A study on the use of New English File Elementary to teach speaking skills to first-year students at the Military Technical Academy

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

LƯƠNG THỊ LAN HƯƠNG

A STUDY ON THE USE OF NEW ENGLISH FILE
ELEMENTARY TO TEACH SPEAKING SKILLS TO
FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS AT THE MILITARY
TECHNICAL ACADEMY
Nghiên cứu về việc sử dụng giáo trình New English File sơ cấp để dạy
kỹ năng nói cho sinh viên năm thứ nhất tại Học viện kỹ thuật quân sự

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111

HANOI – 2015


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

LƯƠNG THỊ LAN HƯƠNG

A STUDY ON THE USE OF NEW ENGLISH FILE
ELEMENTARY TO TEACH SPEAKING SKILLS TO

FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS AT THE MILITARY
TECHNICAL ACADEMY
Nghiên cứu về việc sử dụng giáo trình New English File sơ cấp để dạy
kỹ năng nói cho sinh viên năm thứ nhất tại Học viện kỹ thuật quân sự

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
Supervisor: Đỗ Tuấn Minh, Ph.D

HANOI – 2015


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF THE THESIS

I certify my authorship of the thesis entitled:
A STUDY ON THE USE OF NEW ENGLISH FILE ELEMENTARY TO
TEACH SPEAKING SKILLS TO FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS AT THE
MILITARY TECHNICAL ACADEMY
in terms of Statement of Requirements for Theses and Field Study Reports in
Masters’ Programs, and this thesis has not, wholly or partially, been submitted for
any degree to any other universities or institutions.

HANOI, 2015
LƯƠNG THỊ LAN HƯƠNG

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
supervisor Dr. Đỗ Tuấn Minh, who has given me a lot of valuable advice, timely
encouragement and constructive comments during the completion of my thesis. If
not for his support, this thesis would have never come into existence.
I would also like to give my special thanks to all teachers at Faculty of PostGraduate Studies, University of Foreign Languages and International Studies,
Vietnam National University for their interesting lectures, which inspired me to do
this research.
My gratitude also extends to all my colleagues and students at the Military
Technical Academy for their enthusiastic participation and constructive suggestions.
Finally, my sincere thanks go to my family members, who have given me a great
deal of energy and support to accomplish this study.

ii


ABSTRACT

It has been widely accepted that coursebooks play an important role in the
EFL context. Coursebook evaluation, therefore, is of great importance so that its
pedagogical contribution to the teaching and learning process can be assured. In the
context of the Military Technical Academy (MTA), the coursebook New English
File Elementary (NEFE) first published in 2004 by Clive Oxenden, Christina
Latham-Koenig and Paul Seligson has been in use for 3 years without any real
evaluation. This study investigated the suitability of this coursebook in teaching and
developing speaking skills for first-year students, thereby improving English
language teaching and learning in this educational environment. The study was
conducted with a combination of document analysis, survey questionnaires and
semi-structured interviews. The findings revealed a number of such strengths as

course objectives obtained, integrated speaking skills, communication-orientedness,
adequate supply of speaking activities and support for speaking, attractive layout,
motivating speaking tasks, etc. which far outweighed its weaknesses. Once
problems have been identified, suggestions for better use involving coursebook
adaptation and the implementation of the book in the classroom would be made.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate of originality of the thesis………………………………………………..i
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………ii
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..iii
Table of contents…………………………………………………………………....iv
List of abbreviations………………………………………………………………..vi
List of tables, charts and figures…………………………………………………...vii
PART A: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………...1
1. Rationale for the study…………………………………………………………....1
2. Aims of the study…………………………………………………………………1
3. Research questions………………………………………………………………..1
4. Scope of the study………………………………………………………...………2
5. Methods of the study……………………………………………………………...2
6. Design of the study……………………………………………………………….2
PART B: DEVELOPMENT………………………………………………………3
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………3
1.1. Materials in Language Teaching and Learning……………………………...3
1.1.1. The role of teaching materials…………………………………………….3
1.1.2. Types of teaching materials……………………………………………….4
1.1.3. Description of New English File Elementary ……………………………5
1.2. Materials Evaluation…………………………………………………………6

