Chapter 2: Literature review

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 TEXTBOOK COUR!E BOOK A"# $ATERIAL!

2.1.1 #e%i&iti'&( The subject of this study is the textbook Oxford English for Electronics (OEE) by Eric H.Glendinning & John McEwan, therefore, it would be sensible to co ence the literature with the clarification of three related ter inologies! "textbook,# "course book# and " aterials.# "Textbook# is generally defined by Microsoft Encarta $%&&'( as a book that treats a subject co )rehensi*ely and is used by students as a basis for study. This ter , also called text, is the ost )re*alent ter to refer to a book ex)loited in teaching+learning situations. ,n any circu stances, the ex)ectation is that teaching will be based on a single textbook, although other aterials ay be used at the teacher#s discretion. The ter "course book# is used to refer to a textbook on which a course is based. ,n E-T, it is defined ore s)ecifically by To linson $.//0( as!
a textbook which )ro*ides the core aterials for a course. ,t ai s to )ro*ide as uch as )ossible in one book and is designed so that it could ser*e as the only book which the learners necessarily use during a course. 1uch a book usually includes work on gra ar, *ocabulary, )ronunciation, functions and the skills of reading, writing, listening and s)eaking. $To linson, .//0! ix(

The ter "course book# is so eti es associated with text materials as it has been s)ecifically selected and ex)loited for teaching )ur)oses by the classroo teacher )articularly in the local setting. 2re3uently, a course book is considered core aterials of a certain course. ,t ay be acco )anied with a *ariety of su))le entary aterials. ,n the broad sense of the conce)t, " aterials# as defined by To linson $.//0( is 4anything which is used to hel) to teach language learners.5 ,t can be in the for of a textbook, a workbook, a cassette, a 67+8o , a *ideo, a )hotoco)ied handout, a news)a)er, a )aragra)h written on a white board! anything that )resents or infor s about the language being learned. Materials of these kinds can ob*iously be ex)loited effecti*ely for language learning. Howe*er, in the local setting, textbooks see to be the ost widely used aterials in language teaching. Therefore, within this aster thesis the ter s "textbook,# "text,# "course book,# and " aterials# are used interchangeably. -ater, in the suggestions for new aterials design, the ter " aterials# is used to refer to the teacher+written aterials to re)lace OEE in the fifth se ester.
$A. The(i(
5

Chapter 2: Literature review

2.1.2 The r')e( '% te*t+'',( i& a )a&-ua-e pr'-ra. English language instruction has any i )ortant co )onents but the essential constituents to any E1-9E2- classroo s and )rogra s are the textbooks and instruction aterials that are often used by language instructors. :s Hutchinson and Torres $.//;! <.'( suggest, 4=>o teaching+learning situation, it see s, is co )lete until it has its rele*ant textbook.5 ?ther theorists such as 1heldon $./00! %<@( agree with this obser*ation and suggest that textbooks 4re)resent the *isible heart of any E-T )rogra .5 Many authors belie*e textbooks are a starting )oint fro which teachers are sti ulated and )ro*oked to create lessons for their classes. :llwright $.//&( *iews texts as 4resource books for ideas and acti*ities rather than as instructional aterial5 $fro Aitao website .///(. This )ers)ecti*e is su))orted by 6unningsworth $B'! ./0;( as he belie*es that )ublished aterials )ro*ide the initial fra ework, which ust be ada)ted by each indi*idual teacher to atch the needs of their students. -ater on $.//'( he argues that they are an effecti*e resource for self+ directed learning, an effecti*e resource for )resentation aterial, a source of ideas and acti*ities, a reference source for students, a syllabus where they reflect )re+ deter ined learning objecti*es, and su))ort for less ex)erienced teachers who ha*e yet to gain in confidence. 2inally, Hutchinson and Torres $.//;( ha*e )ointed out that textbooks ay )lay a )i*otal role in inno*ation. They suggest that textbooks can su))ort teachers through )otentially disturbing and threatening change )rocesses, de onstrate new and9or untried ethodologies, introduce change gradually, and create scaffolding u)on which teachers can build a ore creati*e ethodology of their own. Chile any of the afore entioned theorists are 3uick to )oint out the extensi*e benefits of using E1-9E2- textbooks, any other researchers, and )ractitioners do not necessarily acce)t this *iew and retain so e well+founded reser*ations on the subject. :llwright $./0%(, for instance, has written a scathing co entary on the use of textbooks in the E-T classroo . He suggests that textbooks are too inflexible and generally reflect the )edagogic, )sychological, and linguistic )references and biases of their authors. 7es)ite that fact, textbooks are widely considered a key co )onent in ost language )rogra s in Dietna ese uni*ersities. ,n the 6?-TE6H, D>EH, E2- textbooks ser*e as the basis for uch of the language in)ut learners recei*e and the language )ractice that takes )lace in the classroo . 2or ost teachers, these instructional aterials )ro*ide the foundation for the content of lessons, the balance of the skills
$A. The(i(
6

Chapter 2: Literature review

taught, as well as the kinds of language )ractice the students engage in during class acti*ities. :s 6unningsworth $./0;!.'( asserts, 4course aterials for English should be seen as the teacher#s ser*ant and not his aster5 which leads to the issue of how texts are or should be used in a classroo . Fet, due to the growth of the E1- )ublishing arket, teachers need to be increasingly knowledgeable and so)histicated in sorting through the asses of books a*ailable. 8ather than chastising instructors for using texts, ex)erts need to be offering the ad*ice on how to best select course books.
2.2 $ATERIAL! EVALUATIO"

2.2.1 What i( .ea&t +/ .ateria)( eva)uati'&0 This thesis concerns ainly with the )rocess of e*aluationG therefore, it would be reasonable to de*ote the literature ainly on clarifying the key ter that will be fre3uently encountered in this thesis. :s being defined in Microsoft Encarta 8eference -ibrary %&&', the ter evaluation ste ing fro the *erb 4to evaluate5 which eans 4an assess ent of *alue! the act of considering or exa ining so ething in order to judge its *alue, 3uality, i )ortance, extent, or condition.5 Heing e )loyed as a )edagogical ter , it has been inter)reted in any different ways by researchersG howe*er, its nature re ains unchanged. : ong *arious definitions of aterials e*aluation, that offered by To linson $.//0( see s to be the ost widely acce)ted. He considers syste aticity an ut ost i )ortant characteristic of this )rocedure in defining aterials e*aluation as!
the syste atic a))raisal of the *alue of aterials in relation to their objecti*es and to the objecti*es of the learners using the . $To linson ! .//0! xi(

Dia this definition, To linson i )licitly )oints out that the *alue of a aterial should be deter ined by considering whether the learning )oints are )otentially useful to the learners, whether the learning )rocedures can axi iIe the likelihood of the learners actually learning what they want and need to learn. Therefore, besides studying the objecti*es stated by the author$s( of the book, the e*aluator is ad*ised to consider the learners# o)inions. ?b*iously, his definition is well aligned with the learner+centered a))roach.
$A. The(i(
7

Chapter 2: Literature review

,n order to ha*e a dee)er understanding of the e*aluation )rocedure, -ittlejohn $.//0( and To linson $.///( suggest that it should be distinguished fro the related ter , analysis.
:t its ost basic le*el, analysis is a )rocess that leads to an objecti*e, *erifiable description. E*aluation, as the word suggests, in*ol*es the making of judgments=. ,n the si )lest for , analysis seeks to disco*er what is there $-ittlejohn .//0(, whereas e*aluation is ore concerned to disco*er whether what one is looking for is there J and if it is, to )ut a *alue on it.

