An evaluation of the material Lifeline for the first non-English major students at Hai Phong University = Đánh giá giáo trình Lifelines dành cho sinh viên k

1




VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES



TRẦN THỊ CHUNG OANH


AN EVALUATION OF THE MATERIAL “LIFELINES”FOR THE FIRST NON-
ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTSAT HAI PHONG UNIVERSITY



ĐÁNH GIÁ GIÁO TRÌNH “LIFELINES” DÀNH CHO SINH VIÊN KHÔNG
CHUYÊN NĂM THỨ NHẤT TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC HẢI PHÒNG

MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS


FIELD: METHODOLOGY
CODE: 601410

HANOI – 2010


2



VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES




TRẦN THỊ CHUNG OANH


AN EVALUATION OF THE MATERIAL “LIFELINES”FOR THE FIRST NON-
ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT HAI PHONG UNIVERSITY

ĐÁNH GIÁ GIÁO TRÌNH “LIFELINES” DÀNH CHO SINH VIÊN KHÔNG
CHUYÊN NĂM THỨ NHẤT TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC HẢI PHÒNG

MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: METHODOLOGY
CODE: 601410
SUPERVISOR: DR. HOANG THI XUAN HOA






HANOI – 2010


6



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
T: Teachers
S: Students
HPU: Hai Phong University

7



LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: The teachers and students‟ opinion about using text types in the
material

Table 2: The teachers and students‟ opinion about proportion of 4 macro skills
Table 3: The teachers and students‟ opinion about allocation time for each unit
Table 4: The teachers and students‟ opinion about content sequenced of this
material
Table 5: The teachers and students‟ opinion about language points in this
material
Table 6: The teachers and students‟ opinion about kinds of exercises need to be
included in this material
Table 7: The teachers and students‟ opinion about using techniques in this
material
Table 8: The teachers and students‟ opinion about using aids in this material

23
24
24

25

25

26

26

27

8



TABLE OF CONTENTS


Certificate of originality of project report
Acknowledgements
Abstract
List of Abbreviations
List of tables
Table of Contents
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
2. Aims of the study
3. Research Questions
4. Significance of the study

5. Methodology
6. Scope of the study
7. Organization of the study
PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1 : LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Material
1.1.1 Definition of material
1.1.2.Types of material
1.1.3. Roles of teaching materials in a general English course
1.2. Material evaluation
1.2.1. Definitions of material evaluation
1.2.2. Types of material evaluation
1.2.3. Purposes of material evaluation
1.2.4. Materials evaluators
1.2.5. Models for material evaluation
1.2.6. Methods of evaluation
1.2.7. Criteria for material evaluation
1.3. Material adaptation

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
1
1
2
2
2

2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
8
9
9
12
13
16


9



1.3.1. Reasons for adaptation
1.3.2. Areas for adaptation
1.3.3. Techniques for adaptation
1.4. Summary
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
2.1. The current teaching and learning situation at HPU

2.1.1. The context of the study
2.1.2. The material description
2.2. Research methodology
2.2.1. Participants.
2.2.2. Instruments
2.2.2.1 Questionnaires
2.2.2.2. Informal Interviews
2.2.3. Data collection procedure
2.2.4. Data analysis procedure
CHAPTER 3 : RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Material analysis
3.1.1. The contents of the material
3.1.2. The methodology of the material
3.2. Survey results
3.1.1. The suitability of the content of the textbook with the students‟
requirements from the teachers and students‟ opinions.
3.1.2. The suitability of the methodology of the textbook with the
students‟ requirements from the teachers and students‟ opinions.
3.3. Major findings
3.2.1. The suitability of the content of the textbook with the students‟
requirements from the teachers and students‟ opinions.
3.2.2. The suitability of the methodology of the textbook with the
students‟ requirements from the teachers and students‟ opinions.
3.4.Recommendations for material improvements
3.5.Summary
PART III : CONCLUSION
16
17
17
19

