether “opening
a conversation” is more complex then closing one. Vellenga (2004) also sur-
veyed pragmatic material in textbooks. She reported that pragmatic informa-
tion generally consisted of only a phrase or two on a page. Vellenga also noted
that “the distribution of speech act types across ESL and EFL textbooks did
not appear to be patterned, nor based on frequency of speech act occurrence
in natural language, and often seems counterintuitive” (2004, p. 9).
Another problem often identified with pragmatic materials in textbooks
is their tendency to present speech acts in isolation. Speech acts can function
as “islands of reliability” for learners, and they can both facilitate pragmatic
ability and contribute to fluency by capitalizing on formulaic chunks (House,
1996), while other aspects of language such as grammar and vocabulary
are still developing (Bardovi-Harlig & Griffin, 2005). However, a focus on
speech acts in isolation may be problematic for a number of reasons. First,
an important component of pragmatic competence is the ability to account
for contextual variables and to make linguistic choices while considering
those variables. Previous research has demonstrated that pragmatic mate-
rial is often presented in the absence of contextual information (Crandall &
Basturkmen, 2004; Nguyen, 2011; Vellenga, 2004; Washburn, 2001). Even if
students master a particular speech act, they may not know in which contexts
it would be appropriate (Cohen, 2005; Crandall & Basturkmen, 2004; Vel-
lenga, 2004). Furthermore, students may not be able to adapt the speech act to
a specific situation. For example (as in Cohen & Olshtain, 1993), a number of
subtle adjustments may be made when apologizing. Rather than just saying
“I’m sorry,” one might say “I’m really sorry,” offer an explanation or repair,
accept responsibility, or mitigate the apology in some way. Moreover, the
speech acts provided may be oversimplified (Crandall & Basturkmen, 2004),
and texts may actually misrepresent their suitability for a given situation
(Koester, 2002). This appears, in part, to be an effort to make the materials as
straightforward as possible for learners. Pragmatic competence often requires
subtlety; an unfortunate consequence of the simplification of speech acts in
textbooks may be that learners can actually be perceived as rude (Koester,
2002; Washburn, 2001).
Previous research indicates that textbooks are foundational in many class-
rooms, but the pragmatic topics incorporated in those textbooks are generally
based on the writer’s intuitions rather than corpus data or authentic language
(Boxer & Pickering, 1995; Jiang, 2006; Koester, 2002; Nguyen, 2011; Vasquez &
Sharpless, 2009; Vellenga, 2004). The contexts used to present speech acts and
conversation strategies can be inauthentic. For instance, Boxer and Picker-
ing (1995) found that even though complaints are most often used indirectly
as a rapport-building device, most textbooks focus on their direct use. This
is a particular concern because it puts the onus on the teacher to correct or
supplement the pragmatic information provided; however, research also in-

4 lori diepenbroek & tracey derwing

dicates that native speaker (NS) intuitions about pragmatics are not entirely
trustworthy (Wolfson, 1989).
One final theme that runs through the literature is the need for learners
to develop observation skills while developing pragmatic awareness. Be-
cause of the sheer volume of speech acts and conversation strategies, and
the unlimited number of contextual variations, it is simply not possible for
an instructor to teach everything the students need to know (Bardovi-Harlig,
Hartford, Mahan-Taylor, Morgan, & Reynolds, 1991). The classroom should
therefore be a place where students can learn to make observations and de-
velop awareness to equip them for encounters that have not been explicitly
taught (Bardovi-Harlig & Griffin, 2005; Koester, 2002).

Fluency
The term “fluency” either describes overall proficiency in a second language
or, in the sense that we use here, refers to the smooth, automatic flow of
speech (Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005) and factors that can hamper this,
such as pauses (both filled pauses with markers such as “um” and silent
pauses), self-repetitions, and other hesitation devices. Studies such as Na-
tion’s (1989) have shown that oral fluency can be enhanced by classroom
activities; furthermore, fluent speech will help L2 learners keep their listeners
engaged (Rossiter, 2009), thus leading to more opportunities for interaction.
Rossiter, Derwing, Manimtim, and Thomson (2010) undertook a review of 28
learner texts (including 14 general skills textbooks) and 14 teacher manuals
to determine whether oral fluency activities were included, and if so, what
types of activities were available. They found five types of activities designed
to promote fluency in general skills textbooks: consciousness-raising tasks,
rehearsal or repetition tasks, formulaic sequences, discourse markers, and
free production activities; the latter was the most popular, appearing in 12
texts, followed by formulaic sequences and rehearsal, which appeared in 9
textbooks. Consciousness-raising activities and discourse markers were in-
cluded in only 5 of the general texts. The authors concluded that the texts
were unbalanced in terms of fluency-enhancing activities; for this reason they
recommended that teachers supplement the texts with explicit oral fluency
instruction. They provided examples of a wide range of activities to encour-
age fluency development in ESL classrooms.
In the current study, we address the following research questions:
1. To what extent are oral pragmatic activities represented in several popu-
lar student ESL textbooks?
2. To what extent are oral fluency activities represented in several popular
student ESL textbooks?
3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the pragmatic and fluency ac-
tivities found in several popular student ESL textbooks?

TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA 5

Volume 30, special issue 7, 2013
Method
We surveyed the pragmatic and fluency content from 12 integrated skills
textbook series (48 individual texts) that ranged from beginner to advanced
levels of proficiency (see Appendix). The most popular integrated skills texts
were selected, as identified by major publishers in Canada (Oxford Univer-
sity Press, Pearson Education, Longman, Pearson Longman, and Cambridge
University Press). Although other major publishers were contacted (e.g., Nel-
son, Prentice Hall, and McGraw Hill), their best sellers focus on individual or
pairs of skills (listening and speaking, reading and writing, etc.). To maintain
consistency, we did not include such books.

Pragmatics
Pragmatic content, for our purposes, included three main features. The first
was speech acts, because we anticipated that most language courses would
rely heavily on their use (Koester, 2002). They allow pragmatic content to
be incorporated in a formulaic way, which therefore would likely appeal to
textbook writers. Speech acts are also the most researched aspect of prag-
matics (Kasper, 2006). The second main feature focused on wider and less
formulaic pragmatic topics involving conversation strategies, such as inter-
preting conversation cues and illocutionary force. The third main category
was idioms. Although they do not strictly fall in the realm of pragmatics,
idioms qualify as “hidden rules of language” in that they are opaque to lan-
guage learners.
An initial list of speech acts and conversation strategies was created for
coding purposes, and additional topics were added as they were encoun-
tered in the texts. As a result, the coding list was not exhaustive, but it rep-
resented each of the speech acts or conversation strategies present in the
analyzed texts. Most textbooks did not clearly define speech acts or conver-
sation strategies, so they were coded as they were named in the text. The line
between advice and suggestions was not always clear, even within a given
text. For example, in Interchange 2 (Richards, 2005, p. 47), learners study
how to make suggestions, but when they review the concept later (p. 56),
the topic is labelled as advice. The former was entered as “suggestions” in
our spreadsheet and the latter as “advice,” even though the language and
intent were similar and, in fact, in some instances indistinguishable from
each other.
At the outset, conversation strategies were entered as a single category
in an effort to simplify the reporting. There were so many, however, that we
reclassified the strategies into subcategories, including conversation manage-
ment, illocutionary force, interpreting conversation cues, indirect questions,
explaining/paraphrasing, negative questions, question tags, small talk, and
social expressions (see Table 1).

6 lori diepenbroek & tracey derwing

 Table 1
Categories and Examples or Explanations of Conversation Strategies
Coding category Example(s) or explanation
Conversation management Initiating/maintaining/closing conversations, turn taking,
rapport building, changing the topic, showing understand-
ing, interrupting
Illocutionary force Making an utterance stronger or softer - extent of directness
(really, just )
Interpreting conversation cues Emotions; relationships between speakers
Indirect questions I wonder if….
Explaining/paraphrasing
Negative questions You don’t like it?
Question tags When there was a pragmatic focus
Small talk How to do it; appropriate topics
Social expressions Congratulations! Way to go!

Although many texts included information about, for example, gestures

and general cultural norms, we did not include topics that did not require
the use of verbal language. Activities with general cultural information, such
as “If you want to visit someone at home, you are supposed to call first”
(Interchange 3, Richards, 2005, p. 33), were not included. Activities in which a
speech act or conversation strategy was introduced incidentally but was not
a focus of the activity were not included.

Fluency
Fluency activities were coded according to the type of task. For this study, we
examined activities that would enhance the flow of speech, such as formulaic
speech, role-plays, repetition, and preplanning. We made a distinction be-
tween tasks that focused on accuracy and tasks that focused on fluency, and
therefore had to make many judgment calls about the nature of the tasks. Our
rationale was that if students were focused on the accuracy of an utterance,
it would be difficult to attend to fluency and the flow of language would be
compromised. As well, if students could read the required language from
the book, we did not include the task. This was frequently the case with role-
plays and other activities.
Pragmatic and fluency activities were identified by examining each text-
book, page by page, and recording any relevant activities. The first time
through, we identified pragmatic activities. The second time through, flu-
ency activities were recorded on a separate spreadsheet. Each time, the page
number and chapter, number of lines, general topic/activity, and a brief de-
scription of each activity were recorded on a spreadsheet.
If a textbook had a relevant pragmatic topic with more than one related
activity or exercise, each activity was entered separately. For example, in

TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA 7

Volume 30, special issue 7, 2013
American Headway 3 (Soars & Soars, 2003), the topic of indirect speech is
introduced. In the first activity, students are asked to fill in blanks to cre-
ate phrases used for speaking indirectly (e.g., “I wonder if you could help
me”). In the second activity, students use prompts to ask questions, and in
the third activity they are expected to ask and answer, in pairs, questions
based on the ideas in the previous activity. We therefore coded this section
as three separate entries. When activities mentioned more than one distinct
speech act or pragmatic topic, two topics were assigned to a single entry
(for example, inviting and offering), although this happened only rarely.
Some activities that contained a speech act along with a secondary prag-
matic topic (such as “making polite requests”) were entered only as “re-
quests.”
In some fluency entries, more than one type of task appeared (for exam-
ple, a role-play using formulaic language). In these cases we entered only one
code because there was often overlap in these types of tasks, and the report-
ing of the number of tasks would be severely inflated. In such cases, the re-
searchers used their judgment about which task type was the primary focus.
After the initial entries were recorded, the spreadsheets were checked by
another researcher for accuracy. The total number of entries, the frequency
of each topic, and the number of units and pages on which pragmatic and
fluency content was found were tallied using a computer program and then
checked again manually.

Results

Pragmatics
When we examined the frequency of the coding categories across all text-
books, we found that conversation strategies, requests, and advice all oc-
curred more than 100 times (see Table 2). Formality, politeness, compliments,
and thanking, on the other hand, appeared fewer than 20 times each.
Table 3 shows the breakdown of conversation strategies by type. Con-
versation management (e.g., turn-taking, opening and closing, showing in-
terest) was represented far more often than any other category. Small talk,
social expressions, and interpreting conversational cues appeared in most
of the texts, but at relatively low rates. No textbook covered all of the cat-
egories, and some texts offered nothing in several of the conversation strat-
egy categories.
When we examined pragmatic activities by textbooks, we simply to-
talled the number in each book. The course books containing the most prag-
matic content (over 75 instances) included Workplace Plus 3 (Saslow, 2002),
Workplace Plus 2 (Saslow, 2002), and all the texts in the Touchstone series
(McCarthy, MacCarten, & Sandiford, 2005, 2006). Those texts with only 10

8 lori diepenbroek & tracey derwing

or fewer pragmatic activities according to our scoring system included Side
by Side 3 (Molinsky & Bliss (2002), Ventures Basic (Bitterlin, Johnson, Price,
Ramirez, & Savage, 2008), Ventures 1 (Bitterline et al., 2008), and Canadian
Concepts 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (Berish & Thibaudeau, 1997). Table 4 indicates the
relative frequency of pragmatic activities in individual texts.

Table 2.
Frequency of Pragmatic Categories Across All Texts
Pragmatic Codes
Conversation strategies 443 Apologizing 44
Requests 225 Clarifying 42
Advice 165 Inviting 42
Introductions 94 Complaining 42
Greeting 83 Prohibition 35
Suggesting 79 Recommending 30
Obligation 78 Sympathizing 24
Offering 73 Refusing 23
Opinions 57 Formality 16
Excuses 54 Politeness 13
Agreeing 50 Compliment 11
Other speech act 47 Thanking 9

Table 3.
Conversation Strategy Counts
Topic Count
Conversation management 249
Small talk, appropriate topics 42
Interpreting conversational cues 39
Social expressions 39
Indirect Questions 23
Illocutionary force 21
Question tags 11
Explaining/paraphrasing 11
Negative questions 8
Total 443

TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA 9

Volume 30, special issue 7, 2013
 Table 4
Frequency of Pragmatic Occurrences in Individual Texts
Text Freq. Text Freq.
Workplace Plus 3 112 Ventures 4 26
Touchstone 2 103 Side by Side 1 25
Workplace Plus 2 92 Worldview 3 25
Touchstone 3 83 Interchange Intro 24
Touchstone 4 77 Passages 2 24
Touchstone 1 76 Amer. English File 2 21
Interchange 2 70 Ventures 2 21
Interchange 3 67 Amer. Eng. File 4 19
American Head. 3 62 Worldview 4 18
Step Forward Can. 2 62 Side by Side 2 16
Workplace Plus 4 62 Ventures 3 16
American Head. 4 56 American Headway 1 14
Top Notch Fund. 55 Canadian Concepts 4 14
Workplace Plus 1 55 Step Forward Can. 1 14
Worldview 2 51 Amer. English File 1 13
Passages 1 46 Side by Side 4 12
Interchange 1 45 Canadian Concepts 2 10
Top Notch 2 42 Side by Side 3 10
Worldview 1 40 Canadian Concepts 1 9
American Headway 2 39 Ventures 1 8
American Head. Start. 36 Canadian Concepts 3 6
Top Notch 3 36 Canadian Concepts 6 5
Amer. English File 3 31 Canadian Concepts 5 2
Top Notch 1 29 Ventures Basic 0

Table 5 shows the average number of pragmatic activities across each se-
ries, according to our scoring system. Touchstone (McCarthy et al., 2005, 2006)
had the highest incidence, with a mean of 84.8 activities per volume, while
the series with the lowest number, Canadian Concepts (Berish & Thibaudeau,
1997), had only 7.7. We see considerable inconsistency both within and across
series. There appears to be no discernable pattern in some series, and there is
no consensus on when to introduce or develop pragmatic content.