1.2.1. Definition………………………………………………………….………6
1.2.2. Types of materials evaluation……………………………………………..7
1.2.3. Models for materials evaluation…………………………………………..8
1.2.4. Criteria for materials evaluation…………………………………..……..10
1.2.5. Materials Adaptation…………………………………………………….12
1.3. Speaking Skills…………………………………………………………...…13
1.3.1. Definition and importance of speaking skills………………………...….14
1.3.2. Approaches to teaching speaking skills………………………………….14
1.3.3. Types of classroom speaking activities………………………………….16
1.3.4. Characteristics of a successful speaking activity…………………….......17
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………….....19
2.1. Description of the context……………………………………………………..19
2.1.1. The setting……………………………………………………………..…19
2.1.2. Course objectives…………………………………………………………19
iv


2.1.3. Course assessment………………………………………………………..20
2.2. Research Method………………………………………………………………20
2.2.1. Participants……………………………………………………………….20
2.2. 2. Data collection instruments……………………………………………...21
2.2.3. Data analysis procedure…………………………………………………..22
CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION………………………..23
3.1. Document analysis…………………………………………………………….23
3.2. Teacher Survey………………………………………………………………..28
3.3. Student Survey………………………………………………………………..31
3.3. Major Findings………………………………………………………………..34
3.3.1. Strengths of the coursebook…………………………………………....34
3.3.2. Weaknesses of the coursebook…………………………………………36
3.3.3. Suggestions for better use of the book……………………………….…36

PART C: CONCLUSION………………………………………………………..39
1. Conclusion of the study………………………………………………………...39
2. Limitations of the study………………………………………………………...40
3. Suggestions for further research………………………………………………..40
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….42
APPENDIX 1………………………………………………………………………I
APPENDIX 2………………………………………………………………………III
APPENDIX 3………………………………………………………………………IV
APPENDIX 4……………………………………………………………………..VII
APPENDIX 5………………………………………………………………………X

v


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

GE

General English

ESP

English for Specific Purpose

ESL

English as a second language

EFL

English as a foreign language

MTA

Military Technical Academy

NEFE

New English File Elementary

CEFR

Common European Framework of Reference

vi


LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS AND FIGURES

Figure 1: The materials evaluation model by Hutchinson and Waters (2001)

9

Table 1: Comparison of the objectives of speaking activities in NEFE and the
course objectives

26

Table 2: Characteristics of speaking tasks

27

Table 3: Teachers’ evaluation on the course objectives

28

Table 4: Teachers’ evaluation on the speaking content of the book

29

Table 5: Students’ evaluation on the course objectives

31

Table 6: Students’ evaluation on the speaking content of the book

32

Table 7: Students’ evaluation on classroom speaking practice

34

Chart 1: Sections of skills throughout the book

27

Chart 2: Teachers’ evaluation on speaking topics

30

Chart 3: Teachers’ and students’ evaluation on speaking topics

33

vii


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale for the study
Nowadays, it is undeniable that English has become an international language and
English teaching and learning is hectically taking place everywhere. At the Military
Technical Academy (MTA) in particular and Vietnamese universities in general,
teaching English tends to focus on teaching four skills, among which, speaking
seems to receive the most attention as Vietnamese students are often said to be bad
at speaking English or communicating in English even though they have spent
many years at school learning it. Moreover, it is obvious that successful English
language teaching depends on many factors, among which, the coursebook plays a
significant role. At MTA, the coursebook ‘New English File Elementary’ (NEFE)
first published in 2004 by Clive Oxenden, Christina Latham-Koenig and Paul
Seligson has been employed to teach General English for first-year students for 3
years. However, so far there have been no evaluations conducted to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of this coursebook as well as to measure its suitability in
this educational environment. From that real situation, I chose “A study on the use
of New English File Elementary to teach speaking skills to first-year students at
the Military Technical Academy” as the subject of my M.A thesis in the hope that
the findings will partially contribute to improving the quality of English language
teaching and learning.
2. Aims of the study
The ultimate aim of the study is to improve English language teaching and learning
at MTA by means of evaluating the suitability of the coursebook: NEFE in teaching