20
20
20
20
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
24
24
24
25
26

26

30
32

33

34
35
35
36

10



1. Summary of previous parts
2. Conclusion
3. Limitations and suggestions for further research
References
APPENDICES:
Appendix 1: Questionnaire for teachers
Appendix 2: Questionnaire for students
Appendix 3: Hutchinson and Water‟s criteria checklist



36
36
37
38

11



PART I: INTRODUCTION
This part includes seven sections. The first section focuses on the rationale of
the thesis; the second section presents the aims of the thesis; the third section touches on
the research questions; the fourth section is the significance of the thesis; the fifth
section points out the methodology, the next section is the scope and the last is the
organization of the study.
1. Rationale of the study
Textbooks are a key component in most language programs. They may provide the
basis for the content of the lessons, the balance of skills taught and the kinds of language
practice the students take part in (Richards, 2001:35).
Allwright (1981:5-18) also emphasizes that textbooks are too inflexible to be used
directly as instructional material, they should give teachers rationales for what they do.

From O‟Neill‟s points, in many cases, teachers and students rely heavily on textbooks and
they determine the components and methods of learning. Students learn what is presented
in the textbook and the way the textbook presents material is the way students learn it.
Thus, according to Minh (2007) “textbook should be carefully evaluated and
selected before being used for a language program. Textbook evaluation helps the
managerial and teaching staff select the most appropriate materials available for a
particular course. It also helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a particular
textbook that is already in use”.
Cunningsworth (1995:45) and Ellis (1997) also suggest that textbook evaluation
helps teachers move beyond impressionistic assessments and it helps them to acquire
useful, accurate, systematic and contextual insights into overall nature of textbook
material.
At Hai Phong University, “Lifelines” has been used as major material for several
years but no evaluation or consultation has been conducted to determine its strengths and
weaknesses and to see how well it suited the desired and attainable goals of the course.
From above reasons, it necessary to conduct an evaluation for the “Lifelines”
textbook, it is also a good opportunity to discover the suitability of the material with the
students‟ level from the students‟ and the teachers‟ perceptions and so that adaptation can
be made to gain better results of teaching and learning.


12




2. Aims of the study:
This study aims to evaluate the “Lifelines” textbook in terms of its content and
methodology from the teachers‟ and the students‟ opinions to determine whether the
material is suitable with the students‟ requirements.

3. Research questions
The study is to discuss the following questions:
1. Does the content of the textbook suit the students‟ requirements in the teachers‟ and
the students‟ opinions?
2. Does the methodology of the textbook suit the students‟ requirements in the teachers‟
and the students‟ opinions?
4. Significance of the study:
The findings of this study will find out the suitability of the textbook with the
students‟ requirement in terms of its content and methodology, which helps the teachers
adjust their ways of teaching and adapt the material to provide their students effective
lessons
More importantly, it is hoped that the study will make some contributions to the
field of material evaluation.
5. Methodology
In this thesis, survey questionnaire and informal interview used to collect data:
Survey questionnaires here play an important role in collection ideas of teachers
and students on the material which are very useful for the completion of the thesis.
Informal interview is used to seek for detailed and objective opinions of
participants on the material and students „requirement.
6. Scope of the study
In Hai Phong University, “Lifeline” material uses for both major and non-major
students with different levels in the first year and second year. But due to the limitation of
minor thesis, this study only focuses on evaluating the “Lifelines” material using for the
first non-English major students in terms of its content and methodology to determine
whether the material is suitable with the students‟ requirements.




