|
|
An Evaluation of 'Apple Pie' Video 2 (Heinemann) |
| Contents |
| Introduction |
The purpose of this assignment is to examine the video which accompanies the Heinemann coursebook, "Apple Pie 2". Before plunging straight into any critique, it is always worthwhile looking both at the aims and claims of the course itself and the basis used for evaluation. Whilst any examination is, by nature, deemed to be a negative process, it is hoped that the observations made will highlight areas that any teacher of English will be able to consider carefully in their use of the course in order to draw further benefit from the materials.
| General Aims of Apple Pie |
The Macmillan-Heinemann Internet site gives two pages
of very general information about the course. Based on "The New Apple Pie 5" (Hachette Livre 1995) the course is written by Beverley Littlewood, Frances Lemarchand-Garden and Kathleen Julié-Fein, and Book 2 is aimed at pre-intermediate pupils. The video is 'interestingly' described by the publishers as an "extra", Video 2 being 54 mins. 17 secs. in length. It is claimed to contain
| Criteria for Evaluation and Video Use |
Arcario (undated:113-120) and Baddock (1996:69) discuss various criteria which are useful in considering the worth of any video for ELT purposes. Among those to be considered are the degree of visual support, the clarity of picture and sound, the density of language, the delivery of speech, language content and language level. Additionally, further considerations are mentioned for selecting the video in the first place: interest, appropriateness of content, length of sequence, independence of sequence and availability of related materials.
It should be remembered that, in spite of the technological advances of the latter half of this century, the video remains only a tool for the English language teacher. Tomalin (1986:2) reminds us that
It whets the appetite but cannot satisfy it.
It is up to the teacher (ibid:28-29) to do the bulk of the work to make a success of the technology used or, as Lonergan (1984/94:5) phrases it
It is the teacher who has the prime responsibility for creating a successful learning environment.
However, from the teacher's point of view, no matter how resourceful the individual any 'scripted', as opposed to 'off-air', material used should be supportive as far as time management is concerned. After all, as Hill (1989:2) states
The effective employment of video ... is likely to demand more, rather than less [of the teacher's] time.
particularly since the teacher becomes
more of a facilitator, a manager, adapting video source material to the needs of individual classes and students.
Stempelski (undated:11-12) accepts that there is agreement among experienced teachers on following a few general guidelines when using video in the classroom: show short sequences; allow for repeated viewing; encourage active viewing; present activities before viewing; familiarize yourself with the material [good advice, which she fails to follow in her example (undated:21) when she describes the two boys in the film "Stand by Me" who jump into the river to avoid the oncoming train they don't: they actually make it across the bridge and jump onto the riverbank]; get to know your equipment.
It is probably most appropriate to follow Allan's advice (1985/89:66) when making our deliberations about video: that there are no fixed rules
Any use of any resource in education is only right or wrong in relation to its success or failure in helping people learn.
In other words, common sense should prevail!
| Evaluating the Video Material |
As you should expect of any commercial ELT video, the basic qualities of the Apple Pie 2 video are high. What is so appropriate about this particular video is the clear dependency in the visual information, which supports the audio, rather than the other way around an approach which Allan (1985/89:72) clearly favours, since it is the approach used most frequently, albeit subconsciously, by native speakers. The image is crystal clear and the sound equally so. The 'actors' are real people, although their lines are necessarily scripted, so the pace of delivery of speech is moderate, without it being deliberately so. The language presented is measured by the content of the texts used, whilst the accents encountered are predominantly RP. The content is appropriate (in the sense that there is nothing risqué, violent or obscene), but there is always the touchy area of political correctness (Why is it that a male video kid gets to direct the video being made? How come the female video kids have to carry all the heavy gear camera, microphones? In the jobs section the boy wants to be a barrister, the girls want to be a teacher and an actress. There is only one token Afro-Caribbean, who talks in a broad East London accent and can't give an answer as to why he hates French)!
There is a general consensus among those experienced in the field that the length of sequence used in a class should be 'short', due to the density of the medium (Lonergan 1984/94:11; Allan 1985/1989:23 & 66-70; Hill 1989:3; Baddock 1996:38; Tomalin undated: 48). As Tomalin (1986:14) states
It is packed with opportunities for generating language. Therefore it is ultimately more useful as a short extract for intensive study than as a long extract for extensive use.