and developing speaking skills for first-year students in this educational setting. The
specific objectives of the study are as follows:
-

To identify the strengths and weaknesses of the coursebook in terms of
teaching and developing speaking skills for first-year students at MTA.

-

To make some recommendations for better use of the book.

3. Research questions
1


Question 1: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the coursebook: New
English File Elementary in teaching and developing speaking skills for first-year
students at the Military Technical Academy?
Question 2: What suggestions should be made for better use of the book?
4. Scope of the study
Coursebook evaluation involves a variety of aspects and different types (pre-use, inuse and post-use evaluation); however, due to the limit of a minor thesis, this paper
only focuses on a post-use evaluation of NEFE in teaching speaking skills to firstyear students at MTA.
5. Methods of the study
To best answer the above-mentioned two research questions, the researcher
combined both qualitative and quantitative methods. More specifically, the
following data collection instruments have been employed:
- Document analysis: The researcher as the evaluator analyzes the speaking
sections of the coursebook: NEFE.
- Survey - questionnaires: Two sets of questionnaires are designed for students
who have finished the coursebook NEFE and English teachers who have been

used the book.
- Semi-structured interviews: Informal interviews are conducted with students and
English teachers to clarify issues in the survey.
6. Design of the study
Apart from Introduction, Conclusion, References and Appendices, the paper
consists of three chapters.
Chapter 1 is Literature Review, which aims at providing some basic terminologies
and concepts related to the studied matter.
Chapter 2 entitled Research Methodology deals with the setting and the subjects of
the study, as well as the method of data collection and analysis.
Chapter 3 named Data Analysis and Discussion will present data analysis results,
major findings and recommendations for better use of the book in the future.
2


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides the related theoretical bases for the study. There are three
main issues which will be addressed: material in language teaching and learning,
material evaluation and speaking skills.
1.4.

Materials in Language Teaching and Learning

According to Tomlinson (1998), materials are anything which is used to help to
teach language learners. Materials can be in the form of a textbook, a workbook, a
cassette, a CD-Rom, a video, a photocopied handout, a paragraph written on a
whiteboard: anything which presents or informs about the language being learned.
Dudley-Evan and St. John (1998) also say that materials are used in all language
teaching and their role is of great importance in the process of language teaching

and learning. In the following parts, the role of teaching materials, types of teaching
materials and the description of one type of teaching materials: New English File
Elementary will be, in turn, presented.
1.4.1. The role of teaching materials
The role of teaching materials has been discussed by many different authors.
Richards and Rogers (cited in Nunan, 1991) view instructional materials as detailed
specifications of content, and guidance to teachers on both the intensity of coverage
and the amount of attention demanded by particular content or pedagogical tasks.
Richards and Rogers’ perspective is supported and clarified by Richards (2001, 251)
“…. instructional materials generally serve as the basis for much of the
language input learners receive and the language practice that occurs in the
classroom”
He further explains that materials provide the basis for the content of the lesson, the
kind of language practice students can take part in and the balance of skills taught.
In addition, good teaching materials are of great help to inexperienced teachers or
3