Fluency
We first recorded the frequency of fluency activities in individual texts (see
Table 6). When we examined the types of fluency activities across all texts,
we found that formulaic language was best represented (119 instances; see
Table 7), followed by role-play (104; see Table 8), repetition (39; see Table 9),
and preplanning (8; see Table 10).

10 lori diepenbroek & tracey derwing

 Table 5
Textbooks’ Number of Pragmatic Activities with Series Means
Text # M Text # M
American English File 1 13 Step Forward Canada 1 14
American English File 2 21 Step Forward Canada 2 62 38
American English File 3 31
American English File 4 19 21 Top Notch 1 29
Top Notch 2 42
American Headway 1 14 Top Notch 3 36
American Headway 2 39 Top Notch Fundamentals 55 40.5
American Headway 3 62
American Headway 4 56 Touchstone 1 76
Amer. Headway Starter 36 41.1 Touchstone 2 103
Touchstone 3 83
Canadian Concepts 1 9 Touchstone 4 77 84.8
Canadian Concepts 2 10
Canadian Concepts 3 6 Ventures 1 8
Canadian Concepts 4 14 Ventures 2 21
Canadian Concepts 5 2 Ventures 3 16
Canadian Concepts 6 5 7.7 Ventures 4 26
Ventures Basic 0 14.2
Interchange 1 45
Interchange 2 70 Workplace Plus 1 55
Interchange 3 67 Workplace Plus 2 92
Interchange Intro 24 51.5 Workplace Plus 3 112
Workplace Plus 4 62 80.3
Passages 1 46
Passages 2 24 35 Worldview 1 40
Worldview 2 51
Side by Side 1 25 Worldview 3 25
Side by Side 2 16 Worldview 4 18 33.5
Side by Side 3 10
Side by Side 4 12 15.8

Table 6
Frequency of Fluency Activities in Individual Texts
Text Freq. Text Freq. Text Freq.
Interchange 3 33 Amer. Headway Starter 14 Amer. Headway 1 6
Interchange Intro 28 American English File 2 13 Top Notch 2 6
Interchange 1 22 Step Forward Canada 2 13 Worldview 4 6
Touchstone 1 22 Worldview 3 12 Workplace Plus 1 5
Interchange 2 21 American English File 4 10 Workplace Plus 2 5
Touchstone 4 21 Canadian Concepts 2 10 Side by Side 1 4
Worldview 1 20 Top Notch 3 10 Ventures Basic 4
Touchstone 2 19 Canadian Concepts 1 9 Side by Side 4 3
Top Notch 1 17 Passages 1 9 Can. Concepts 3 2
Top Notch Fund. 17 Ventures 1 9 Can. Concepts 4 2
Worldview 2 17 American Headway 4 8 Side by Side 2 2
Amer. English File 3 16 Workplace Plus 3 8 Ventures 2 2
Touchstone 3 16 American English File 1 7 Side by Side 3 1
Step V Can. 1 15 Ventures 3 7 Can. Concepts 5 0
Amer. Headway 2 14 Ventures 4 7 Can. Concepts 6 0
Amer. Headway 3 14 Workplace Plus 4 7 Passages 2 0

TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA 11

Volume 30, special issue 7, 2013
 Table 7
Frequency of Formulaic Activities in Individual Texts
Text Freq.
• Interchange 3 23
• Interchange Intro 17
• Touchstone 4 13
• American Headway Starter, Touchstone 2 11
• Interchange 2 10
• Touchstone 1 9
• Interchange 1 8
• Top Notch Fundamentals 7
• Touchstone 3 6
• American English File 4, Ventures 1, Workplace Plus 3 5
• American Headway 2, American Headway 4, Step Forward Canada 1, 4
   Top Notch 1, Worldview 1
• Amer. English File 2, American Headway 1, Ventures 3, Workplace Plus 1 3
• American English File 3, American Headway 3, Canadian Concepts 2, Side by 2
   Side 4, Top Notch 3, Ventures 4, Ventures Basic, Workplace Plus 2
• Amer. English File 1, Can. Concepts 1, Can. Concepts 3, Passages 1, Side by 1
   Side 2, Step Forward Can. 2, Ventures 2, Workplace Plus 4, Worldview 2
• Can. Concepts 4, Can. Concepts 5, Can. Concepts 6, Passages 2, Side by 0
   Side 1, Side by Side 3, Top Notch 2, Worldview 3, Worldview 4