$6ited in McGrath, %&&%!%%( ,n -ittlejohn#s *iew)oint, a close analysis of aterials the sel*es should be seen as a )reli inary ste) to aterials e*aluation. Thus, 4when co )aring a descri)tion of a textbook with a descri)tion of a context in order to establish whether that textbook ight be suitable for that context we are e*aluating5 $cited in McGrath, %&&%!%%(. ,t can be conse3uently inferred that e*aluation differentiates itself fro analysis in the sense of context+relatedness. ,n the sa e *ein, Hutchinson& Caters regard what distinguishes e*aluation fro analysis is that 4e*aluation is, KthenL, concerned with relati*e erit5 $Hutchinson, T., & Caters, : ./0@!/B(. They also ake it clear that whether the book is )raiseworthy de)ends largely on its suitability to the local setting, as 4there is no absolute good or bad J only degrees of fitness for the re3uired )ur)oses.5 ,n an e )irical )oint of *iew, Hutchinson, T., & Caters, :. $./0@!/B( see e*aluation )lainly as 4a atter of judging the fitness of so ething for a )articular )ur)ose.5 They share with To linson that 4the e*aluation )rocess should be syste atic5 and add that it 4is best seen as a atching exercise! atching your analyIed needs to a*ailable solutions5 $./0@!.&'(. The essence of this definition is its attention to the students# needs in e*aluating aterials and therefore is ado)ted in this thesis. ,n conclusion, the e*aluation of the textbook OEE is to be conducted with an atte )t to realiIe its features discussed abo*e! + syste aticity + context+relatedness + taking into account students# o)inions + judging the fitness of the book against the learning goals The following )arts enclosing a))roaches, ty)es and the roles of aterials e*aluation will be )ursued in the light of these characteristics.
$A. The(i(
8

Chapter 2: Literature review

2.2.2 Appr'a1he( t' .ateria)( eva)uati'& Materials e*aluation or ore s)ecifically textbook e*aluation has been studied fro different research )ers)ecti*es. : close study of the literature shows that there is no consensus a ong researchers# uses of the ter "a))roach# in aterials e*aluation. McGrath, ,., $%&&%( synchroniIes 4a syste atic a))roach5 with 4a cyclical a))roach5 with three stages eanwhile :nsary, H., & Habaii,E.,$%&&%( in their article 4Eni*ersal 6haracteristics of E2-9E1- Textbooks! : 1te) Towards 1yste atic Textbook E*aluation5 include a heading 4 checklist approach to textbook e*aluation,5 which narrows down the eaning of the ter . : )o)ular classification is that of Ellis, 8. $.//0(, who states that the literature on educational e*aluation identifies two broad a))roaches! the "objecti*es odel# and the "res)onsi*e e*aluation# based on 3uantitati*e and 3ualitati*e stand)oints res)ecti*ely.
2.2.2.1 O+2e1tive( .'3e)

:s being ex)lained by Ellis, 8., this odel belongs to the )sychological tradition of educational research and is no othetic in a))roach $i.e. it e )loys 3uantitati*e data to ake statistical generaliIations with a *iew to establishing general "laws#(. This a))roach re3uires that curricula be ex)ressed in ter s of )recise objecti*es, the achie*e ent of which can be deter ined by tests that easure learner beha*ior and learning outco es. ,n brief, the objecti*es odel a))roach is concerned with deter ining whether the )rogra 9)roject has achie*ed its goals through 3uantitati*e ethods. ,n the case of the study where the learning objecti*es of the course were not well established, this a))roach see s to be ina))licable. Therefore, the latter a))roach is to be taken into consideration.
2.2.2.2 Re(p'&(ive eva)uati'&

,n contrast to the abo*e+ entioned a))roach, res)onsi*e e*aluation belongs ore to the sociological tradition of educational research and is idiogra)hic in a))roach $i.e. it )roceeds by eans of intensi*e studies of indi*iduals and )articular cases(. The "res)onsi*e e*aluation# a))roach ai s to illu inate the co )lex nature of the organiIational, teaching and learning )rocesses at issue. To )ut it in a si )le way, this ty)e of e*aluation tends to base its judg ents of textbook *alue on the res)onses of a *ast a ount of stakeholders of the learning )rocess including the teachers, the
$A. The(i(
9

Chapter 2: Literature review

learners, and the ad inistrators. 1uffice it to say that this a))roach has a close relationshi) with 3ualitati*e research ethod. ,deally, e*aluators are recogniIing the need for broad+based a))roach to e*aluation that incor)orates both the objecti*es odel and the res)onsi*e e*aluation. Howe*er, due to the ti e and ex)erience constraints, we decide to follow the res)onsi*e e*aluation a))roach only. 2.2.4 T/pe( '% .ateria)( eva)uati'& 8esearchers offer different ways of categoriIing e*aluation in general and aterial e*aluation in )articular. The classification reco ended by Ellis $.//0( )resents an ex)ansi*e scenario of the for er whereas McGrath $%&&%( di*ides the latter into three stages in a circular )ath. These two ways of categoriIation co )le ent each other to for a co )lete *iew of aterials e*aluation. : 3uestion to be raised here is where the )osition of aterial is in a large )icture of a whole )rogra 9 )roject e*aluation.
2.2.4.1 $ar1'5 ver(u( .i1r'5eva)uati'&

Ellis $.//0( in the article 4The e*aluation of co unicati*e tasks5 distinguishes between acro+e*aluation and icro+e*aluation as follows!
Marco+e*aluation can be defined as e*aluation that seeks to answer one or both of the following 3uestions! .. To what extent was the )rogra 9)roject effecti*e and efficient in %. ,n what way can the )rogra 9)roject be i )ro*edM $6ited in To linson, H., .//0! %.0( eeting its goalsM

:s the word suggests, acro+e*aluation, then, is an e*aluation carried out for accountability and9or de*elo) ental )ur)oses by collecting infor ation relating to *arious ad inistrati*e and curricular as)ects of the )rogra . He clai s that the i )le entation of a acro+e*aluation of a )rogra 9 )roject in*ol*es collecting *arious kinds of infor ation relating to one or both of the following!
.. %. :d inistrati*e atters $i.e. the logistical and financial under)innings of the )rogra ( atters, which, in turn can be broken down into a consideration of! 6urriculu a. Materials b. Teachers c. -earners $6ited in To linson, .//0! %.0(

,t, therefore, can be seen as an u brella ter e*aluations.

$A. The(i(

that encloses series of

icro+

10

Chapter 2: Literature review

Micro+e*aluation, according to Ellis $.//0(, 4is characteriIed by a narrow focus on so e s)ecific as)ect of the curriculu or the ad inistration of the )rogra 5 $cited in To linson, .//0! %./(. Task e*aluation, e*aluation of le*els of students# )artici)ation etc, are exa )les of icro+e*aluation. This *iew of e*aluation is reflected diagra atically in the figure below!

Pr'-ra.6pr'2e1t eva)uati'&

A3.i&i(trative .atter( $a1r'5 eva)uati'&

$ateria)( eva)uati'&

Curri1u)ar .atter(

Teacher evaluation

Learner evaluation

$i1r'5 eva)uati' &

timeta le evaluatio n, etc.

task evaluation, etc.

evaluation of questioning practices, etc.

evaluation of levels of participation, etc.

Fig. 2.1: Marco- and micro-evaluation in language teaching (cited in Tomlinson, 1998: 219)

:s illustrated in the diagra , aterials e*aluation co )oses an as)ect of acro+ e*aluation of the whole )rogra 9)roject. Together with teacher and learner e*aluation, it constitutes an integral )art of curricular atters. This figure also shows the relationshi) of aterials e*aluation with other areas of e*aluation such as )rogra e*aluation, learner e*aluation, and task e*aluation in a larger scene. The next )art will a))roach aterial e*aluation fro a closer angle.
2.2.4.2 Pre5u(e i&5u(e p'(t5u(e eva)uati'&

2ro another *iew)oint, McGrath, ,., $%&&%( argues for a cyclical a))roach to aterials e*aluation that enco )asses three stages! )re+use, in+use, and )ost+use e*aluation.