poorly-trained teachers. They can serve as “a form of teacher training” (Richards
(2001, 251)). It means that teachers can get ideas on how to plan and teach lessons
as well as formats from those materials. Cunningsworth (1995) also summarizes the
roles of teaching materials (particularly coursebooks) in language teaching as: a
resource for presentation materials (spoken and written); a source of activities for
learner practice and communicative interaction; a reference source for learners on
grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and so on; a source of stimulation and ideas for
classroom activities; a syllabus and a support for less experienced teachers who
have yet to gain in confidence.
It is obvious that teaching materials play a key and crucial role in language teaching
and learning. Language teachers need to take account of the roles as well as the
requirements of materials when designing or selecting teaching materials in their

own context towards the effective teaching and learning.
1.4.2. Types of teaching materials
According to Richards (2001), teaching materials consist of printed materials
(books, workbooks, worksheets, readers, etc.), nonprint materials (cassettes, videos,
computer-based materials), materials that comprise both print and nonprint sources
(self-access materials, materials on the internet) and materials not designed for
instructional use (magazines, newspaper, TV materials). However, Robinson (1991)
divides teaching materials two types: published materials and in-house materials.
In-house materials refer to institutionally prepared materials or teacher-prepared
materials whereas published materials in the classroom usually refer to coursebooks
or textbooks which often comprise a set of materials: student’s or pupil’s books,
workbooks, teacher’s books, cassettes, CD-Roms and sometimes even videos.
Gower et al. (2005) indicate a number of advantages of using a good coursebook.
Firstly, it takes some of the preparation load off teachers because it is less timeconsuming than designing a syllabus and creating materials from scratch. Secondly,
it provides a syllabus which is graded roughly to the level suitable for the students.
4


Thirdly, it normally provides variety and a balanced diet of language work:
grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, skills work, and it contains study skills and
learner development activities. Next, a ready-made source of tried and tested
activities is provided. Lastly, it is professionally produced with visuals, cassettes,
etc. They also raise the awareness of pitfalls when using a coursebook. First, it is
not always easy to find a coursebook that will suit the needs and interests of all the
students in a class. Second, it may stop teachers from being creative in their search
for texts and activities that will motivate students. Additionally, as for
inexperienced teachers, following a coursebook may prevent them from exploring
in depth the language they teaching; they may find themselves ‘going through the
motions’ without really understanding what they are doing and why. Finally, a
coursebook is nearly always a compromise as there are too many things to be fitted

into a small pot.
1.4.3. Description of New English File Elementary
New English File Elementary is the focus of this study, so it is necessary to give
some general information about this coursebook.
NEFE designed by Clive Oxenden, Christina Latham-Koenig and Paul Seligson is a
complete package for both teachers and students. It was developed from two
original books: English File 1 (1996) and English File 2 (1997). It consists of a
Student’s book, a workbook, a teacher’s book, a test booklet with keys, a class
audio (CDs or cassettes), a video, a MultiROM and especially a website with
interactive exercises and games. It is in a series of the 7-level adult books for
today’s leaners of English with a slogan ‘the course that gets students talking’. It
covers A1 level on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and
leads into A2. This coursebook was first internationally published in 2004 by
Oxford University Press, so it belongs to “published materials” (Robinson, 1991).
In NEFE Student’s book, there are nine units, each of which is divided into 4
lessons except for the last unit. At the end of each unit, there is a ‘Practical English’
5


section, a writing section and two pages of ‘Revise and Check’. Each lesson covers
a grammatical point, items of vocabulary in one or two topics, and one or two
aspects of pronunciation. Unlike other popular coursebooks at the same level, NEFE
places a strong emphasis on pronunciation (vowel sounds, consonant sounds, word
stress, sentence stress, consonant groups, silent letters, etc.) besides clearlypresented grammar and vocabulary, which is supposed to help students gain
confidence in speaking English. At the back of the book, Grammar Bank,
Vocabulary Bank, extra communication activities, tapescripts, a list of irregular
verbs and Sound Bank are included.
Since the aim of the book indicated by the authors is to get students talking, every
lesson in NEFE has at least a speaking activity which activates grammar,
vocabulary, and pronunciation. Moreover, the Communication section at the back of

the student’s book provides ‘information gap’ activities to give students a reason to
communicate. What is more, teachers can make use of photocopiable
communication activities which can be found in the teacher’s book. These include
pairwork activities, mingle activities and games.
1.5.