Table 8
Frequency of Role-Play Activities in Individual Texts
Text Freq.
• Interchange 1 13
• Worldview 1, Worldview 2 13
• Step Forward Canada 2, Worldview 3 12
• Top Notch 1 11
• American Headway 3, Interchange 2, Interchange 3 10
• American Headway 2, Touchstone 3 9
• American English File 2, American English File 3 8
• Touchstone 2, Touchstone 4 7
• Passages 1, Step Forward Canada 1, Top Notch 3, Workplace Plus 4 6
• Top Notch 2 5
• American Headway 4, Touchstone 1 4
• American English File 4, American Headway 1, American Headway Starter,
   Interchange Intro, Ventures 4, Workplace Plus 3 3
• Side by Side 1, Worldview 4 2
• Can. Concepts 2, Can. Concepts 3, Side by Side 2, Side by Side 4, Top Notch
   Fundamentals, Ventures 3, Workplace Plus 1, Workplace Plus 2 1
• Amer. English File 1, Can. Concepts 1, Can. Concepts 4, Can. Concepts 5, Can.
   Concepts 6, Passages 2, Side by Side 3, Ventures 1, Ventures 2, Ventures Basic 0

12 lori diepenbroek & tracey derwing

 Table 9.
Frequency of Repetition Activities in Individual Texts
Text Freq.
• Top Notch Fundamentals 9
• Canadian Concepts 1, Interchange Intro, Touchstone 1 8
• Canadian Concepts 2 7
• American English File 1, Step Forward Canada 1 5
• Ventures 1 4
• Ventures 3 3
• American English File 3, Passages 1, Side by Side 1, Ventures 4, Ventures Basic, 2
Workplace Plus 2, Worldview 1
• Amer. English File 2, Amer. Headway 3, Interchange 1, Side by Side 3, Top Notch 1, 1
Top Notch 2, Top Notch 3, Ventures 2, Workplace Plus 1, Worldview 2
• Amer. English File 4, Amer. Headway 1, Amer. Headway 2, Amer. Headway 4, 0
Amer. Headway Starter, Can. Concepts 3, Can. Concepts 4, Can. Concepts 5, Can.
Concepts 6, Interchange 2, Interchange 3, Passages 2, Side by Side 2, Side by Side
4, Step Forward Canada 2, Touchstone 2, Touchstone 3, Touchstone 4, Workplace
Plus 3, Workplace Plus 4, Worldview 3, Worldview 4

Table 10.
Frequency of Preplanning Activities in Individual Texts
Text Freq.
• American English File 3, Worldview 4 4
• American English File 4, Canadian Concepts 4, Worldview 2 2
• American English File 1, American English File 2, American Headway 2, American 1
Headway 3, Interchange 2, Top Notch 1, Top Notch 3, Touchstone 1, Touchstone
2, Touchstone 3, Touchstone 4, Worldview 1
• Amer. Headway 1, Amer. Headway 4, Amer. Headway Starter, Can. Concepts 1, 0
Can. Concepts 2, Can. Concepts 3, Can. Concepts 5, Can. Concepts 6, Inter-
change 1, Interchange 3, Interchange Intro, Passages 1, Passages 2, Side by Side
1, Side by Side 2, Side by Side 3, Side by Side 4, Step Forward Canada 1, Step
Forward Canada 2, Top Notch 2, Top Notch Fundamentals, Ventures 1, Ventures
2, Ventures 3, Ventures 4, Ventures Basic, Workplace Plus 1, Workplace Plus 2,
Workplace Plus 3, Workplace Plus 4, Worldview 3

Twenty-five of the texts have fewer than 10 true oral fluency activities
according to the rubric we used, while only seven texts have 20 or more. To
give a sense of how limited some of the texts are, nine textbooks had only one
oral fluency activity involving formulaic speech, and another nine had none.
Preplanning was the least represented fluency activity of all. Two books had
four instances of preplanning activities, three books had two each, and all the
rest had one or no preplanning activities. The other main finding with regard
to fluency activities is the tendency for some textbooks to focus on a single
task type rather than to incorporate all of the four types systematically.

TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA 13

Volume 30, special issue 7, 2013
Discussion
Before we discuss the pragmatics and fluency findings, we want to reiterate
that our protocol for coding was arbitrary, as are all such protocols; how-
ever, coding was consistent across all texts. In the case of pragmatics, we
generally had little difficulty coding once we had developed the categories.
Sometimes textbooks would offer an activity that might be considered prag-
matic, but if there was no explicit explanation or opportunity to practice,
then it was not included. Some activities offered more than one pragmatic
topic—for example, “inviting” and “refusing.” In such cases, we counted
both, so the total numbers occasionally may be higher than the actual num-
ber of activities.
The coding of fluency activities, on the other hand, was less straightfor-
ward. Our impression was that textbook writers clearly intended to include
pragmatic, grammatical, and lexical content, but oral fluency was less de-
liberately included. This may simply be because it is assumed that teachers
will incorporate oral fluency in other ways, rather than relying on a written
textbook. It could be argued that almost any of the material in the ESL texts is
fluency-building (e.g., vocabulary is necessary for good oral skills); however,
we were looking for targeted fluency exercises. Thus, a given activity may
have had some fluency content, but if the emphasis was primarily on gram-
matical accuracy, we did not include it. We also chose to ignore activities that
may have otherwise been considered “fluency builders” if the students had
everything necessary to read directly from the textbook rather than relying
on their own words.

