Skip to main content

Cours Illustré de Français




I thought I would blog about one or two of the French course books I have known over the years. Mark Gilbert's Cours Illustré de Français would look very dated now, but when it came out in 1966 (the last in the series, book 5 was published, I believe in 1973) it was rather revolutionary. This was also the time of the early audio-visual courses for slide projector and reel-to-reel tape recorder, but Gilbert's book was rooted firmly in the London University tradition of oral work through question and answer - LOTS of it. Oral and written. It was a method pioneered by Sweet, Prendergast and Gouin, a sort of controlled direct method.

Cours Illustré was the ultimate death by QA book. It was illustrated with pictures by Celia Weber, some of which were for decoration, some which could be used for questioning. It was all in glorious black and white and took a number of characters as the basis for its descriptions and stories. They did stories then!

Comedian Eddie Izzard made the book notorious with his stand-up routine about school French and Nikki the monkey (search youtube - you'll laugh). The other main characters were members of the Lavisse family. Having a family in the couse book was de rigueur in those days because it served some very useful teaching purposes. (I even wrote an essay on this topic years ago during my PGCE course at the West London Institute - part of London University.)

I reckon we would do well to return to using families in course books - never mind about politico-social sensitivities.

Anyway, each chapter of the book would feature a description or a short story and was followed with lists of questions to be exploited orally and on paper. The book was the apotheosis of this method of teaching a language: scrupulous selection and grading of language, an oral approach with little use of English, lots of whole class oral question and answer, grammar taught through repeated drilling and practice rather than by explanation in English but in a meaningful way.

As a method it had its limitations, but it worked well for pupils who could concentrate at length and induce grammar rules for themselves. I used the course from 1968 through to O level in 1973 and my memory is that the early books were the best. I recall the book still being used in my first teaching practice school, Beverley Boys, in 1980.

Amazingly I see that you can still get copies of it quite easily from used book shops on the internet. I may even be tempted to buy one!

Comments

  1. I too learned French the hard way with this series, and while I remember nothing of my O-level exam, looking at book 5 (which I don't remember if we did), it is unbelievably hard compared to modern GCSEs (which I teach). Full scale Past Historic and Imperfect Subjunctive! 500 word reading comprehensions! Vocab from abasourdi to zèle! It's possible no teachers used this for O-level, but instead from AO or A-level study.

    On the other hand, the earlier books are still useful for teaching oral skills (question and answer is pretty good for this), and, I have found, the more challenging translation work associated with entrance exams for schools like Westminster.

    And I often wonder if the ever-so-slightly exotic illustrations didn't make me appreciate French in all its différence just that little bit more...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for commenting, Richard. I'm pretty sure we didn't use Book 5 either. My recollection is that we moved away from the book after about Y10, focusing on exam-style tasks and other classroom activities.

      Delete
  2. How I hated the famille Lavisse and Nikki the monkey!. I remember being sent out of class at my posh Surrey Girls Grammar School for commenting on how ridiculous it was that the Nikki was hoseing Mr Lavisse's car and how exactly was this going to help me if I ever went to France? Interestingly, my husband, who went to a Secondary Modern had a much more interesting book, which he thinks was called "audio visual French" or some such thing. Even after 45 + years, I've never forgotten Nikki or the Lavisse family. Who could?!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It sounds like your husband may have used Longman’s Audio-Visual French. No monkeys in that one, but no doubt some silly stories!

      Delete
  3. I was taught with the Longmans Audio visual french textbook. After a long time away from much involvement in the french language I have recently been teaching my daughter (as a result of the pandemic) using the Gilbert series. I have to say that the Gilbert books are superior on a number of points including the illustrations. I found the Longmans more than a bit dull at times and I think the same cannot be said about the Gilbert books. I'm sorry to disagree with the teenage Emma but I think that she got the better deal at her grammar school !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It just shows how opinions vary, doesn’t it? Thank you for commenting.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

Second language learning and acquisition

This is a long, referenced blog which combines all the posts in my earlier series entitled Conscious and Unconscious Language Learning. If you have already read those posts, you should look away now. Part 1 Throughout the history of the study of language learning and teaching reference has been made to two distinct types of language learning. The first could be characterised as "picking up" a language and normally involves the apparently unconscious acquisition of a language in an informal or natural setting. One thinks of the child who learns their native tongue, or the immigrant who learns the new language without recourse to formal study. The second type of language learning involves the practice of a language in a formal, systematic way, often in a classroom setting. This has frequently been termed conscious learning. Such a clear distinction may be controversial and you may already be thinking, quite reasonably, that both types of learning have a role. However, when

What is "Input Processing"?

Input Processing (IP) was proposed by Bill VanPatten, Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition from Michigan State University. Bill may be known to some of you from his podcast show Tea with BVP. He is one of those rare university academics who makes a specific effort to engage with practising teachers. IP was first proposed in a 1993 article (published with T. Cadierno in the Modern Language Journal) entitled "Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction." My summary of it is based on an article "Input Processing and Processing Instruction: Definitions and Issues" (2013) by Hossein Hashemnezhad. IP is a little complicated to explain, but I'll do my best to summarise the key points before suggesting how it relates to other ways of looking at classroom language teaching. Is this actually any use to teachers? I apologise in advance for over-simplifying or misunderstanding. To paraphrase Dr Leonard McCoy from Star Trek &q

New MFL GCSE consultation

Updated on 7th April, with a few modifications to the original post written about a month earlier. ........................................................................... The DfE in England has recently published information about the proposed new GCSE exams, first teaching September 2023, first exams June 2025. There are two consultations going on, one regarding the subject content, and the other (much shorter) with respect to the assessment arrangements such as tiering.  The context is important here. DfE are worried about uptake in GCSE MFL, especially with their EBacc target of 90% uptake in mind. (This is highly unlikely to be achieved.) Therefore they would like an exam which makes the subject more attractive, both in terms of interesting content and accessibility (how easy it is thought to be). They are aware also of criticisms levelled at current papers that the exam is elitist, featuring too much subject matter which appeals to middle class students. Recall that MFL has be

Pros and cons of pair and group work

Most teachers have made frequent use of pair and group work for many years, notably since the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1980s. Even before then it would have been common for pupils to work in pairs on simple role-play and dialogue tasks. So pair and group work is standard practice, if not universally supported by language teachers. It’s always worth evaluating, however, whether a practice works - whether, in this case, it helps students develop their proficiency. Pros Rod Ellis (2005) summarises the advantages of pair/group work (based on Jacobs, 1998) “1. The quantity of learner speech can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time. 2. The variety of speech acts can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. 3. There can