$A. The(i(

11

Pre5u(e eva)uati'& e(ta+)i(he( p'te&tia) (uita+i)it/

P'(t (e eva)uati'& u(e( 3ata '& i&1'ur(e u(e a&3 3ata '& e%%e1t( t' a((e(( (uita+i)it/ '% (e)e1ti'& a&3 (e)e1ti'& pr'1e3ure(

Chapter 2: Literature review

I&5u(e eva)uati'& -ather 3ata '& p)a&&i&3e1i(i'&( i.p)e.e&tati'& a&3 re(p'&(e7 .a/ (ti.u)ate pre)i.i&ar/ re1'&(i3erati'&(

Fig. 2.2: Closing the circle (Mc rath, !., 2""2:18")

'% (e)e1ti'& 1riteria

This argu ent is su))orted by 6unningsworth $.//'( and Ellis $.//0( who clai that the ost co on for is )robably the ")redicti*e# or ")re+use# e*aluation designed to exa ine the future or )otential )erfor ance of a textbook. This stage is carried out when decisions concerning the selection of a))ro)riate textbook need to be ade. Howe*er, as >unan $.//.!%..( )oints out in reference to the )re+use e*aluation of aterials,
Chile we can exercise )rofessional judg ent in answering 3uestions such as, 4does the introduction, )ractice, and recycling of new linguistic ite s see to be shallow9stee) enough for your studentsM5, ulti ately, such 3uestions can only be settled with reference to their actual use5

The "in+use# e*aluation designed to exa ine aterial that is currently being used ay ser*e better )edagogical )ur)oses. This second stage can be conducted )eriodically in co bination with careful obser*ation in order to satisfy :llwright#s $./0.! '+B( de and, 4The use of the textbook is onitored to )er it e*aluation of its use and effecti*eness.5 This goal can be achie*ed with analysis of the teachers# diaries9 journals, classroo obser*ation data, and records of the course book ada)tation or su))le entary aterials, which would be a co )licated )rocess. The final stage in the circle is "retros)ecti*e# or ")ost+use# $reflecti*e( e*aluation of a textbook that has been used in any res)ecti*e institution. This stage enables a ore co )rehensi*e way to assess the effect of using aterials. :lthough so e teachers ight think that )ost+e*aluation is a "daunting# task for which not only ti e ex)ertise is needed, McGrath $%&&%!.'( acknowledges that this ty)e 4is ost reliable when it draws on the ex)eriences of se*eral teachers and se*eral grou)s of learners.5 To be ore s)ecific, Masuhara $.//;( sees syste atic )ost+use as a stage in which the )re+ use selection criteria that are )roduced )rior to the course can be *alidated. The
$A. The(i(
1!

Chapter 2: Literature review

feedback collected fro aterial writers.

this )hase

ay ser*e as future reference for ho egrown

Chen it co es to the 3uestion of co bining the a))roaches with the after+use e*aluation, there a))ear two o)tions. Howe*er, it see s unreliable to judge the effecti*eness of a certain textbook by 3uantitati*ely co )aring the results in )re+tests and )ost+tests or t+tests between different grou)s since so any *ariables are in*ol*ed such as learning styles, students# self+studies, teaching ethodologies, etc. Therefore, the kind of e*aluation being de)loyed in this thesis is 4)ost+use e*aluation5 in align ent with 3ualitati*e a))roach. The ain )ur)ose of this e*aluation is to *alidate the erit of OEE based on its users# o)inions. 2.2.8 The r')e( '% eva)uati'& i& .ateria)( 3eve)'p.e&t
9999999 #/&a.i1 path 1. ,dentification 5 5 5 5 5 5 Opti'&a) (tep( a&3 %ee3+a1, )''p(

of need for aterials 2. Ex)loration of need

3. 6ontextual realiIation of aterials

4. Nedagogical realiIation of aterials 5. Nroduction of aterials

1tudent use of aterials 6.

Fig. 2.#: $ teacher%s &ath through the &roduction o' ne( or ada&ted materialso'

,valuation

materials ()oll* and +olitho 1998:98)

E*aluation is not at all new in the context of education. ,n contrast, it )art in al ost e*ery educational )rogra . Hardly any language )rogra can be co )leted without an e*aluati*e ste). This issue has been a to)ic of great interest a ong foreign researchers. ,n Dietna ese context, howe*er, only recently has

against isagreed an integral o-.ectives

$A. The(i(

1"

Chapter 2: Literature review

e*aluation confir ed its *ital role in guaranteeing educational 3uality. ,ts significance still holds true within the sco)e of aterials e*aluation. E*aluation is regarded by Jolly and Holitho $.//0( as an essential co )onent of aterials writing )rocess. :s being illustrated in the abo*e figure, the trigger ste) in the downward se3uence that is res)onsible for kee)ing the whole syste in otion is the e*aluation of aterials against agreed objecti*es. Hased on his or her e*aluation or learner feedback, the teacher considers any one of the )re*ious ste)s and akes adjust ents to the aterials as they are being used or after the e*ent. ,t is e*aluation that akes the )rocess )otentially cyclical. These two researchers also state that 4trialing and e*aluation are *ital to the success of any aterials5 adding that 4e*aluation, by both learners and teachers, based on learning objecti*es, can cut down on wasted ti e and effort and result in clear )in)ointing of ste)s which re3uire attention in the subse3uent )rocess of re*ision.5 The e*aluation also )ro*ides teacher + aterial writers with a )le lessons in order to diagnose the weakness and sustain the strength in their self+ ade aterials. Hence, in what ways should a textbook be e*aluatedM
2.4. $ETHO#! O: TEXTBOOK EVALUATIO"

,n general, three basic ethods can be discerned in the literature on textbook e*aluation. 2or con*enience, McGrath $%&&%!%'( refers the to the i )ressionistic, the checklist, and the in+de)th ethod. 2.4.1 The i.pre((i'&i(ti1 .eth'3 :s indicated in its na e, i )ressionistic analysis is concerned to obtain a general i )ression of the aterial. :s 6unningsworth#s $.//'!.( ter 4i )ressionistic o*er*iew5 suggests, such an o*er*iew ty)ically in*ol*es glancing at the )ublisher#s blurb $i.e. the brief descri)tion of the book on the back co*er(, and at the content )age $for an indication of the syllabus ty)e and co*erage(, and then ski ing through the book looking at organiIation, layout, to)ics, and *isuals. 2or that reason, this ethod is so eti es called 4first+glance e*aluation.5 This kind of o*er*iew is undoubtedly inade3uate if it constitutes the sole basis for textbook e*aluation and selection. Howe*er, this ethod )robably )ro*ides the re*iewer with the *ery first i )ression as well as the objecti*es of the author$s( in designing the book. This thesis, therefore, e )loys it to attain a general i )ression in co bination with the i )le entation of a ore exhausti*e ethod.
$A. The(i(
1#

Chapter 2: Literature review

2.4.2 The 1he1,)i(t .eth'3 The li itations of the i )ressionistic ethod lead to the e ergence of an alternati*e tool of assess ent in which a checklist beco es the )oint of de)arture. ,n its ost literal sense, it consists of a list of ite s that is 4referred to for co )arison, identification, or *erification5 $6ollins English 7ictionary .//%(. This ethod, which akes good use of a checklist to e*aluate aterials, is ad*ocated by nu erous researchers of the field such as Tucker $./@'(G 6andlin & Hreen $./@/(G 7aoud & 6elce+Murcia $./@/(G Cillia s $./0<(G Hutchinson and Caters $./0@(G 1heldon $./00(G 1kierso $.//.(G 6unningsworth $.//'(G Er $.//B(G -ittlejohn $.//B(G Arashen $.//@(G Garinger $%&&.(G Arug $%&&%(G :nsary $%&&%(G to na e but a few. Chich factors ake this ethod )re*ail o*er the othersM 6o )ared to the ost ob*ious alternati*es, i )ressionistic e*aluation in*ol*ing di))ing into a book, and in+de)th e*aluation based on close analysis of features or sections, the use of checklists for s)ecific e*aluation )ur)oses has at least four ad*antages!
.. ,t is systematic, ensuring that all ele ents that are dee ed to be i )ortant are considered. %. ,t is cost effective, )er itting a good deal of infor ation to be recorded in a relati*ely short s)ace of ti e. <. The infor ation is recorded in a convenient for at, allowing for easy co )arison between co )eting sets of aterial. ;. ,t is explicit, and, )ro*ided the categories are well understood by all in*ol*ed in the e*aluation, offers a co on fra ework for decision+ aking. $McGrath, %&&%!%@(