13

7. Organization of the thesis
The thesis consists of three parts:
Part I: introduce the rationale, aims, significance, scope and methodology of the study.
Part II: includes three chapters:
Chapter1: Literature review: provides a theoretical basis for issues relating to
Material and Material evaluation such as definition of material, types of material, and
criteria for material evaluation and so on.
Chapter 2: Methodology: Includes an overview of the approach used on conducting
the study. It also provides a thorough description of the data collection procedure as well
as the analytical procedure.
Chapter 3: Results and Discussion: reports the findings of the survey and discusses
the prominent aspects.
Part III: Conclusion: summarizes the study, recommends o the material and
acknowledges the limitations of the study.

14



PART II: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Materials
1.1.1. Definition of material
It is common knowledge that with the development of science and technology, the
forms of materials have great changed and so has the concept of materials. (Tomlinson,
1998: 66) defines: “Materials include anything, which can be used to facilitate the learning
of a language. They can be linguistic, visual, auditory, kin aesthetic and they can be
presented in print, through live performance or display, or on cassette, CD-ROM, DVD or
the internet”.
In Richards (2001:251) definition: “Materials can be instructional, experiential,
elicitative, and exploratory, in that they can inform learners about the language, they can
provide experience of the language in use, they can stimulate language use or they can help
learners to make discoveries about the language for themselves”.
1.1.2. Types of material
Materials in use can vary from a textbook, institutionally prepared materials or the
teacher‟s own materials (Richards, 2001). The former is referred to published textbooks
and the latter in- house materials by Robinson. According to Robinson (1991:21), choosing

published textbooks or in-house materials is what specialists in the field of English
language teaching weigh up for arguments.
Swales (cited in Robinson, 1991: 57) indicates published textbooks are “less self-
sufficient in practice materials and in coverage of skill areas” so these textbooks need more
supplementary materials.
The same story could be seen with arguments for and against the use of in-house
materials. Robinson (1991) suggests there are three advantages of in-house materials: more
specific and appropriate than published materials; more flexible than published textbooks;
and more suitable in terms of methodology for intended learners
It can be said that there are both good points and bad points in the selection of
textbook or in-house material. However, it should be noted that “there is no such a thing as


15



a perfect textbook” (Brown, 1995: 41) so an evaluation of materials is necessary to judge
the appropriateness to the target students.
1.1.3. Roles of teaching materials in general English course
There are five important components involved in English language instruction
namely students, teachers, materials, teaching method and evaluation among which the
most essential constituents are the textbooks and instruction materials. Because
instructional materials provide the foundation for the content of the lesson, the balance of
the skills taught, as well as the kinds of language practice the students engage in during
class activities.
Stressing on the role of materials, Richard (2001) states that materials provide a
basis for the content of the lesson, the appropriate proportion of skills taught, and the type
of language practice students take part in. Furthermore, useful teaching materials provide
great assistance to inexperienced teachers or poorly trained teachers. They can serve as “a

form of teacher training” (Richard, 2001: 251) and teachers can get ideas on how to plan
and teach the lesson from the materials.
1.2. Material evaluation
Deciding which textbooks to use or whether the materials being used are suitable or not is
obviously of great importance in process of learning and teaching of language. And this
decision can be achieved only by the means of a comprehensive evaluation. The next part
of this chapter is the review of literature of major issues in material evaluation.
1.2.1. Definitions of material evaluation
A number of researchers express their point of view regarding the definition of
material evaluation.
First, let‟s look at term “evaluation”. It is said that, according to Robinson
(1991:230)is “ The discovery of the value of something for some purpose”, “ something”
and “value” here depend on the specification of the “ purpose”. And “evaluation
concerned with describing what is there, and placing some value judgment on what is
found”- Murphy (1985:1-17)
And according to Tomlinson (2001), “Material evaluation is a procedure that
involves measuring the value (for potential value) of a set of learning material”