Pragmatics
Research questions 1 and 3 dealt with pragmatics. To address research
question 1—the extent to which oral pragmatic activities are represented
in popular student ESL textbooks—we first defined and categorized prag-
matic activities, established a protocol for coding, and examined the 48 text-
books for instances of these activities. The most notable finding here was
the lack of consistency in coverage of pragmatics in some textbooks. Al-
though a few series included a wide range of speech acts and conversation
strategies, many more had rather inconsistent treatment. Within the same
series, we found 62 instances in Workplace Plus 4 (Saslow, 2003), a little more
than half as many pragmatic activities as in Workplace Plus 3 (Saslow, 2002),
which has 112, despite the fact that the students’ proficiency at Workplace
Plus 4 should allow them to handle additional pragmatic topics. Similarly,
Canadian Concepts 4 (Berish & Thibaudeau, 1997) has 14 instances of coded
pragmatic activities, while Canadian Concepts 5 (Berish & Thibaudeau, 1997)
has only 2.
Research question 3 concerned the strengths and weaknesses of the text-
books examined. An examination of the texts across each series showed no

14 lori diepenbroek & tracey derwing

clear rationale for choosing which speech acts and conversation strategies to
include. Worldview 1–4 (Rost, le Maistre, Lewis, & Sharpe, 2005) offers “re-
quests” across the whole series, but there are many gaps in which no given
speech act is featured. In the Interchange series (Richards, 2005), “advice” and
“requests” are included several times in every text, but other speech acts
occurred not at all or very rarely. It was difficult to identify a systematic
approach to pragmatics in most of the texts, with the notable exception of
Touchstone (McCarthy et al., 2005, 2006), which consistently focused on con-
versation strategies throughout the series.
We were also concerned with quality and depth of coverage. Consider, for
instance, Workplace Plus 3 (Saslow, 2002), which our examination showed as
having the greatest number of pragmatic activities. However, the book’s for-
mat of “listen and read,” “listen and repeat,” followed by a highly structured
pair work activity, all on the same pragmatic form (e.g., Express frustration
with an equipment malfunction. Empathize [p. 32]), led to an inflated representa-
tion because the activities were superficial with little or no explanation and
practically no variation in design. In the example given, students may have
trouble transferring the ability to express frustration to another context, situ-
ation, or register. Given that speech acts vary according to the participants’
relationships and the degree of imposition, it is important that texts offer
some explanation of which speech acts are appropriate, when they are appro-
priate, and for whom they are appropriate. In many texts, however, a list of
speech acts was offered, but with no information on variations necessary for
different circumstances. For example, in Side by Side 3, “Asking for a Favor”
(Molinsky & Bliss, 2002, p. 29), four versions of a request are provided: Could
you do me a favor? Could you possibly do me a favor? Could you do a favor
for me? Could I ask you a favor? No information is given as to the differ-
ences among these forms or when and why a person might choose one over
another. The only instruction is to “Practice the conversations in this lesson
again. Ask for a favor in different ways.” The students may be able to ask for
a favour using these phrases, but they will not know which is most appropri-
ate for a given context. There is an assumption that the teacher will be able to
explain the differences, but teacher intuitions are not always reliable (Tatsuki
& Houck, 2010). Furthermore, there is no indication that one can ask another
person for a favour without actually using the word “favour,” as in “I was
wondering if you could help me out.”
Another major problem identified in this survey was the lack of contextu-
alization. Students were rarely offered information about interlocutors’ rela-
tionships, register, or other factors that contribute to variation in pragmatic
choices. The approach to teaching pragmatics appears to be based on similar
approaches to teaching grammar, rather than taking into consideration the
necessary contextualization of speech acts and conversation strategies. A few
texts included good exemplars, such as Touchstone 3 (McCarthy et al., 2006, p.
49), which offered a clear context for polite refusal in which the students were

TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA 15

Volume 30, special issue 7, 2013
assigned a role as a guest at a party. A picture provided information on the
situation and the ages of the speakers, and students were also given useful
phrases for refusing offers of food and drink.
A few series offered opportunities for students to make observations (as
recommended by Bardovi-Harlig et al., 1991). American Headway 3 (Soars &
Soars, 2003), for instance, presented a script (p. 4) and a CD of a father and
daughter conversation in which the daughter responded to questions from
her father with one-word answers. The students were asked to focus on the
context, and to consider the tone that a conversation can have. They read
what was a relatively abrupt and rude set of responses, and then heard a
similar conversation in which the daughter gave more elaborated answers.
The students could then compare the two directly and see the affective dif-
ference. Similar activities, such as listening to determine whether the inter-
locutors know each other, and on what basis the students could identify the
relationship, help students to focus on pragmatic aspects of conversations in
English. Because there is such a wide range of speech acts, teaching these ob-
servations is key—it is not possible to cover every conceivable context, but it
is possible to encourage students to listen actively and to identify differences
dependent on the pragmatics of a given situation.
Another feature we were looking for was the use of corpus data to inform
the activities and topics in the textbooks. One series that stood out above
the rest in this regard was Touchstone (McCarthy et al., 2005, 2006), which is
corpus-based and provided more consistent coverage on pragmatic themes
than any other series. Corpus data can be extremely useful, in that they can
provide textbook writers and teachers with an indication of the most fre-
quently used expressions, thus offering a rubric for prioritization.

Fluency
Research questions 2 and 3 dealt with fluency. We asked to what extent oral
fluency activities are represented in popular student ESL textbooks. When
we examined the total number of fluency activities across all texts, we found
a preference for role-plays and formulaic speech, whereas repetition and
preplanning were much less evident. Preplanning has been shown to be an
important strategy for fluency development (Foster & Skehan, 1996, 1999),
yet it has been ignored in the majority of the texts that we surveyed here.
The quality of fluency activities in general was somewhat lacking. Further-
more, there was considerable variation across texts, many having few oral
fluency activities, especially ones that pushed the students to speak on their
own, without relying on reading. Generally speaking, these integrated text-
books were not very useful for the development of oral fluency, which may
have contributed to CIC’s (2010) finding that LINC students do not make
any more progress in speaking and listening than newcomers who do not
take language classes.

16 lori diepenbroek & tracey derwing

Recommendations for Teachers
In noting the inconsistencies of pragmatic data across the textbooks we ex-
amined, we recommend that program directors and teachers seek out text-
books based on corpus data, to ensure a more authentic representation of
frequency of speech acts. We also suggest that teachers point out contextual
variables for students whenever doing pragmatic activities, so that students
are aware of appropriate speech for a range of interlocutors, taking into
consideration such things as the degree of imposition involved. Students
should be helped to understand the differences between options for a given
speech act.
If using fluency activities from a textbook, we suggest that instructors
ensure the students are not able to read the answers; they should close their
textbooks before completing the task. Students can be asked to rotate through
multiple partners to include both repetition and formulaic speech in their
classroom routines (see Nation, 1989). Students should also be given time
for preplanning to enhance their oral fluency skills. Finally, given the limited
gains that LINC students make in oral fluency, it is likely preferable to rely
on other approaches to fluency development (see Rossiter et al., 2010), rather
than to teach fluency through the use of a textbook.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Andrea Kushnir, Jun Deng, Jennifer Foote, and Sarvenaz Hatami for their
assistance with this project. We also thank Cambridge, Oxford, and Pearson Longman publish-
ers, who donated some of the texts reviewed here. Two anonymous reviewers made helpful
suggestions. This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
of Canada (SRG 410-2010-0151); a Support for the Advancement of Scholarship grant, Faculty of
Education, University of Alberta; a grant from the Office of the Vice-President, Research, Uni-
versity of Alberta; and a grant from the Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, all awarded
to the second author.

The Authors
Lori Diepenbroek has a Master’s in TESL from the University of Alberta. She currently teaches
pragmatics in a bridging program for immigrants from health professions.

Tracey Derwing is a professor in TESL at the University of Alberta. Her research interests include
the oral language skills of immigrants as well as settlement issues.

References
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL
classroom. System, 33(3), 401–415.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. A. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W. (1991).
Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45(1), 4–15.
Bell, J., & Gower, R. (2011). Writing course materials for the world: A great compromise. In B.
Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp. 135–150). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Bouton, L. F. (1994). Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when not
deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(2), 157–167.

TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA 17

Volume 30, special issue 7, 2013
Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials:
The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44–58.
Bragger, J. D., & Rice, D. B. (2000). Foreign language materials: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
In R. M. Terry (Ed.), Agents of change in a changing age (pp. 107–140). Lincolnwood, IL:
National Textbook Company.
Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks (CCLB). (2012). CLB support kit. Ottawa, ON: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.language.ca/index.cfm?Voir=sections&Id=17356&M=4038&Rep
ertoire_No=2137991327
Chapelle, C. A. (2009). A hidden curriculum in language textbooks: Are beginning learners of
French at U.S. universities taught about Canada? Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 139–152.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2010). Evaluation of the Language Instruction for
Newcomers to Canada (LINC) program. Ottawa, ON: Evaluation Division, CIC. Retrieved from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/ENGLISH/resources/evaluation/linc/2010/linc-eval.pdf
Cohen, A. D. (2005). Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 2(3), 275–301.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL
Quarterly, 27(1), 33–56.
Crandall, E., & Basturkmen, H. (2004). Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. ELT Journal,
58(1), 38–49.
Derwing, T. M., Diepenbroek, L. G., & Foote, J. A. (2012). How well do general-skills ESL
textbooks address pronunciation? TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 22–44.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2013). The development of L2 oral language skills in two L1
groups: A 7-year study. Language Learning, 63(2), 163–185.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2008). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’
fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 359–380.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language
performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on
task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215–247.
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus
on access to fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(3), 325–353.
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 18(1), 225–252.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture
meet. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Jiang, X. (2006). Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System, 34(1), 36–54.
Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-
Harlig, C. Felix-Brasdefer, & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 281–314).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Koester, A. J. (2002). The performance of speech acts in workplace conversations and the teaching
of communicative functions. System, 30(2), 167–184.
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of
pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501.
Masuhara, H. (2011). What do teachers really want from coursebooks? In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),
Materials development in language teaching (pp. 236–266). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in
the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73–97.
Nation, I. S. P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17(3), 377–384.
Nguyen, M. T. T. (2011). Learning to communicate in a globalized world: To what extent do
school textbooks facilitate the development of intercultural pragmatic competence? RELC
Journal, 42(1), 17–30.

18 lori diepenbroek & tracey derwing

Riggenbach, H. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative
speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14(4), 423–441.
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3),
385–399.
Rossiter, M. J. (2009). Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of English.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(3), 395–412.
Rossiter, M. J., Derwing, T. M., Manimtim, L. G., & Thomson, R. I. (2010). Oral fluency:
The neglected component in the communicative language classroom. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 66(4), 583–606.
Takahashi, S. (2010). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In A.
Martinez-Flor & E. Uso-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and
methodological issues (pp. 127–142). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Tatsuki, D. H., & Houck, N. R. (Eds.). (2010). Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts. Alexandria, VA:
TESOL.
Vasquez, C., & Sharpless, D. (2009). The role of pragmatics in the Master’s TESOL curriculum:
Findings from a nationwide survey. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 5–28.
Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ,
8(2). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej30/a3.html
Washburn, G. N. (2001). Using situation comedies for pragmatic language teaching and
learning. TESOL Journal, 10(4), 21–26.
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Yates, L. (2004). The “secret rules of language”: Tackling pragmatics in the classroom. Prospect,
19(1), 3–21.

Appendix: Textbooks Surveyed

Berish, L., & Thibaudeau, S. (1997). Canadian concepts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 (2nd ed.). Don Mills, ON:
Pearson Education.
Bitterlin, G., Johnson, D., Price, D., Ramirez, S., & Savage, K. L. (2008). Ventures basic, 1, 2, 3, &
4. White Plains, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M., MacCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2005). Touchstone 1 & 2. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M., MacCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2006). Touchstone 3 & 4. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Molinsky, S. J., & Bliss, B. (2001). Side by side 1 & 2 (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson
Longman.
Molinsky, S. J., & Bliss, B. (2002). Side by side 3 (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.
Molinsky, S. J., & Bliss, B. (2003). Side by side 4 (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.
Oxenden, C., Latham-Koenig, C., & Seligson, P. (2008). American English file 1 & 2. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Oxenden, C., Latham-Koenig, C., & Seligson, P. (2009). American English file 3 & 4. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Rajabi, S., & Spigarelli, J. (2008). Step forward Canada 1. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Rajabi, S., & Wisniewska, I. (2008). Step forward Canada 2. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University
Press.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Interchange intro, 1, 2, & 3 (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Richards, J. C., & Sandy, C. (2008). Passages 1 & 2 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Rost, M., le Maistre, S., Lewis, C., & Sharpe, K. (2005). WorldView 1, 2, 3, & 4. White Plains, NY:
Pearson Longman.
Saslow, J. (2001). Workplace plus: Living and working in English 1. White Plains, NY: Pearson
Longman.

TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA 19

Volume 30, special issue 7, 2013
Saslow, J. (2002). Workplace plus: Living and working in English 2 & 3. White Plains, NY: Pearson
Longman.
Saslow, J. (2003). Workplace plus: Living and working in English 4. White Plains, NY: Pearson
Longman.
Saslow, J., & Ascher, A. (2006). Top notch fundamentals, 1, 2, & 3. White Plains, NY: Pearson
Longman.
Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2001). American headway 1 & 2. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2002). American headway starter. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2003). American headway 3. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2005). American headway 4. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

20 lori diepenbroek & tracey derwing

View publication stats