The syste aticity of the checklist ethod ranks the first a ong all the ad*antages. ,t is well brought out by 1kierso $.//.!;;&, citing Tucker ./@0(!
: textbook e*aluation checklist should consist of a co )rehensi*e set of criteria based on the basic linguistic, )sychological, and )edagogical )rinci)les underlying odern ethods of language learning. These criteria should be exhausti*e enough to insure assess ent of all characteristics of the textbook. :nd they should be discrete enough to focus attention on one characteristic at a ti e or on a single grou) of related characteristics $Tucker ./@0! %./(

,t can be su ariIed that the syste aticity referred to abo*e is only a strength if the criteria or categories of which a checklist is co )osed $.( are based on a sound )edagogical groundG $%( enco )ass all features of the textbookG $<( differentiate between features and $;( are rele*ant to the s)ecific context in which it is to be used.
$A. The(i(
15

Chapter 2: Literature review

The last )oint was not entioned by 1kierso $.//.( but ust be included because it reflects the )re*ailing learner+centered a))roach in second language teaching. Cillia s $./0<( has noted a checklist cannot be a static )heno enon, e*idenced by a wide range of checklists o*er the years. The categories in all aterials e*aluation instru ent or obser*ation schedule are a uch reflection of the ti e at which they were concei*ed and of the belief of their designers as are )ublished aterials the sel*es. Thus, an 4off+the+shelf5 checklist is likely to need tailoring to suit a )articular context. 2.4.4 The i&53epth .eth'3 ,n+de)th techni3ues, as ex)lained by McGrath $%&&%! %@+%0(, 4go beneath the )ublisher#s and author#s clai s to look at, for instance, the kind of language
descri)tion, underlying assu )tions about learning or *alues on which the on.5 aterials are based

,n a broader sense, this ethod seeks to find out whether the aterials are likely to li*e u) to the clai s being ade for the . 1)ecific )rocedures reco ended include a focus on s)ecific features $6unningsworth, .//'(, a close analysis of one or ore extracts $Hutchinson, ./0@(, or a thorough exa ination of se*eral units using )redeter ined 3uestions $Johnson, ./0B(. McGrath argues that while such techni3ues ha*e the *irtue of ensuring that the selection )rocess is a ore considered affair, they ay also ha*e certain disad*antages!
.. Representativeness of samples! the sa )les $e.g. exercises, lessons, units( selected for analysis ay not be re)resentati*e of the book as a whole, and this ay therefore distort any judg ent. %. Partiality! because in+de)th analysis is nor ally narrowly focused $being based either on a )articular section of the aterial or one or ore threads running through it(. ,t gi*es only a )artial insight into what the aterial offers. <. ime and expertise re!uired! so e )ro)osals for in+de)th e*aluation would in*ol*e a good deal of ti eG others re3uire ex)ert knowledge $e.g. of language descri)tion( that is not a*ailable. Though it can be argued that the ti e s)ent on e*aluation is well s)ent if a )otentially unsuitable textbook is rejected, there ay be ore econo ical ways of arri*ing at this decision.

This section has argued that as used in isolation each of these ethods has its li itations as well as its s)ecific uses. 2ro the abo*e discussion about the
$A. The(i(
16

Chapter 2: Literature review

)ros and cons of all three )re*alent ethods, it is clear that the checklist ethod triu )hs o*er the others, and therefore, is chosen as the ajor ethod to gauge the textbook OEE. The following )art will be de*oted to selecting criteria to be )ut in the checklist and ethods of rating and weighting the .
2.8 CRITERIA :OR TEXTBOOK EVALUATIO"

Darious scholars ha*e suggested different ways to hel) teachers beco e syste atic and objecti*e in their significant body of literature exists on this

ore

ethod of e*aluation by using a checklist. : ethod $Tucker $./@'(G 6andlin &

Hreen $./@/(G 7aoud & 6elce+Murcia $./@/(G Cillia s $./0<(G Hutchinson and Caters $./0@(G 1heldon $./00(G 1kierso $.//.(G 6unningsworth $.//'(G Er $.//B(G -ittlejohn $.//B(G Garinger $%&&.(G Arug, $%&&%(G :nsary $%&&%(G Miekley $%&&'((. Their tools of e*aluation are concise reflections of their *iews on the nature of language & language ac3uisition, and a))roaches to language teaching. >otably, :nsary $%&&%( after conducting a scrutiniIed cor)us of ten E2-9E1- textbook re*iews )lus ten E2-9E1- textbook e*aluation checklists has anaged to draw the so+called co on+core )ro inent characteristics of a standard E2-9E1- textbook. Most recently, Miekley, J. $%&&'( has also released a co )osite s)ecification constructed fro ele ents of twenty+two )re*iously )ublished checklists. These works contain the results of recent research in second language instruction. 2or exa )le, research shows that in addition to teaching the content, an E2-9 E1- teacher should cater for sufficient co unication skills and challenge learners to think critically about what strategies they should use in their learning. Therefore, the works )ro)osed by those researchers hel) lay a reliable foundation for this study. The following will discuss the for ation of an e*aluation checklist with the focus on the what $fro $to assess( with the ai general categories to detailed criteria( and the how to the s)ecific context of an E1N of adjusting the

course in the 6ollege of Technology. 2.8.1 What (h'u)3 +e i&1)u3e3 i& the 1riteria 1he1,)i(t0 Nrior studies on checklist e*aluation ha*e been carried out broadly with *arious focuses. :nsary $%&&%( ad*ocates such facets as 4)ractical considerations5 or
$A. The(i(
17

Chapter 2: Literature review

4a*ailability,5 4)ricing5=Howe*er, in this study, aterials is regarded as a )edagogic de*ice, that is, as an aid to teaching and learning a foreign language. Therefore, this will li it the focus to as)ects of the organiIation, content, skill, and ethodology ex)ressed in the course book. Many ex)erts ad*ocate a *ery detailed exa ination of a course book#s language content, which has led to the )roduction of extensi*e e*aluation checklists. The following will discuss the )ros and cons of a nu ber of the . Tucker, one of the )ioneer in situational a))roach, introduces a syste which has a set of criteria clai ed to be 4consistent with the basic linguistic, )sychological, and )edagogical )rinci)les5 $./@'! <''( consisting of four ain grou)s of criteria! )ronunciation, gra ar, content, and general criteria. Ender the )ronunciation criterion, the )resentation of )ronunciation re3uires attention to $.( co )leteness of )resentation referring to the co*erage of sounds and su)raseg entals, $%( a))ro)riateness of )resentation concerning whether or not students are fro a single language background, whether or not students are kids or adults, and all this affecting the ty)e of )resentation, and $<( ade3uacy of )ractices dealing with both the 3uality and 3uantity of )ractice. Ender gra ar category, criteria focus on $.( ade3uacy of )attern in*entory dealing with how uch of the structure should be )resented and how well it is )resented, $%( a))ro)riate se3uencing referring to the organiIation of )resentation, that is to say, si )le sentence )atterns should co e first, introduction of new structures ust rest on already+ astered si )ler )atterns, etc., and $<( ade3uacy of drills and of )ractice referring to judg ents about how readily students can discern a for and about how uch )ractice is re3uired to guarantee this ade3uacy. Twenty+one years later, Er $.//B!.0B( offers another checklist with ore or less a si ilar focus and a))roach to E2-9E1- textbook e*aluation. : cursory look at its contents indicates that still good )ronunciation )ractice, good gra ar )resentation, grading and se3uencing, cultural and )edagogical concerns in )resentation, *ocabulary )ractice, to)ics being interesting to different learners, etc. are e )hasiIed as 4grounds on which one ight criticiIe or reject a textbook5 $.//B!.0;(. : 3uestion to be raised here is what if the )ur)ose is not "good gra ar# and "good *ocabulary# )ractice.