16



From Dudley (1998: 128) defines “evaluation is a whole process which begins with
determining what information to gather and ends with bringing about the change in current
activities or influencing future ones”.
Material evaluation is “a process not a final product” with “attempts to measure the
value of materials” (Tomlinson, 1998) or “the systematic appraisal of the value of
materials in relation to their objectives and to the objectives of the learners using them”.
With regards to this issue, Murphy (1985:210) considers evaluation one of the key

concepts in ELT to “determine the extent to which a programme is worthwhile, and to aid
decision-making through the purposeful gathering information”. In the programme
evaluation, material evaluation is given a great deal of attention.
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) define: “Evaluation is basically a matching process,
matching needs to available solutions”. They also note that evaluation is really a matter of
judging the fitness of something for a particular purpose. “Given a certain need, and in the
light of the resources available, which out of number of possibilities represent the best
solution. There is no absolute good or bad only degree of fitness for the required purpose”.
From above researchers‟ opinions, they all give a general identification that
evaluation is a process of collecting data and giving judgments based on the collected data
and the most importantly, evaluation must include action.
1.2.2. Types of materials evaluation
In terms of types of materials evaluation, Tomlinson (1998) indicates that for each
dimension of evaluation, there are certain types of evaluation. These dimensions include
approach, purpose, focus, scope, the evaluators, the timing, and types of information.
Cunningsworth (1995:76) and McGrath (2002:14-15) point out that there are three
types of material evaluation: pre-use, in-use and post-use evaluation. While Robinson
(1991:59) classifies materials evaluation into three types: Preliminary, summative and
formative. Although types of material evaluation are indicated with different terms, they
are basically similar.
Preliminary or pre-use evaluation is carried out before a course begins to select the
most appropriate materials for the particular group of learners and the aims of the course.
And another purpose of this evaluation is to identify which aspects of the published
material needed adapting to suit the purposes of the evaluators. This can be done by


17

“determining a set of criteria which are used to reach a decision regarding which book to
adopt and how it needs to be adapted” (Ellis, cited in Tomlinson (1998))
Formative or in-use evaluation is carried out during the life of the course or project
and the results obtained can be used to modify what is being done or in other words, such
may suggest the development of the material in the future.
Summative or post-use evaluation is carried out when the course of project is
finished and when it is clearly too late to do to determine whether the program was
successful and effective and the findings of this evaluation will lead to the decision
whether to repeat or use the material again or not.
From different perspective, Cunningsworth (1995:67) has another classification-
impressionistic overview and in-depth evaluation. The impressionistic overview can only
afford us a general introduction to the material, but no enough detail to ensure a good
match between the content of the textbooks and the requirements of teaching/learning
situation. The in-depth evaluation is suitable if we want to examine how specific items and
different aspects of language are dealt with.
In this thesis, the researcher used the evaluation model by Hutchinson and Waters.
This is a Macro-evaluation which is divided into 4 steps. The first step is to define the
criteria upon which the evaluation is based. The second step is to determine the subjective
analysis. The next step is objective analysis. And the last one is to evaluate the match
between the materials and requirements.
1.2.3. Purposes of material evaluation
An evaluation of teaching materials helps to identify particular strengths and
weaknesses of material in use. After being used in the classroom for a certain period of
time, teaching materials need to be evaluated to see if they have worked well for the
intended situation and students.
Cunningsworth (1995) states that through evaluation, we can assess whether the
course book is the most appropriate for the target learners at various levels and in various
teaching settings
According to Ellis (1997), there are two main reasons for carrying out materials
evaluation. Firstly, there may be need to choose among the materials available the most

suitable ones to use for a particular situation. Secondly, there can be a need for materials
evaluation to determine whether the material, which has been chosen, works for that


