I would not divide the 20 hours; I would allocate 20 hours to Language Leader (LL).

Please note that I do not regard LL as a skills book only but rather as a complete course book along with the embedded grammar areas within rather than the current practice which detaches the grammar component or leaves it to the teachers discretion to teach it. My rationale for this idea is based upon the followings; I think the idea of teaching two course books (LL and FG) at the same time aimed at the same target (ELC students in this particular context) is not pedagogic at all simply because; -They adopt different yet conflicting methodologies; LL adopts a Communicative Approach while FG tends to lend itself to Grammar-Translation. While LL inductively teaches grammar, FG does the opposite; it treats each structure exclusively and extensively in great detail. - FG overlaps; although FG presents itself as a grammar book, it provides the context for the 4 skills and sub-skills attempting to make LL redundant. -They have different syllabuses and structural pacing; I have not come across a single common topic that the books share which leaves students jump from one topic from LL to another one in FG on the same day without finishing either topic, leaving both two topics in the air until the next day. As for the structural pacing, they can be confusing. For instance while LL deals with there is, there are in Unit 1, FG deals with in in Unit 23. -Students and teachers are asked to cover more in LL than they are in FG. For instance, students are exposed to Past Progressive and Present Perfect in LL-Pre-Intermediate yet FG does not include units on these aspects simply because it is an elementary level course book. In other words; students are asked to cover two levels (elementary and pre-intermediate) with LL while they cover elementary level with FG. -Because LL is so rich in content, it is simply not possible to cover it within the currently available contact hours (150 contact hours for two levels). FG on the other hand is rather basic which in each unit introduces a simple grammar area and provides 12 tasks/exercises to reinforce the learning (150 contact hours for one level) So the essential question strikes my mind: what is it that the LL cannot do and the FG can? What is it that FG offers that LL doesnt? After examining and teaching both course books, my answer is: nothing (if we disregard the simple extra practices on grammar area which is substituted by the LL workbook exercises). It is only logical to assume that the allocation of 20 contact hours to LL will have a knock-on effect in easing the load on both students and teachers ; as ELC is currently

suffering from the lack of teachers for both courses (LL and FG), having one course will solve this problem by transforming FG teachers into LL teachers. There will be less time and effort spent on both preparing and marking exams.

Kind Regards,

Kenan Erikli