$A. The(i(

18

Chapter 2: Literature review

,n fact, these criteria did not sur*i*e the attack ade on the by other ethodologists. 6unningsworth $.//'( see s to be ore radical in touching u)on the i )ortance of relating aterials to course objecti*es and the learner#s needs and )rocesses. The learner+centered a))roach is e bedded in all the four ain grou)s of criteria! language content, skill, to)ic, and ethodology, with such illustrations as! $.( whether the course book co*ers the ain gra ar ite s a))ro)riate to each le*el, taking learners# needs into accountG $%( whether reading )assages and associated acti*ities suitable for the students# le*els, interests, etc.G $<( whether the to)ics hel) ex)and students# awareness and enrich their ex)erienceG $;( whether students are ex)ected to take a degree of res)onsibility for their own learning. ,n his checklist, gra ar, *ocabulary, and )ronunciation are only substituents of language content. ?b*iously, 6unningsworth looks at aterials being e*aluated fro a broader angle than Tucker $./@'( and Er $.//B(. 6riteria )resented by hi a))roach closer to current trend toward language teaching with a shift of focus fro teaching ere language content to incor)orating it with the skills to use it, the content transferred by it, and the ethodology to get things done. ,n addition to that of 6unningsworth, 1heldon#s $./00( checklist is *ery ex)ansi*e and atte )ts to assess all as)ects of content. He lists out se*enteen s)ecifications including such di*erse factors as gra)hics and )hysical characteristics to a))ro)riateness, authenticity, flexibility, educational *alidity, which are also worthy to be taken into consideration. These a))roaches are the ost co on and likely straightforward, howe*er, other writers )ro ote e*aluating language teaching aterial beyond si )ly their contents and instead focusing on cogniti*e and affecti*e factors. Hoth 1kierso $.//.( and 6hall and 6onard $.//.( utiliIe Hloo #s Taxono y of the 6ogniti*e 7o ain to assess the )rocesses and skills textbooks re3uire learners to )erfor . The rating of a text ay directly reflect the le*el of skill it de ands. 2or exa )le, a book that uses synthesis and analysis would rate higher than one that de ands only co )rehension. These concerns highlight the increasing significance that )rofessionals )lace on the )rocess of learning and the recognition that focusing solely on outco es often does not address all the second language learner#s needs. This a))roach is further extended by -ittlejohn and Cindeatt $./0/! .@;( who seek to 4look beyond the goals of language learning itself.5 These authors stress the necessity of )lacing language learning within the broader context of all learning and
$A. The(i(
19

Chapter 2: Literature review

e )hasiIe how knowledge and cogniti*e ability should be addressed in the creation and e*aluation of aterials. 8ecently in : erica, the e*aluation of the instructional effecti*eness of the indi*idual iddle grades science )rogra s has a))lied a set of research+based criteria de*elo)ed by Nroject %&B.#s "enchmarks for #cience $iteracy $.//<( and the >ational 8esearch 6ouncilOs %ational #cience Education #tandards $.//B(. The )rocedure#s instructional criteria are based on existing research on student learning and are organiIed in se*en categories, each of which focuses on a s)ecific as)ect of instructional su))ort. These categories include )ro*iding a sense of )ur)oseG taking account of student ideasG engaging students with rele*ant )heno enaG de*elo)ing and using scientific ideasG )ro oting students# thinking about )heno ena, ex)eriences, and knowledgeG assessing )rogressG and enhancing the science learning en*iron ent 6ollecti*ely, as re*ealed by this re*iew, ex)erts de and a great deal fro textbooks, although their beliefs ay not always reflect the *iew or the situation of one#s own classroo s. Howe*er, an awareness of these issues is significant for enhancing his or her ability to e*aluate and choose the best textbooks. Each indi*idual e*aluation lists ay or ay not include the issues or ele ents that reflect the concerns of the teachers choosing textbooks. ?ne of the key )roble s facing the designer of an e*aluation instru ent is the s)ecification of criteria. : ong the ost i )ortant as)ects of that )roble , the a))ro)riateness of criteria to the e*aluati*e )ur)ose )robably ranks the first. Much of the discussion on aterials e*aluation is )osited on the assu )tion that the e*aluator has in ind fairly well defined end+users $learners and teachers( and context. :s a result, discussions of e*aluation criteria tend to be context+related. Therefore, selecting )articular ite s to create a )ersonal e*aluation index is the best ethod for ensuring that the realities of each indi*idual learning situation are addressed. 2.8.2 H'w t' %'r.at the eva)uati'& :lthough differences exist a ong different checklists, a aterials e*aluation checklist, following McGrath $%&&%(, is ex)ected to fulfill a nu ber of )otentially conflicting functions!
.. )ro*ide co )rehensi*e infor ation of the sort that will facilitate e*aluation %. and co )arison

$A. The(i(

!0

Chapter 2: Literature review

<. while aking as few de ands on the e*aluator as )ossible $e.g. be easily understandableG easy93uick to co )lete( ;. lead to the selection of aterials which are a))ro)riate for the context $in the fullest sense, including suitability for the teachers who will use the ( '. but also contribute to the advancement of learning and teaching in that context. $McGrath, ,., %&&%! ;0(

Hesides, the content of the checklist, its for at )lays a certain role in actualiIing the abo*e functions. The way the infor ation is judged de)ends re arkably on how it is organiIed and the rating syste s allocated for it. This section will focus on two ost i )ortant factors! the for at of ite s and res)onses and the rating, weighting and scoring.
2.8.2.1 Ite. %'r.at a&3 re(p'&(e

There are two ain for ats! closed9 o)en. ,n closed for at, ite s ainly belong to any of the three ty)es! yes9no 3uestions, state ents or )hrases. Fes9 no 3uestions corres)ond to yes9no answers which ay be a))ro)riate for certain ty)es of 3uestions $e.g. those concerning the )resence or absence of a )articular feature(. This for at in accordance with a three+)oint rating scale of Fes9 Nartly9 >o also )er its 3uantitati*e judg ents to be ade $i.e. a res)onse to the 3uestions &ow much' &ow well'(. Exa )les of checklists in this for at include those of Ha er $.//.(, Grant $./0@(, and 6unningsworth $.//'( in which boxes are ade a*ailable for ticking to the yes answer. :lternati*ely, the ite can be in for of a state ent or )hrase, the res)onse to which is a tick in the suitable box and then being con*erted into corres)onding score. 4This checklist in which state ents are co bined with nu erical res)onses can )robably be co )leted ore 3uickly and the res)onses of different e*aluators can be co )ared ore easily.5 $McGrath, ,., %&&%! ;/(. :d*ocates of this ty)e include Tucker $./@'(, Er $.//B(, Cillia s $./0<(, etc. Howe*er, nowadays, researchers are ore in fa*or of the hybrid between the two for ats, which eans that closed for at also incor)orates s)ace for co ents. The additional infor ation generated in this way can be of *alue in looking into the book fro different angles. That of Ha er $.//.( sets a good exa )le of o)enness in )ro*iding s)aces for co ent.
2.8.2.2 Rati&- wei-hti&- a&3 (1'ri&-