Hill (1989:2) advocates 2-3 minutes ( even as little as 20 seconds), Allan (1985/89:49) around 5 minutes (but even up to 2 hours for advanced learners), Baddock (1996:69) plumps for 2-3 minutes (or as little as a minute for elementary learners), Tomalin (1986:14) is not that precise under 5 minutes, Arcario (undated:118) suggests 5-10 minutes, whilst Lonergan (1984/94:82 & 86) suggests "shorties" of 10 seconds to 10-15 minutes.
Putting aside the exactitudes of these authoritative figures, suffice it to say that Apple Pie 2 provides clips of material ranging from about 20 seconds to 2 minutes in length which is quite adequate for pre-intermediate level learners. Allan (1985/89:73) points out that the role of video at this stage is to act as a stepping stone - "bridging the gap" between the language acquired and that needed for use in the real world, validating the learners' actions, and increasing their confidence. Apple Pie 2 does exactly that: it presents interviews and commentaries which are neither too easy, nor too difficult in the range of vocabulary, grammatical structures or functions used, whilst allowing the free use of obviously unscripted ("authentic") language in certain clips, with reinforcement by way of on-screen captions. This extends the more able learners in the mixed-ability classroom, without excluding the lesser-able.
The video in use has to have appeal to the learners, yet as Baddock (1996:21) puts it
Nothing has a universal appeal, and every text, every film, will be unappealing to some students.
The publishers of Apple Pie 2 do make a determined attempt to arouse the interest of the target audience. First of all, each "unit" contains a segment entitled "Video Kids", which follows a group of schoolchildren as they make a video concerning their city (Canterbury), school, pastimes etc. for a visiting English teacher to take back to her own school. This allows the target audience to identify with people of their own age group on screen. Secondly, as Lonergan points out (1984/94:29) having a character addressing the viewer directly encourages active viewing. The teacher-narrator does this at the start of each segment entitled "Penny for Your Thoughts" when she presents the scenario and instructs the viewers as to what to do ("Say all you can about "), which is basically a 'sound-off' replay of one or two items from previous units. At the elementary level, the thought behind this segment is good since only the voices are edited out, leaving the ambient noise as aide-mémoires.
On the negative side, the units tend to be rather fragmented. Tomalin (1986:65) reminds us that children
Do not see texts as language learning devices. They see them as stories. Therefore they are reluctant to have the story interrupted...
Personal experience using this video with a pre-intermediate class of 13 year olds leads me to agree wholeheartedly with Tomalin. There has been great frustration on occasions, having the 'storyline' interrupted by the end of the segment. The frustration has been doubly exacerbated by the frankly repetitive and nauseating songs that introduce each segment: sung in a chorus of high-pitched pre-pubescent voices, the learners cease to want to identify with the on-screen characters and cringe in their seats! Also, the predominant school chosen for representation in the video is the King's School, Canterbury, with a certain class of pupil, in quaint uniforms. All in all, culturally speaking, this is not a fair cultural representation of the average British school, nor the average English speaking British teenager. Indeed, the choice of location is, in my opinion, slightly detracting to the intention of maintaining the viewer's interest. King's may be dripping in history, but the young teenage learner soon gets fed up of exposure to old dormitories, Norman staircases, and cathedrals. Then the narrator takes us on an excursion to York (Vikings, museums and stone walls ). Is this historical/cultural overkill?
Lonergan (1984/94:83) states that humour is rewarding in the classroom. Apple Pie 2 tries to keep a sense of humour in its approach, some intentional, some accidental. One video kid, Tom, is shown to be a bit of a clown and certain scenes are left unedited to show the audience that it is not all serious. There is some accidental humour in some of the scripting:
ON-SCREEN NARRATOR: My name is Catherine Beckett and I'm an English teacher.
JENNY (VIDEO KID):You speak good English.
ON-SCREEN NARRATOR:No wonder, I am English. (Unit 16)
Some (especially the teacher) would find this amusing, because it is so corny, others may find it slightly condescending since it may also imply that only the English speak the best English.
In other parts where there is on-screen captioning, there is visual humour through the insertion of a pacman type ghost which scrolls across the screen when they explain the apparitions of the school ghost(an example of the
electronic tricks to create special effects and images...another valuable source of material for use in language teaching and learning... (Lonergan 1984/94:4)
Accidental visual humour is also apparent when the narrator is at the railway station in unit 21, making a big fuss and lots of repetition about getting the 09.20 train to London; then, when she rushes to the train, which is about to pull away, in the background (and quite unintentionally) we all catch sight of the platform clock which says 17.20! Accidental humour, or bad scripting/filming/editing?