Materials Evaluation

1.5.1. Definition
Different authors have different views on materials evaluation. Tomlinson (1998)
defines materials evaluation as “the systematic appraisal of the value of materials in
relation to their objectives and to the objectives of the learners using them”. He
further explains that valuable materials are those in which the learning points should
be potentially useful to the learners and the learning procedures should maximize
the likelihood of the learners’ actually learning what they want and need to learn.
Nunan (1988) suggests that materials evaluation should be “a process not a final
product”. It means that evaluation takes place at any time during the material
designing process. He also emphasizes that evaluation is to determine whether the
goals and objectives of a language program are attained or not.
6


According to Hutchinson and Waters (2001, 96), materials evaluation is a matter of
judging its fitness for a particular purpose. “Given a certain need, and in the light of
the resources available, which out of number of possibilities can represent the best
solution? There is no absolute good or bad- only degrees of fitness for the required
purpose”.
However, the following definition by Brown (1995, 218), in my opinion, seems to
be a comprehensive one. It highlights the importance of relevant information
gathering from the curriculum, the syllabus, the material and the participants.

“Evaluation is the systematic collection and analysis of all relevant information
necessary to promote the improvement of a curriculum, and assess its effectiveness
and efficiency, as well as the participants’ attitude within the context of the
particular institution involved”.
1.5.2. Types of materials evaluation
Generally, there are three types of materials evaluation though they are named
differently by different authors. Robinson (1991, 59) classifies materials evaluation
into three types: preliminary evaluation, formative evaluation and summative
evaluation while Tomlinson (1998) calls them pre-use, whilst-use and post-use
evaluation respectively.
Preliminary or pre-use evaluation takes place before a course starts with the aim of
choosing the material that will be relevant and appropriate for a particular group of
learners. This can be done by “identifying a set of criteria which are used to reach a
decision regarding which book to adopt and how it needs to be adapted”
(Tomlinson, 1998, 220).
Formative or whilst-use evaluation occurs while the course is ongoing, and the
findings are used to make modifications to the materials.
Summative or post-use evaluation is referred to as retrospective evaluation by Ellis
(1997). According to Ellis, such an evaluation provides the teacher with information
7


to determine whether it is worthwhile using the material again, which tasks and
activities are suitable and which are not, and how to modify the materials to make
them more effective for future use. In other words, a summative evaluation is
carried out to determine the value of teaching materials after they have been used.
In short, whatever type of evaluation is used, Robinson (1991) says it is very
important that the evaluator needs to identify clearly the reasons for their evaluation
so that it can be beneficial for the use of the materials. Since NEFE has been
employed for 3 years at MTA, I decided to choose summative or post-use

evaluation to measure the appropriateness of this material in teaching speaking
skills and make some recommendations for better use of the book.
1.5.3. Models for materials evaluation
The following three models proposed by Ellis (1997), Hutchinson and Waters
(2001), and McDonough and Shaw (2003) are the most commonly used ones.
1.5.3.1.

Evaluation Model by Ellis

Ellis (1997) proposes an empirical evaluation by means of micro-evaluation. A
micro-evaluation is the evaluation of one particular teaching task in which the
evaluator has a special interest with reference to its actual teaching and learning
context. The steps are as follows:
1. Choosing a task to evaluate;
2. Describing the task with specifications of input, procedures, language
activities and outcomes;
3. Planning the evaluation with reference to the dimensions above;
4. Collecting the information for the evaluation;
5. Analyzing the information;
6. Reaching conclusions and making recommendations;
7. Writing the report.
1.5.3.2.