i. /ating
$A. The(i(
!1

Chapter 2: Literature review

1o e checklists $e.g. those of Tucker ./@', 7aoud and 6elce+Murcia ./@/, Cillia s ./0<, 1heldon ./00, and 1kierso .//.( include a rating scale. : rating sche e )ro*ides a easured or 3uantitati*e ethod for judging the co )arati*e weightings of a textbook#s erits. Chen de onstrated in a chart9gra)h, it )ro*ides a *isual co )arison between the )artici)ants# o)inions of the book and hence facilitating a 3uick and easy dis)lay of the e*aluator#s judg ent. 8ating scales ty)ically contain three to fi*e )oints. Hruder $./@0( uses a three+)oint assess ent scale for student#s and teacher#s book in which the )lus sign $P( indicates a good atch between aterials and learner9 teacher needsG the inus sign $+( a is atch, and Iero $&( that the text can be ada)ted. This for at is so ewhat the sa e as that used by Grant $./0@!.%%+B( with three answer choices! FE1, N:8T-F, and >?. These o)tions are then con*erted into scores! two )oints for e*ery FE1 answer, one )oint for e*ery N:8T-F answer and Iero for >? answer. 7aoud & 6elce+Murcia $./@/( and Cillia s $./0<( are ore so)histicated in ex)loiting a fi*e+ )oint nu erical rating scale fro Iero to four. The inclusion of fi*e )oints a))ears to allow for finer judg ents, but, recently, there is a strong argu ent for a four+)oint scale $rather than three or fi*e(, 4which akes it i )ossible for the e*aluator to choose the non+co ittal central )oint.5 $McGrath, %&&%! '&( ii. 0eighting Chen it co es to the atter of weighting, researchers di*ide the sel*es into two ain grou)s each basing the sel*es on different assu )tions. The for er )robably assu es that all criteria in the list should be seen as of e3ual i )ortance, therefore, there is no need for )utting in a weighting scale. The latter seeks an alternati*e a))roach to gi*e )ro inence to s)ecific features by allocating the a higher weighting on a designated scale $7aoud and 6elce+Murcia ./@/, Cillia s ./0<(. ?b*iously, this odel )er its a checklist that has been de*elo)ed elsewhere to be fine+tuned to the re3uire ents of a )articular context. Er $.//B ! .0'( has this suggestion to ake about deciding weightings!
,n deciding on the weighting for each ite , it ight hel) to ask yourself! if this 3uality were issing, would , therefore not use this bookM ,f so, then you ob*iously think the 3uality essential or *ery i )ortant. ,f, howe*er, the 3uality is desirable, but its absence would not necessarily sto) you using the book if all the other criteria were fulfilled, then )erha)s a single tick Kindicating "fairly i )ortant#L ay be enough.

iii. 1coring

$A. The(i(

!!

Chapter 2: Literature review

The great ad*antage of 3uantifying res)onses in this way is that the "score# for each criterion is to be calculated by ulti)lying rating and weighting scales J 8$ating( x C$eighting( Q 1 $core(. Cith the scores subtotaled and totaled, the atter to ake co )arisons between different sets of textbooks beco es si )le. Chen the newly designed aterials are to be )ut into )iloting stage, scoring will be a))lied in order to weigh its effecti*eness against OEE. Howe*er, this study restricts itself in analyIing only one set of aterialsG therefore, it only handles with the weightings and ratings of two different grou)s of res)ondents+the teachers and the students without dealing with scores. This 3uantifying easure ent is ex)ected to indicate in a ore s)ecific way than an i )ressionistic judg ent and in a clearer way than a *erbal res)onse to an o)en 3uestion. Es)ecially, when *isualiIed in a chart it ay illustrate which features of the aterials are weak and would need odification or re ediation in the substitute set of aterials. 2.8.4 T'.)i&('&;( i3e')'-ie( '% -''3 .ateria)( Chile *arious studies ha*e been done, trying to establish a detailed list of criteria, not as uch attention has been gi*en to exa ine what akes good aterials. Hefore settling down on our own checklist we need to brief about the basic )rinci)les of second language ac3uisitions rele*ant to the de*elo) ent of aterials for the teaching of languages as su ariIed by To linson, H., $.//0! @+%.(. He belie*es that there is now a sufficient consensus for 1-: research to be used as an infor ati*e base for the for ulation of criteria for the aterials to be de*elo)ed and e*aluated.

Materials should achieve im&act through no*elty, *ariety, attracti*e )resentation, and a))ealing content. :s it is belie*ed that the aterials will be taken in for )rocessing when the learners# curiosity, interest and attention are attracted.

Materials should hel& learners to 'eel at ease with s)acious, culture+ friendly texts and illustrations, and techni3ues to hel) the to learn rather than testing the all the ti e. The reason for that is 48esearch has shown = the effects of *arious for s of anxiety on ac3uisition! the less anxious the learner, the better language ac3uisition )roceeds. 1i ilarly, relaxed and co fortable students a))arently can learn ore in shorter )eriods of ti e.5 $7ulay, Hurt and Arashen ./0%(

$A. The(i(

!"

Chapter 2: Literature review

Materials should hel& learners to develo& con'idence, which coincides with 7lay, Hurt and Arashen#s $./0%( findings that 4relaxed and self+ confident learners learn faster.5 Howe*er, this cannot be achie*ed by the )rocess of si )lification but through acti*ities that try to ")ush# learners slightly beyond their existing )roficiency by engaging the in tasks that are sti ulating, )roble atic, but still achie*able or tasks in*ol*ing in i aginati*ity, creati*ity, and analytical skills.

0hat is -eing taught should -e &erceived -* learners as relevant and use'ul by relating the to known learner interest and to 4real+life5 tasks that the learner need or ight need to )erfor in the target language. ?therwise, aterials should )ro*ide the learners with a choice of to)ics and tasks. :d*ocates to this )oint of *iew include 1te*ick $./@B(, Arashen $./0%(, and Cenden $./0@(.

Materials should re2uire and 'acilitate learner sel'-investment by engaging the in learner+centered disco*ery acti*ities or in*ol*ing the in finding su))le entary aterials for )articular units in a book and gi*ing the res)onsibility for aking decisions about which texts to use and how to use the .

Materials should e3&ose the learners to language in authentic use through the ad*ice they gi*e, the instructions for their acti*ities, the s)oken and written texts they include )ro*ided that the in)ut ust be co )rehensible and *ary in style, ode, ediu , and )ur)ose.

The learners% attention should -e dra(n to linguistic 'eatures o' the in&ut either consciousl* or su-consciousl*. 2or exa )le, the learners ight be )aying conscious attention to working out the attitude of one of the characters in a story but ight be )aying subconscious attention to the second conditionals that the character uses.

Materials should &rovide the learners (ith o&&ortunities to use the target language to achieve communicative &ur&oses *ia infor ation or o)inion ga) acti*ities, )ost+listening and )ost+reading acti*ities, creati*e writing and s)eaking acti*ities, for al instruction gi*en in the target language either on the language itself or on the subject atter.

$A. The(i(

!#

Chapter 2: Literature review

Materials should ta4e into account that the &ositive e''ects o' instruction are usuall* dela*ed, which eans that instructions should be recycled.

Materials should ta4e into account that learners di''er in learning st*les , which eans that acti*ities should be *ariable and should cater for all learning styles.

Materials should ta4e into account that learners di''er in a''ective attitudes by )ro*iding choices of different ty)es of texts, ty)es of acti*ities, o)tional extras, etc.

Materials should &ermit a silent &eriod at the -eginning o' instruction that can facilitate the de*elo) ent of an effecti*e internaliIed gra ar before they start to s)eak. ,t is, therefore, ad*isable to arrange acti*ities fro co )rehension to )roduction.

Materials should ma3imi5e learning &otential -* encouraging intellectual, aesthetic, and emotional involvement that sti ulates both right and left+ brain acti*ities.

Materials should not rel* too much on controlled &ractice. :s

ost

researchers see to agree with Ellis who says that 4controlled )ractice a))ears to ha*e little long+ter effect on the accuracy with which new structures are )erfor ed5 $Ellis, .//&!./%( and 4has little effect on fluency5 $Ellis and 8athbone, ./0@(.

Materials should &rovide o&&ortunities 'or outcome 'eed-ac4 e*aluated in relation to the )ur)ose for which the language is used. ,n other words, the language )roduction acti*ities should ha*e intended outco es other than just )racticing the languages.

