Talk:Headway

Levels
According to OUP the course includes:


 * New Headway Beginner
 * New Headway Elementary
 * New Headway Elementary - the THIRD edition
 * New Headway Pre-Intermediate
 * New Headway Pre-Intermediate Third Edition
 * New Headway Intermediate Fourth Edition NEW EDITION
 * New Headway Intermediate – the NEW edition
 * New Headway Intermediate
 * New Headway Upper-Intermediate - the NEW edition
 * New Headway Upper-Intermediate
 * New Headway Advanced

I was going to add this info, but is there some reason we begin at pre-intermediate? (I suppose the "New Headway" "NEW edition" is extra super new.--Bob M 16:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * None whatsoever - it's just that I hadn't checked out the catalogue - only just posted it and I was speaking from memory. Maybe we can do without the "New edition" details (that's more for the catalogues) and stick to the basic course. Cheers!--Technopat 16:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just added some details about the Beginner course, but two issues occur to me.
 * We obviously want to review these rather than function as an advertisement.
 * Can we review the whole course on one page, or should we set a different page for each level? While the philosophy behind each course may be the same, it is improbable that similar texts will be used in the beginner's and the advanced editions.--Bob M 17:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The usual way on Wikipedia is to start with a single page and then split parts off when it gets unwieldy - so it depends on how thorough your review ends up being really. However if these are going to be reviews, it may be best to start off with separate pages each, in case somebody somewhere wants to link to them. Totnesmartin 20:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess. the logical thing in the case of "headway" and perhaps others might be to have one "Headway" article and then seperate pages for "Beginner" "Elementary" etc.  It's just that (1) I'm not sure that we are ready to give birth to such a monster and (2) I haven't used it for a long time so I'm not up for writing a review.
 * On the other hand I suppose we could go the Wikipedia way and just quote whatever other people have said about it. That is if there are enough (or indeed any) unbiased sources.--Bob M 20:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I reckon we should stick to the Wikipedia way for the moment. There aren't yet have enough editors to cover such a wide-ranging project as that of separate pages for each. It would be great if in the future teachers with experience in using one particular book/level/exercise could comment on it - constuctively - but it's still early days. I also reckon we you need to come up with a specific template for publications to the effect that in keeping with teflpedia's guidelines unconstructive edits and/or mere abuse will be removed. Bob - unbiased sources? I'm surprised at you! --Technopat 09:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe something along the lines of: This article refers to material published by a major publishing company. While Teflpedia welcomes constructive criticism based on teachers' experiences with this material, any edits considered unhelpful or unconstructive will be removed. Thank you. --Technopat 10:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there such a thing as an unbiased review? Even if not though, you can say "these reviewers like it" and "these others don't" - and if you link to them then readers can form their own view. I know nothing about Headway (or even TEFL) but I'm guessing that no one product or system will work for every teacher or every student, so a spread of opinions would, I think, be preferable. Totnesmartin 14:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)