Evaluation Model by Hutchinson and Waters

8


Hutchinson and Waters (2001) propose an evaluation model which consists of 4
steps: defining criteria, subjective analysis, objective analysis and matching (see

Figure 1).
DEFINE CRITERIA
On what bases will you
judge materials?
Which criteria will be
more important?

DEFINE CRITERIA
How does the material
being evaluated realize
the criteria?

DEFINE CRITERIA
What realizations of the
criteria do you want in
your course?

MATCHING
How far does the material
match your needs?

Figure 1: The materials evaluation process
As can be seen in Figure 1, this model shows a logical procedure for materials
evaluation. In the very first step, the evaluator must identify the important criteria
which the materials evaluation is based on. The next step is subjective analysis, i.e.
analysis of your course in terms of materials requirements. In the third step, the
evaluator analyzes the material being evaluated. Finally, it is a matching process
that answers the question how far the material meets the course requirements.
1.5.3.3.

Evaluation Model by McDonough and Shaw

McDonough and Shaw (2003) suggest a flexible two-stage model for the
comprehensive evaluation of coursebooks, namely external evaluation and internal
evaluation.

9


An external evaluation includes criteria which give an overview of the
organizational foundation of the coursebook, as stated explicitly by the authors
through the cover, the introduction, and the table of contents. The evaluation at this
stage helps the evaluator to determine whether the material is potentially
appropriate or not. If the external evaluation shows that the material is potentially
appropriate then the internal stage is carried out. If not, the evaluation will stop at
the external stage.
An internal evaluation is an in-depth investigation into the coursebook, “to see how
far the materials in question match up to what the author claims as well as to the
aims and objectives of a given teaching program” (McDonough & Shaw 2003, 64).
In summary, although these three models may be different in respect of procedures
and scope of evaluation, they all serve to evaluate whether or not the materials are
appropriate to a certain group of learners and a particular context. In this study, with
the research purpose, the amount of time available and the setting in mind, the
researcher will adopt the model recommended by McDonough & Shaw (2003) to
evaluate the currently-used material at MTA.
1.5.4. Criteria for materials evaluation
Criteria are the bases upon which the evaluator depends when making judgments.
Defining criteria for evaluation is one of the crucial issues evaluators must take into
consideration before any evaluation takes place. According to Dudley-Evans and St.
John (1998), criteria for materials evaluation depend on what is being evaluated and

why they need to be evaluated. Researchers like Sheldon (1988), Williams (1983),
Ellis and Johnson (1994), Cunningsworth (1995), Hutchinson and Waters (2001),
McDonough & Shaw (2003) have suggested certain sets of criteria. However, the
following three sets of criteria proposed by Sheldon (1988), Cunningsworth (1995),
and McDonough & Shaw (2003) are the most popular.
1.5.4.1.

Criteria defined by Sheldon (1988)

10


Sheldon (1988) suggests a wide range of criteria that can be used to evaluate almost
all aspects of materials. The criteria suggested by Sheldon include rationale,
availability, user definition, layout/graphic, accessibility, linkage, selection/
grading, physical characteristics, appropriacy, authenticity, sufficiency, cultural
bias, educational validity, stimulus/ practice/ revision, flexibility, guidance, and
overall value for money.
1.5.4.2.

Criteria defined by Cunningsworth (1995)

Cunningsworth (1995) proposes four criteria for evaluating textbooks, particularly
coursebooks.
First, they should correspond to learners’ needs. They should match the aims and
objectives of the language learning program.
Second, they should reflect the uses (present or future) that learners will make of the
language. Textbooks should be chosen that will help equip students to use language
effectively for their own purposes.
Third, they should take account of students’ needs as learners and should facilitate

their learning process, without dogmatically imposing a rigid ‘method’.
Fourth, they should have a clear role as a support for learning. Like teachers, they
mediate between the target language and the learner.
He also presents a checklist for textbook evaluation and selection organized under
the following categories: aims and approaches, design and organization, language
content, skills, topic, methodology, teachers’ book, and practical considerations.
1.5.4.3.