2.8.8 The i&3ivi3ua)i<e3 1he1,)i(t The scrutiniIed exa ination of a *ariety of the )re*iously )ublished checklists )resented in the )re*ious section, the basic )rinci)les of second language ac3uisitions rele*ant to the de*elo) ent of aterials as su ariIed by To linson, $.//0! @+%.(, and the discussion with the su)er*isor, the colleagues, and the students *ia the htt)!99www.fotech.org foru hel) lay a sound foundation for an indi*idualiIed
$A. The(i(
!5

Chapter 2: Literature review

checklist. Helow are se*eral factors to structure a s)ecific design to acco )lish the e*aluati*e objecti*es.
2.8.8.1. The what

The indi*idualiIed checklist results fro a thorough exa ination of se*eral )re*iously )ublished lists and the ost salient features a))licable to the s)ecific teaching context are selected. The criteria are organiIed in fi*e categories, each of which focuses on a s)ecific as)ect! organiIation and for at, Electronics content, language content, skill, and ethodology. This choice of categories bases itself largely on the checklist of 6unningsworth $.//'( with a su))le ent of organiIation and for at, and an alternation fro to)ic category to Electronics content. ,t can be seen that any of other indexes highlight the i )ortance of clear organiIation, and thus this should beco e a feature in the new list. Eseful table of content, glossary, and index is a criterion in this section. The for at should create i )act and attract to the eyes. The organiIation is su))osed to focus on con*enience, logicality, se3uentiality, and unifor ity. The content area is di*ided into two )arts! the electronics and the language content, which is characteristic of an E1N course book. :s being ex)loited in career+related settings, the electronics content first and fore ost ust eet the re3uire ents for the occu)ational outco es. They are desired to be accurate, u)+to+date, built on students# existing knowledge, and logically follow the objecti*es stated. The knowledge data in each unit are )referred to be balanced with a))roxi ately the sa e length and linked to other subject areas. The content is also ex)ected to include discussion 3uestions, and suggestions for further reading. The language content category consists of criteria for deter ining whether the aterial atte )ts to co*er ade3uately gra ar, *ocabulary, )ronunciation. 1uch criteria as *arious text+ty)es, suitable le*el of difficulty, se3uencing fro co )rehension to )roduction, dealing with the structuring and con*entions of language use abo*e sentence le*el are also included in this grou). 2ourthly, when it co es to skill area, it is assu ed that the integration of the four skills would ser*e best. The acti*ities ust ha*e clearly defined objecti*es, suitable for students# le*els, interestsG a))ro)riate in ter s of guidance9control, degree of accuracy, and style. Materials for s)oken English are ex)ected to be well designed to e3ui) learners for real+life interaction. -istening aterials should be well recorded, and as authentic as )ossible. Micro+skills ought to ser*e acade ic and occu)ational
$A. The(i(
!6

Chapter 2: Literature review

)ur)oses. ,t is noteworthy that the criteria in this category )ro*ide analysts with the o))ortunity to co ent on not only the four language skills but also high+order thinking skills such as inter)retation and reasoning. -astly, the ethodological criteria are designed to get aligned with the two )re*ailing a))roaches! co unicati*e and learner+centered ones ai ing at )ro*iding students with what they need in their acade ic and occu)ational fields. The aterials are )resu ed to )ro ote students# co unicati*e abilities through )air+work and grou)+ work. , )lication of the latter a))roach is that students are seen as the asters of their learning )rocess, which eans they ha*e to take res)onsibility in their own learning and self+i )ro*e ent and the aterials should encourage curiosity, creati*ity, and healthy 3uestioning.
2.8.8.2 The h'w

Nerha)s, no neat for ula or syste ay e*er )ro*ide a definite way to judge any textbook. Howe*er, at the *ery least, )robably the a))lication of a set of uni*ersal characteristics of E2-9E1- textbooks suggested by :nsary $%&&%( ay well hel) ake textbook e*aluation a coherent, syste atic, and thoughtful acti*ity. 1he cites Tucker $./@'! <'/+<B.( that a syste for textbook e*aluation should include!

a )redeter ined data+dri*en theory+neutral collection of uni*ersal characteristics of E2-9E1- textbook, discrete and )recise enough to hel) define oneOs )referred situation+ s)ecific criteria,

a syste a rating a

within which one

ay ensure objecti*e, 3uantified assess ent,

ethod that can )ro*ide the )ossibility for a co )arati*e analysis, by which the uni*ersal sche e ay be ada)ted and9or weighted to suit the

a si )le )rocedure for recording and re)orting the e*aluatorOs o)inion, echanis )articular re3uire ents of any teaching situation, a rating trajectory that akes )ossible a 3uick and easy dis)lay of the judg ents on each and e*ery criterion, and a gra)hic re)resentation to )ro*ide a *isual co )arison between the e*aluatorOs )referred choices as an archety)e and their actual realiIations in a )articular textbook under scrutiny.

The )referred situation+s)ecific criteria were already )resented in " the what( section abo*e. Chat follows is a de onstration of how the rating sche e acco )anying the criteria checklist works. The checklist design essentially in*ol*es at least the three ste)s below.
$A. The(i(
!7

Chapter 2: Literature review

2irstly, an e*aluation for with three ain colu ns is designed. The criteria a))ear in the central colu n on the for . The colu n to the left is s)ared for the e*aluator to insert his9her weightings fro one to three based on the i )ortance of the criterion to the textbook#s erits. The colu n to the right called the rating colu n is subdi*ided into four sub+colu ns corres)onding to the four+)oint ratings. Ty)ically, the scale of 4no9 little e*idence,5 4)artially e*ident,5 4 ostly e*ident,5 4fully e*ident5 ratings are s)ecified. : co )arati*e weight is assigned to the relati*e realiIation in the textbook! full e*idence of the defined criterion in the textbook recei*ing three, ade3uate e*idence a score of two, a )artial atch a score of one, and a total lack a score of Iero. The res)ondents# jobs are si )ly to fill in the weighting colu n with a nu ber fro one to three and )ut a tick in the a))ro)riate boxes that indicate their answers. 1econdly, the collation of two se)arate sets of scores e*aluating!

ay ser*e as the basis for

$.( the weighting $C( which a))ears in the first colu n indicating the significance of each defined criterion to the *alue of the textbook, ranging fro one to three $%( the rating $8( ranging fro Iero to three which a))ears in the third colu n on the for indicating the degree of atching between the ideal defined criterion and its actual realiIation in the textbook.

2inally, the two sets of weightings and ratings after each criterion are re)resented on a gra)h by drawing dotted line corres)onding to the nu erical ean *alues so that it is con*enient to co )are the erit of this textbook as gauged by the teachers and the learners.
!.5 T$% &'L%( ') T%*T+'', %-.L/.T0'1 01 T$% 2&'3%4T ') 5%(061016 1%7 %(2 8.T%&0.L( )'& %T (T/5%1T(

2.=.1 H'w OEE wa( e*p)'ite3 i& the E!P 1'ur(e( :lthough the beliefs on textbook use ay be as dichoto ous as ne*er bringing the into the classroo to using e*ery )age each day, the teachers of E1N 7e)art ent regard the iddle ground between these two as the ost )ractical and useful a))roach. OEE has been used as a core aterial in co bination with a *ariety of internet aterials in the E1N courses for the Electronics and Teleco unications students, 6?-TE6H, D>EH since the foundation of E1N 7e)art ent in %&&.. The
$A. The(i(
!8

Chapter 2: Literature review

thirty units excluding those that focus on listening skills were hal*ed, the first half was taught in the fourth se ester, the rest in the fifth. Each unit was taught in four )eriods. Most teachers tended to consistently follow the text#s se3uence, ethodology, )acing and *ocabulary. This situation occurred for a *ariety of reasons! ease of organiIation of lessons, to )ro*ide stability for students, and by the will of )rogra ad inistrators to assure that co )arable instruction is being )resented across courses. >e*ertheless, they were not co )letely satisfied with the NNN )rocedure )resented. :s a result, they thought of any other ways to lead in the lessons by )ro*iding the extra infor ation fro the internet or self+ ade handouts. 1e*eral extra acti*ities were also designed to co )ensate for the inade3uacy of co unication tasks. Grou) )resentation on the learnt to)ics, for exa )le, was war ly welco ed by the students. 6lose class obser*ations and reflections of the instructors as well as their students through the foru htt)!99www.fotech.org showed that there e erged a nu ber of co )laints about the textbook. + here are too many new words.
) he content is o*solete. ) he content does not closely relate to the students( majors. ) #ome of the lessons are too long while some others are too short. ) he *ook is insensitive to students( needs. ) he main focus is placed on reading skills. ) #peaking and listening skills were not paid enough attention to. ) he *ook does not support pair work or group work ade!uately. ) here are few chances for students to enlarge their knowledge of the field. ) here is hardly any room for developing analytical skills+ critical skills. ) here is an inade!uacy of real)life tasks,.