18



situation after it has been used for a period of time. This may help in deciding whether to
use the material again or replace it with a better one.
Robinson (1991:112) adds evaluation can be used as part of quality control.
Through evaluation, we can know about the advantages and disadvantages as well as the
effectiveness of the being used materials. Then we can decide whether the material can be
reused or whether it needs to be adapted to meet the need of the particular teaching
situation or we need to change it absolutely.
Apart form its contribution to the evaluation of effectiveness of the materials,
observation of the materials in use has an additional benefits: it can, for instance, afford
general insights into how teachers use materials, and therefore suggest directions both for
materials development and professional development activities.
Alderson (1992:79) set out a list of purposes of material evaluation as follows:
- to decide whether materials have had the intended effect
- to identify what effect materials have had
- to vindicate a decision
- to justify future courses of action
- to compare approaches/methodologies
- to identify areas for improvement in future use
- to show the positive achievements of teachers and students
- to motivate teachers
- to allay suspicions among parents or sponsors.
1.2.4. Materials Evaluators

Tomlinson (1998), Robinson (1991:98), Dudley-Evan& St.John (1998:56),
Richards (2001:47) indicate that materials evaluators can be both outsiders and insiders.
Outsiders are those who have not been involved in the program such as consultants,
inspectors and administrators. Those are said to bring a “fresh” and “objectives” opinions
to evaluation. However, they may not fully understand the teaching and learning situation
in which the evaluation is being carried out. In addition, it may take them more time to be
aware of the local situation such as learners‟ needs, facilities and time constraints so it may
be difficult for them to make truly judgments and recommendations of the program.
In contrast to the outsiders, the insiders are those who have been directly involved
in the language teaching program such as teachers, students, course and materials


19



designers. Therefore, they can provide the most valid information in the evaluation
process. Also, their understanding of cultural and political factors of the institution in
which the evaluation takes place would enhance the reliability of judgments and
recommendations. To stress the role of the insiders as evaluators, Richard (2001:296)
states that the involvement of the insiders plays an important part in the success of
evaluation because “as a consequence, they will have greater degree of commitment to
acting on its result”. Consequently, they can know exactly the extent that the materials
work for their purposes and they can make modifications to improve the effectiveness of
the materials. However, there are also disadvantages to insiders when they are “too close
and involved” (Dudley-Evan and St.John, 1998:131) so the evaluation may be influenced
be their subjective points of view and their teaching experience.
1.2.5. Models for material evaluation
Littlejohn (1998:192-202) presents a general framework for analyzing materials,
which he suggests could be used prior to evaluation and action in a model, which is

sequenced as follows:








20














Figure 1: Materials evaluation model of Littlejohn(1998:192-202)
From the above diagram, it can be seen that basing on analyzing target situation of
use and materials spontaneously and independently, the author conducted matching and
evaluating appropriateness of design and the aspects of publication to the target situation of
uses. From the result of these analyses, decision on materials is reached in the last stage.
On studying this issue, Hutchinson and Waters (1987:97) also identify four steps of

evaluation process (macro-evaluation) according to following diagram:

Analysis of target situation of use
- The cultural context
- The institution
- The course ( proposed aims,
content, methodology, measures
of evaluation)
- The teachers
- The learners
Material analysis
From analysis
- What is their explicit nature?
- What is required by users?
- What is implied by their use?
To description:
- aspects of design
- aspects of publication
Match and evaluation
How appropriate are the respects of design and the
aspects of publication to the target situation of use?
Action
Adopt the materials
Reject the materials
Adapt the materials
Supplement the materials
Make the materials a critical object


21

Figure 2: Materials evaluation model of Hutchinson and Waters (1987:97)
In the authors‟ ideas advise present the criteria for objective and subjective
analyses in a checklist and the evaluators should supplement other criteria they think
important to them in the process of evaluating. Then identifying the evaluator‟s
requirements; analyzing the material and comparing findings those two aspects by
awarding points. However, the authors also note that highest number of points does not
necessarily indicate the most suitable material as the points may be concentrated in one
area.
Ellis (1997) suggests a model (micro-evaluation) in a clearer and more detailed way:
1. Choosing a task to follow;
2. Describing the task with specification of input, procedures, language activities and
outcome;
3. Planning the evaluation with reference to the dimensions above;
4. Collecting information before, while and after the task was used, and what and how
the task was performed;
5. Analysis of the information collected;
Define criteria
On what bases will you judge
materials? Which criteria will
be more important?
Subjective analysis
What realizations of the
criteria do you want in your
course?