Criteria defined by McDonough and Shaw (2003)

McDonough & Shaw (2003) suggest a set of criteria for external and internal
evaluation. For external evaluation, comments on some or all of the following may
be made:
The intended audience: Who the material is written for?

11


The proficiency level: What level is the material suitable for?
The context in which material is to be used: Whether the material is for teaching GE
or perhaps for teaching ESP?
How the language has been presented and organized into teachable units/ lessons:
whether the material fits into an educational program in relation to time.
The author’s views on language and methodology
Is the material used as the main ‘core’ course or to be supplementary to it?
Is a teacher’s book in print and locally available?
Is a vocabulary list/ index included?
Is the layout and presentation clear or clustered?
What visual material does the book contain and is there for cosmetic value or is it
integrated into the text?

Is there the inclusion of tests in the teaching materials?
For internal evaluation, McDonough & Shaw suggest that evaluators need to
examine the following criteria: the treatment and presentation of the skills, the
sequencing and grading of the material, the type of skills contained in the material,
appropriacy of tests and exercises, self-study provision and teacher-learner
‘balance’ in the use of the material.
Since criteria for evaluation can be flexible depending on the purpose of each study,
this study, whose aim is not to evaluate the book as a whole, will employ a new set
of criteria selected from criteria proposed by McDonough & Shaw (2003) and
Cunningsworth (1995) under three categories: aim, content and classroom speaking
practice.
1.5.5. Materials adaptation
Materials adaptation is an essential step after evaluation as no materials are, in fact,
perfect. Its aim is to make teaching materials the most suitable in a particular
context by initiating some changes. According to McDonough and Shaw (2003),

12


there are five adapting techniques: adding, deleting, modifying, simplifying and
reordering.
Adding is a common adapting technique, by means of which the book is
supplemented with more things while practical effects on time allocation is taken
into account. Adding includes expanding and extending.
Deleting is clearly the opposite of adding. Deletion and addition often go together.
Some material may be taken out of the book and then replaced by something new.
Modifying is another adapting technique which includes rewriting when some
linguistic contents need changes or restructuring when classroom management
acquires alterations.
Simplifying is making materials less complicated and comprehensible for the target

leaners. It also refers to changes in the way the contents are presented. For example,
teachers may not make any changes to the original text, but lead learners through it
by means of differently graded stages.
Reordering is the procedure of putting parts of the book in a different order. This
may involve rearranging sections within a lesson/ a unit or among units in the book.
1.6.

Speaking Skills

1.6.1. Definition and importance of speaking skills
Speaking ability has been regarded as the measure of knowing a language.
Specifically speaking, it is the first step to confirm who knows or does not know a
language and a medium through which a language is learned. As for Ur (1996),
people who know a language are referred to as ‘speakers’ of that language as if
speaking includes all other things.
To define speaking, Florez states that speaking is ‘an interactive process of
constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing
information. It is often spontaneous, open-ended, and evolving” (Florez, 1999, p1).
It is undeniable that communication is interaction; participants take turns ‘sending’
13


and ‘receiving’. Its form and meaning depend on the context in which it occurs,
including the participants themselves, their collective experiences, the physical
environment, and the purposes for speaking.
Speaking is the productive, oral skill. In comparison with other skills (writing,
listening and reading), speaking seems the most important in language teaching and
learning. According to Bygate (1987), speaking is a skill that deserves attention
every bit as much as literacy skills in both first and second language.
1.6.2. Approaches to teaching speaking skills