Many authors point out the dangers of 'passive viewing' (Lonergan 1984/94:6 & 56; Allan 1985/89:46; Tomalin 1986:30 & undated:51; Baddock 1996:1). Tomalin (ibid) summarises for us
When people watch television they tend to switch off mentally. There's a 'sit back and relax' posture which the teacher using video needs to combat. This does not mean that the students must be physically tense, but they should be mentally alert.
Hashaviah (1999) explains that the very position of the television in the living-room, and in most classrooms, causes an involuntary physiological effect: the raising of the head causes pressure at the nape of the neck which reduces the blood supply to the 'conscious controlling' areas of the brain, therefore a lower state of alertness and consequent relaxation (hence his preference for the use of laptop computers instead of desktop computers in schools).
In spite of the obvious positive features of video mentioned by Allan (1985/89:48-50) she agrees with Lonergan (1984/94:56) who states that
a video sequence is not studied for its own sake. It should form part of an integrated learning programme, forming a link between areas of language-learning experience.
As such, a video should be accompanied by a series of pre-planned, pre-viewing, active viewing and transfer activities, either prepared by the publisher (in the case of scripted materials), by the teacher (in the case of authentic off-air materials), or more likely a mix of the two, i.e. the teacher adapts what exists to meet the needs of the class and the situation. It is in this area the availability of related materials, that Apple Pie 2 meets its downfall. The Teacher's Video Book contains a video script (which Lonergan (1984/94:29) claims to be more important than a complete set of video materials), counter, unit and cultural references, but no suggested activities for easy photocopying or adaptation by the teacher. It is left to the teacher to use their own time, ingenuity and creativity to come up with a range of suitable activities using the variety of techniques suggested by Allan (1985/89), Lonergan (1984/94 & undated), Hill (1989), Tomalin (1986 and undated), Stempelski (undated) and Baddock (1996). For what is, on the whole, a successful pre-intermediate video, it is a great disappointment to see Heinemann simply abandon the teacher who is inexperienced in the use of technology in the classroom (as in most of the developing world) needs and would expect the support of one of the foremost publishers in the field of ELT, or the teacher who simply does not have the preparation time available to academic researchers and publishing specialists.
| Conclusion |
If we accept Allan's opinion (1991:54) that
Technology is only as good as the use we make of it.
then Apple Pie 2 does attempt to make reasonable use of the technology available to focus on the learners it has identified. However, with regard to the written materials which accompany the video in the Teacher's Video Book, it is obviously lacking. Whilst the videoscript is an invaluable resource in itself, the lack of any imaginative ideas for pre-viewing, active viewing, or transferal leaves the teacher out on a limb. A reputable publisher such as Heinemann should surely be resourceful enough to be able to assist the teacher in the planning of the work they have to do by providing samples, at least, of exercises reflecting the most recent methodology.
| Bibliography |
Allan M (1985/89) Teaching English with Video London: Longman
Allan M (1991) Preparing for Interactive Video in ELT Journal Volume 45/1 January 1991 Oxford: OUP (54-60)
Arcario P (undated) Selecting Video Materials in Stempelski S & Arcario P (eds) Video in Second Language Teaching TESOL
Baddock B (1996) Using Films in the English Class Hemel Hempstead: Phoenix ELT
Hashaviah G (1999) Making Effective use of Multimedia in Schools (unpublished conference notes) Lima: Universidad de San Ignacio de Loyola
Hill B (1989) Making the Most of Video London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research
Lemarchand-Garden F & Fein K J (1997) Apple Pie Video 2 Heinemann
Longergan J (1984/94) Video in Language Teaching Cambridge: CUP
Stempelski S (undated) Teaching Communication Skills with Authentic Video in Stempelski S & Arcario P (eds) Video in Second Language Teaching TESOL
Tomalin B (1986) Video, TV & Radio in the English Class London: Macmillan
Tomalin B (undated) Teaching Young Children with Video in Stempelski S & Arcario P (eds) Video in Second Language Teaching TESOL
Vanderplank R (1988) The Value of Teletext Sub-titles in Language Learning in ELT Journal Volume 42/4 October 1988 Oxford: OUP (272-281)
| Appendix |
| Click here to go back to the Video page. |