Cith the a))earance of the teacher+generated textbook -English for Electronics and elecommunications . /olume 0( for the third se ester, a considerable a ount of E1N knowledge in OEE was o*erla))ed. Chen the new curriculu for the whole E1N course was established in the beginning of the acade ic year %&&B, this textbook turned out to be a is atch. 6onse3uently, a reconsideration of the book usage is su))osed to be i )le ented in order to ensure the 3uality of the E1N )rogra .
$A. The(i(
!9

Chapter 2: Literature review

2.=.2 A& i&tr'3u1ti'& t' the pr'2e1t '% 3e(i-&i&- &ew E!P .ateria)( There a))ears a fact that E1N global course books a*ailable in the arket are not well tailored to the s)ecific students# needs, which is against the characteristics of an E1N course. The teachers who are in charge of teaching E1N ha*e to confront with the se*ere lack of suitable textbooks to be ex)loited in their highly s)ecialiIed teaching en*iron ent. ,n that circu stance, the o)ti al choice is to create 4in+house5 aterials. 7es)ite the fact that de*elo)ing their own classroo aterials is an extre ely difficult, arduous )rocess $1heldon! ./00(, the E1N 7e)art ent has set u) an ex)ansi*e )roject of designing new E1N aterials for all the four faculties! law, econo ics, infor ation technology, and electronics & teleco unications. ,n this *ein, the 7i*ision of ET is res)onsible for writing a set of three course books "English for Electronics and elecommunications . /olume 0+ 1+ 2 #. :ll the e bers of the di*ision ha*e eagerly )artici)ated in this significant work beginning with the establish ent of new curriculu . The Taba#s $./B%( flowchart of se*en stages of curriculu de*elo) ent was ado)ted as a con*entional )rocedure.
5iagnosis 5iagnosis of of nee9s nee9s )ormulation )ormulation of of o o :ectives :ectives (election (election of of content content 'rgani;ati 'rgani;ati on on of of content content

5eterminatio 5eterminatio n n of of =hat =hat an9 an9 ho= ho= to to evaluate evaluate

'rgani;atio 'rgani;atio n n of of learning learning e<periences e<periences

(election (election of of learning learning e<periences e<periences

CURRICULU$
Fig 2.6: Flo(chart o' Ta-a%s (1972) 1even 1tages o' Curriculum 8evelo&ment.

Hefore any sketch for the )roject was jotted down, two e bers of the di*ision were fortunate enough to ha*e been sent to the Nhili))ines for a one+ onth )rogra on 1yllabus 7esign and 6urriculu Manage ent. This course in accordance with another one on Tertiary Education held by 2aculty of Education, D>EH has e3ui))ed the staff with sound under)innings for constructing the new syllabus
$A. The(i(
"0

Chapter 2: Literature review

syste . The co unicati*e a))roach acco )anied with the learner+centered one has *italiIed the old dull syllabus and hel) oti*ate a )ositi*e learning en*iron ent. :n i )ortant co )onent of the )roject, -a student needs analysis( $1ee :))endix! .( that was conducted before the syllabus design. ,t was felt that an accurate re)resentation the students# ai s, concerns, interests, ex)ectations, and *iews regarding teaching ethodology would assist in the o*erall syllabus design as well as textbook e*aluation by creating a clearer )icture of the co )atibility between actual students# needs and the )ercei*ed goals9 objecti*es of the E1N )rogra . :fter a thorough assess ent of learner needs, the di*ision has co e u) with a workable set of clearly defined objecti*es for each se ester. The learning goals were established with a cross reference to the Hench ark for >atural 1cience and Technology by : erican :ssociation for the :d*ance ent of 1cience $.//<(, the Taxono y of Educational ?bjecti*es in the 6ogniti*e 7o ain by Hloo , H. 1., $./'B(, and the syllabi for the first+ and second+year students at 7e la 1alle Eni*ersity, Manila. !e.e(ter 4:
.t the en9 of the term, each stu9ent shoul9 e a le to> comprehen9 the constructions an9 operation principles of asic electronic 9evices such as capacitor, resistor, transistor, semicon9uctor. 9efine a num er of common electronic terminologies pronounce the terminologies accuratel? master grammatical features of %nglish for (cience an9 Technolog? =rite grammaticall? correct sentences listen to a short paragraph for main i9eas an9 ke? =or9s e<change information through information@gap an9 opinion@ gap activities acquire learning strategies for %(2. This inclu9es the a ilit? to 9eal =ith ne= =or9s, anal?;e sentence structures, rea9 an9 solve pro lems, reasoning ? analog?, formulating goo9 questions, 9eveloping goo9 stu9? ha its, time management. raise a=areness of the role of %(2 in their future :o s

!e.e(ter 8:
.t the en9 of the term, each stu9ent shoul9 e a le to> grasp ne= technologies such as ro ot, nanotechnologies $A. The(i(

laser,

ra9ar,

"1

Chapter 2: Literature review 9iscuss the applications of these technologies in improving qualit? of life anal?;e the organi;ation of 9ifferent kin9s of rea9ing te<ts master presentation skills such as greeting, intro9ucing the topic, using visual ai9s an9 non@ver al language make an informative an9 persuasive presentation a out a topic of the fiel9 9evelop anal?tical thinking skills an9 organi;ational skills construct coherent an9 =ell@organi;e9 paragraphs listen an9 take notes of specific information make goo9 use of 9ifferent information resources such as the li raries, the :ournals, the 0nternet, an9 other mass me9ia acquire self@stu9? skills

!e.e(ter =:
.t the en9 of the term, each stu9ent shoul9 e a le to> improve their rea9ing@ et=een@the@lines skills in or9er to comprehen9 state@of@the@art technical 9ocuments a out the =ireless =orl9. evaluate the influences of ne= technologies on peopleAs life master note@taking skills of short lectures :oin in seminars confi9entl?, constructivel? han9le =ith several t?pical occupational situations improve interpersonal skills construct informative an9 =ell@organi;e9 essa?s improve anal?tical, critical thinking skills via 9iscussions, panels, 9e ates, seminars raise a=areness of life@long learning

These sets of objecti*es ser*e as a leading factor in order to select and organiIe the contents and learning ex)eriences as well as the e*aluation of the textbook OEE. The criteria checklist was designed with the backu) of these sets of )ur)oses. :t )resent, -English for Electronics and elecommunications ) /olume 0( was ostly co )leted and has been )ut into )iloting stage. That the book has recei*ed re arkably )ositi*e feedback fro both the students and the ad inistrators )ro)els the di*ision e bers to continue with the )roject of designing *olu e two and three for the fourth and fifth se ester. Howe*er, before this de anding ission is to be i )le ented, retros)ection about the )re*iously used book is an essence.

$A. The(i(

"!

Chapter 2: Literature review

2.=.4 The te*t+'', eva)uati'& a( a& i&te-ra) part '% the pr'2e1t There a))ears a sad fact that no textbook e*aluation or consultation with the instructors had been conducted by the uni*ersity ad inistration )rior to the introduction of the textbook OEE to the language )rogra . ,nstead of choosing a course book that fulfills the learning goals set in the curriculu , the teaching staff re*ersely resorted to build u) the curriculu based on the textbook OEE. ,t was unfortunate because the learners# needs are subjugated in fa*or of the li ited )ossibilities of the text. :fter se*eral se esters of trialing, the teaching staff decided that in order to deter ine the relati*e strengths and weaknesses of the book and ulti ately decide how well it suited the desired and attainable goals of the newly structured E1N curriculu , a series of textbook e*aluation 3uestionnaires would be created and )ro*ided to both the instructors and the students. The e*aluation 3uestionnaires are based on the s)ecific concerns and )riorities of 6?-TE6H, D>EH. They contain 3uestions that )ertain to the layout and design, range and balance of acti*ities, skills a))ro)riateness and integration, subject content, language ty)es and ethodologies re)resented in the textbook. The 3uestionnaires will be extre ely beneficial in s)ecifying ai s and analyIing the teaching and learning situation ore clearly, gathering additional ideas, and ac3uiring a *ariety of o)inions and concerns that ay ha*e otherwise been o*erlooked. The results of the teacher and student textbook e*aluation 3uestionnaire sur*ey can be found in the next cha)ter.

$A. The(i(

""