For many years, language teaching was seen as helping learners develop linguistic
competence – that is, helping students master the sounds, words, and grammar
patterns of English. The idea was that by studying the bits and pieces of a language,
students could eventually put them all together and communicate. As a
consequence, students could only read translations aloud, do grammar exercises
orally, or speak with tightly-controlled speech in order to reinforce correct habit
formation of linguistic rules. This sort of teaching does not prepare students for the
spontaneous, fluid interaction that occurs outside the English classroom, and
students lose interest in language learning.
In the 1970s and 1980s, however, our understanding of language learning
experienced a significant shift in focus. This shift was influenced by international
developments in linguistics, curricula, and pedagogy, as well as by sociolinguistic
research (primarily in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and
the U.S). In addition, the numbers of refugees and immigrants resettling in Englishspeaking countries made linguists and language teachers realized that developing
linguistic competence alone was not enough to be able to speak English well and
get along in society.
In the mid-1970s, the notion of linguistic competence came to be viewed as a
component of the broader idea of communicative competence – the ability to
interact with other speakers to make meaning. Communicative competence which
14


consists

of

linguistic

competence,

sociolinguistic

competence,

discourse

competence and strategic competence is the focus of Communicative Language
Teaching Method. These four components have several practical implications for
EFL and ESL teachers. Since communicative competence is a multifaceted
construct, it is important for teachers to understand the complexities students face
when they are speaking English.
One of those complexities is balancing fluency and accuracy. It means that a
proficient speaker must be both fluent and accurate. Accuracy in this context refers
to the ability to speak properly – that is, selecting the correct words and expressions
to convey the intended meaning, as well as using the grammatical patterns of
English. Fluency, on the other hand, is the capacity to speak fluidly, confidently,
and at a rate consistent with the norms of the relevant native speech community.
Another complexity for teachers to understand is that while students are at the
beginning and intermediate levels of language learning, that is, while they are still
developing their proficiency, fluency and accuracy often work against each other.
Before grammar rules become automatic and while students are still acquiring
essential vocabulary items, applying the rules and searching one’s memory for the
right words can be laborious mental processes, which slow the students’ speech and
make them seem dysfluent. Likewise, they can sometimes speak quickly without
hesitating to apply the rules they have learned, but doing so may decrease their
accuracy or in other words they may make a lot of errors in speaking.
Next, in Communicative Language Teaching, teachers also help students develop
their communication strategies. These are verbal and/ or nonverbal procedures for
compensating for gaps in speaking competence. For example, when we speak
especially in a foreign language, there are times when we wish to say something,

but we don’t have the words, so we can ask for the correct term like ‘What is it?’ or
‘What called?’. Since they are so important, teachers and syllabus designers should
incorporate the teaching of communication strategies in speaking lessons.
15


1.6.3. Types of classroom speaking activities
When it comes to teaching speaking skills, it is important to provide students with a
variety of speaking activities. A variety of speaking activities will enable students to
cope with different situations in reality. Moreover, variety helps keep motivation
high. Last but not least, variety will suit students of different learning styles. In
Communicative Language Teaching, speaking activities are interaction-based
activities in the classroom in which pairwork and groupwork are typical
organizational features. The following are some typical interaction-based activities
in Communicative Language Teaching.
Information-gap activities
An information gap is where two speakers have different bits of information, and
they can only complete the whole picture by sharing that information in the target
language – because they have different information, there is a ‘gap’ between them.
Role-plays and simulations
In simulations, students act as if they were in a real-life situation. For example, they
are asked to simulate a check-in encounter at the airport. Role-plays simulate the
real world in the same kind of way, but the students are given particular roles. They
are told who they are and often what they think about a certain subject. They have
to speak and act from their new character’s point of view.
Picture-based activities
Any picture from newspapers, magazines, calendars, or the internet can become a
good input for teaching speaking because it adds color and interest to discussions, it
is very convenient, and it promotes creative and critical thinking. Picture-based
activities can be organized in the form of a competition, a discussion or a game.

Surveys
Surveys can be used to get students interviewing each other. For example, a
questionnaire about people’s sleeping habits with questions like ‘How many hours
16