Objective analysis
How does the material
being evaluated realize the
criteria?
Matching
How far does the
material match your
needs?



22



6. Findings of the evaluation and making recommendations for future teaching;
7. Writing the report.
The author points out the advantages of this model are that can be more
manageable. Moreover, this type of evaluation can only be conducted when the materials
are being used in the classroom.
A combination of macro and micro evaluation by McDonough and Shaw (1993):
this is a three stage evaluation: external evaluation, internal evaluation and overall
evaluation. The internal stage requires an in-depth look at two or more units to examine
whether claims made by the author are the one found in the internal evaluation. The
internal stage will be carried out if the external evaluation shows that the materials are
potentially appropriate. If the findings show that the materials are inappropriate, the
evaluation will be finished at the external stage.
In summary, although these four models vary in the processes and the purposes, all
serve to evaluate whether the set of materials is appropriate to a certain situation or group

of learners or not. The evaluator must then base on the purposes of the evaluation, time
available, facilities as well as constraints of the context in which the evaluation takes place
to decide which model to follow. In this thesis the author decided to use the model of
Hutchinson and Waters (1993)
1.2.6. Methods of material evaluation
There are three methods of evaluation according to McGrath (2002): the
impressionistic method, the checklist method and the in-depth method.
The impressionistic method is concerned to obtain a general impression of the
material. This is wide-ranging but relative superficial (Cunningworth, 1995:76). The
method involves glancing at the publisher‟s description on the back cover, the content
page, book layout and visuals.
The checklist method is the use of a list of items which is referred to for
comparison, identification or verification. It is considered systematic, cost effective,
convenient and explicit.
The in-depth method looks at the kind of language description, underlying
assumptions about learning or values on which the materials are based (McGrath,
2002:69). It focuses on specific feature (Cunningworth, 1995:111), close analysis of one or
more extracts (Hutchinson, 1987:98).


23



1.2.7. Criteria for material evaluation
As can be seen that criteria for material evaluation are not constant, the elements
making up each criterion do not always coincide. Various writers have presented their
evaluation checklists. As illustrated by Cunningsworth (1995: 7-15), course books should
correspond to learners‟ needs, help to equip learners to use language effectively for their
own purposes, facilitate students‟ learning process, have a clear role in mediating the target

language and the learner.
The first set of criteria is stated by Sheldon (1998). It includes a great number of
“key questions” for the evaluators to seek answers when evaluating the material.

1. Practical considerations:
+ All components available?
+Affordable?
+Multi-level (i.e. series)?

Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
2. Support for teaching and learning:
+Teacher‟s book?
+Test? Cassettes?
+Suitable for self-study?


Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
3. Context relevance:
+Suitable for course:
- Length of course?
- Aims of course?
- Syllabus?
- Exam?
+Suitable for learners:
- Age?
- Level?

- Cultural background?
+Suitable for teachers
- Required resources (e.g. cassette recorder) available?


Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No

Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No

Yes/No


24



- Evidence of suitability( piloted in local context)

Yes/No
4. Likely appeal to learners:
+Layout?
+Visuals?
+Topics?
+Suitable over medium term (unlikely to date)?

Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No

Yes/No

Tomlinson (1998) takes the definition of specific criteria a step further:
1. Media-specific criteria: i.e. those which relate to particular medium used. In reference to
audio-recorded, for instance, one might consider the audibility of the recording.
2. Content-specific criteria: i.e. those which relate to the nature of the material, such as the
choice of topics, situation or language in a business English book or the texts included and
skills covered in a book focusing on the development of reading skills.
3. Age-specific criteria: i.e. the suitability of the material (e.g. visuals; cognitive challenge)
for the age group for which it is intended.
4. Local criteria: i.e. the appropriateness of the material for the particular environment on
which it is to be used.
Sheldon (1998) presents a set of criteria including: rationale, availability, definition,
layout, accessibility, linkage, selection, physical characteristics, appropriateness,
authenticity, sufficiency, cultural bias, educational validity, stimulus, revision, flexibility,
guidance, and overall value for money.
William (1983:41) suggests seven criteria, each of which has the following aspects:
General criteria: give introductory guidance on the presentation of language items and
skills
Speech criteria: suggest aids for the teaching of pronunciation: e.g. Phonetic
system
Grammar criteria: offer meaningful situations and a variety of techniques for
teaching structural units
Vocabulary criteria: distinguish the different purposes and skills involved in the
teaching vocabulary.

25



Reading criteria: provide guidance on the initial presentation of passages for
reading comprehension
Writing criteria: demonstrate the various devices for controlling and guiding
content and expression in composition exercises
Technical criteria: contain appropriate pictures, diagrams, tables, etc…
From above criteria and the fact of this study, the criteria of Hutchinson and Waters
(1987) seem to be the most appropriate. There are four main criteria for materials
evaluation and evaluator should concern: the audience, the aims, the content and the
methodology:
The audience of the materials requires evaluator should obtain information about
and from learners to find out whether the materials are suitable to the students‟ age, sex,
knowledge of English, interest, educational background and so on.
The aims of the materials require the evaluator has to check if the materials match
the aims and objectives of the course.
The content of the materials is one of the important elements require evaluator need
to measure if the content of the material is suitable to the content prescribed in terms of
language description, language points, macro/micro-skills and their proportion. It is
necessary to find out if the text-types of the materials are suitable to the requirements of
the course. Finally, the evaluator need to find out the way the content is organized and
sequenced within a unit and throughout the course is appropriate.
The methodology firstly needs to be indicated whether the theories of learning on
which the course is based are in line with the ones of the material under evaluation.
Secondly, evaluators need to measure whether learners expectations about learning are the
ones the materials intended for. Thirdly, it necessary to determine whether the kinds of
exercises/tasks includes in the materials are suited to the course requirements. Another

aspect to be evaluated is the teaching and learning techniques: whether the teaching-
learning techniques that can be used with the materials are those required by the course and
suitable to the learners. Further more, the evaluation also needs to discover if teaching aids
available for use are those required by the materials. In addition, the evaluation needs to
find out whether the materials supply the teachers with necessary guidance and support for
teaching course. Finally, it is necessary to determine if the material are flexible so that they
can be used in different order to suit teaching contexts.


26



1.3. Materials adaptation
1.3.1. Reasons for adaptation
Defining adaptation: “every teacher in a very real sense an adapter of the material
houses”- Madsen and Browen (1987:35) employing: “one or more of a number of
techniques: supplementing, editing, expanding, personalizing, simplifying, modernizing,
localizing or modifying cultural/ situational content.
No one can deny the important role of course book in teaching and learning,
“Course books are not always clear regarding the methodology they use in term of “What”
and “how” to teach. There are also cases of inconsistency between stated and actual
methodology. Finally, Course books can not be relevant to all teaching/learning contexts
And the purposes of adaptation are highlighted as follow:
1. to make the material more suitable for the circumstances in which it is being used, i.e. to
mould it to the needs and interests of learners, the teacher‟s own capabilities and such
constraints as time, or as McDonough and Shaw (1993) put it: “to maximize the
appropriacy of teaching materials in context, by changing some of the internal
characteristics of a course book to better suit our particular circumstances”.
2. to help teachers to maximize the value of the book for the benefit of their learners.

Hence they can improve it so that it is suitable for the particular situation. (Apple and
Jungck, 1990; Shannon, 1987).
1.3.2. Areas for adaptation
McDonough and Shaw (1993) identify the possible areas to adapt as follows:
* Lack of grammar coverage in general;
* Lack of practice of grammar points of particular difficulty;
* Reading passages contain too much unknown vocabulary;
* Comprehension questions are too easy;
* Subject matters are inappropriate for learners;
* Photographs and other illustrative materials are not culturally acceptable;
* Amount of material is too much/ too little to cover;
* Lack of guidance of teachers on group work and role play;


27



* There are no vocabulary lists or a key to exercises.
However, they also note that more areas could be added to this list, depending on the
actual contexts.
1.3.3. Techniques for adaptation
According to McDonough and Shaw (1993: 63), there are a number of points to bear in
mind regarding the techniques that can be applied a bring about change. Firstly, techniques
are selected according to the aspect of the materials that needs alteration. Secondly, content
can be different content areas. Thirdly, adaptation can have both quantitative an
qualitative effects. Finally, techniques can be used individually or combination with
others,so the scale of possibilities clearly ranges from straightforward to rather complex
Also according to McGrath (2002:1-17), the textbooks may adapt teaching material
by selecting, rejecting, adding and changing. The author suggests the following

suggestions:
1. Selection- Selection: “some material may be relevant, but pressure of time makes it
impossible to include them in the lesson. In this case, we need to decide what can most
usefully be done in class and what can be set for home work. Time-consuming written
exercises can, for instance, be started in class to give students a feel for what is requires
and then finished for homework. This type of adaptation is very common with all kinds of
materials are written by Vietnamese authors for a specific group of learners, many of them
are imported from foreign recourses
2. Rejection- complete (e.g. Omitting a whole activity or even a whole lesson) or partial (e.
g. cutting one or more stages within an activity)
3. Adding- in the form of extension or exploitation of existing material, this can be
regarded as adaptation; where new materials are introduced, this will be termed
supplementation.
4. Changing this is a more radical form of adaptation, such as modifications to procedure
or changes in context/content (replacement).
McDonough and Shaw (1993) state that there are five main techniques for adaptation:
Modifying, Simplifying, Adding, Deleting, and Reordering. The following is a brief
introduction of commonly used techniques:
Adding: the material is supplemented simply but putting more into them. In the
quantitative way, we can add the technique of extending but the model remains unchanged.


28



The qualitative way, which can be termed as expanding refers to the development of the
methodology in new directions by putting in different language skills or a new component.
This can be thought of as “a change in the overall systems” (McDonough and Shaw, 1993).
Therefore, addition can be made before, during or after the intended area.

Deleting or omitting: deletion means cutting one or more stages within an activity
or omitting a while activity or even a whole lesson. Therefore, addition and deletion often
work together. The tasks in the material may be deleted and compensated by a more
suitable one to meet the objectives of the whole unit. However, when the techniques for
adaptation are applied, it is necessary to take into account the balance of the lesson as well
as the time allocation.
Modifying: modification can be divided into two specific ways: re-writing and re-
structuring. Re-writing refers to the modification of the linguistic contents whereas the re-
structuring applies to the classroom management, especially the structuring of the class. In
short, teachers may occasionally decide to rewrite material, especially exercise material, to
make it more appropriate, more “communicative”, more demanding and more motivating
to their students.
Simplifying: simplification is a type of modification namely re-writing activity.
Many elements of the material can be simplified such as the instructions, explanations or
even the visual layout of materials but the texts or most often reading passages are applied
to this technique. Teachers can simplify the texts with sentence structures, the grammar
structures and the lexical content
Re-ordering: teachers may decide that the order in which the material is presented
is not suitable for their students. They can use the technique of re-ordering to put parts of a
course book in a different order, adjusting the sequence of presentation within a unit, or to
arrange of different units on a course book.
In short, material adaptation plays an important part in the process of
language teaching and learning. It makes the teaching materials more relevant to the needs
of students and to the objectives of the course and therefore, would stimulate the
effectiveness of teaching and learning