An evaluation of the appropriateness of english unlimited a1 coursbook to english beginners at thang long canon factory

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

NGUYỄN THỊ NHẤT

AN EVALUATION OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF “ENGLISH
UNLIMITED A1” COURSEBOOK TO ENGLISH BEGINNERS AT
THANG LONG CANON FACTORY

(Đánh giá sự phù hợp của giáo trình “English Unlimited
A1” với đối tượng là người mới học tiếng Anh ở nhà máy
Canon Thăng Long)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY
CODE : 60140111

HANOI – 2015


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

NGUYỄN THỊ NHẤT

AN EVALUATION OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF “ENGLISH

UNLIMITED A1” COURSEBOOK TO ENGLISH BEGINNERS AT
THANG LONG CANON FACTORY

(Đánh giá sự phù hợp của giáo trình “English Unlimited A1” với
đối tượng là người mới học tiếng Anh ở nhà máy
Canon Thăng Long)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY
CODE : 60140111
Supervisor: Prof. NGUYỄN QUANG, Ph.

HANOI – 2015


DECLARATION
I hereby certify that the thesis “An evaluation of the appropriateness of “English
Unlimited A1” course book to English Beginners at Thang Long Canon factory” is the
result of my own research in the fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master
of Arts at University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National
University, Hanoi. The study has not been submitted for any other degrees.

Signature:

Nguyễn Thị Nhất
Date: May 28th, 2015

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study could not have been fulfilled without the help, encouragement and
support of a number of people.
First and foremost, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisor
and promoter, Prof. Nguyen Quang, Ph. He helped me with a lot of advice, comments,
enthusiasm and experience of doing a research. My special thanks also go to Mr. Quang
for his friendliness, hospitality, kindness and enthusiasm.
Besides, I would like to show my gratitude to all the teachers of the Faculty of
Post-graduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam
National University, Hanoi whose lectures and guide helped me much while carrying out
this study. I also acknowledge Dr. Ngo Huu Hoang who suggested me this topic.
Also, I am thankful to my colleagues teaching English at Thang Long Canon
factory helped me complete data collection. I would like to say thanks to all the students
– the workers and staff at Canon factory participating in the study with their enthusiasm
and responsibility in the lessons in class as well as the questionnaire completion.
Last but not least, my deepest gratitude goes to my family, especially my
husband and friends who have always been supportive and encouraging to me.

ii


ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the appropriateness of the textbook
“English Unlimited A1” to beginners at Thang Long Canon factory. Participants
consisted of 100 students at elementary level and 10 teachers directly teaching English at
Thang Long Cannon factory. The data collection instruments used in this study were
student questionnaire, teacher interview and document analysis. In this sequence, the
material analyzed based on the criteria suggested by Hutchinson and Waters (1987) with
the objectives to find out the match of the textbook with students’ level and the

appropriateness of the material in terms of aims, content and methodology to beginners
at TL Canon factory.
The research results have revealed some strengths of the material which allows
the author to conclude that the material is relatively suitable with the students’ level of
English. Also, the aims, content and methodology requirements of the course are quite
relevant to the learners, but some weaknesses are unavoidable. Based on the findings, the
thesis suggests some recommendations on materials adaptation such as addition,
deletion, and combination that should be made to remedy the weaknesses of the material
so that the students and teachers can benefit more from it in future courses.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................ viii
PART A. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1. Rationale .......................................................................................................... 1
2. Aims of the study ............................................................................................. 1
3. Significance of the study .................................................................................. 2
4. The research questions...................................................................................... 2
5. The scope of the study ...................................................................................... 2
6. Overview of the study....................................................................................... 3
PART B. DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................ 4
1.1.

Textbooks, course books, and materials ..................................................... 4

1.2.

Textbook evaluation................................................................................... 6

1.2.1.

Definition ............................................................................................ 6

1.2.2.

Types of textbook evaluation ............................................................... 7

1.2.3.

Methods of textbook evaluation ........................................................... 8

1.2.4.

Models of material evaluation ............................................................. 9

1.2.5.

Criteria for textbook evaluation ......................................................... 15

1.3.

Textbook adaptation................................................................................. 16

1.3.1.

Definition .......................................................................................... 16

1.3.2.

Areas of adaptation ............................................................................ 17

1.3.3.

Methods to adapt a textbook .............................................................. 17

1.4.

Conclusion ............................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................. 19
1.1.

An overview of current English Teaching and Learning at TL factory ..... 19

2.1.1

Context of the thesis .......................................................................... 19

2.1.2

Material description ........................................................................... 19
iv

1.2.

Research methodology ............................................................................. 20

1.2.1.

Research questions ............................................................................ 20

2.2.2.

Subjects ............................................................................................. 21

2.2.3.1. Questionnaire ................................................................................. 21
2.2.3.2. Interview ........................................................................................ 23
1.3.

Data collection procedure......................................................................... 23

2.3.1. Document analysis ................................................................................ 23
2.3.2. Student questionnaire ............................................................................ 24
2.3.3. Teacher interview ................................................................................. 24
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................... 25
4.1. The appropriateness of the material to the students’ level of English ........... 25
4.1.1. Document analysis ................................................................................ 25
4.1.2. Results from the survey......................................................................... 25
4.1.2.1. Teacher interview ........................................................................... 25
4.1.2.2. Student questionnaire...................................................................... 27
4.1.3. Matching and discussion ....................................................................... 30
4.2.. The appropriateness of the material to the aims of the course ..................... 30

4.2.1.. The appropriateness of the material to the aims of the course in terms of
language aspects ............................................................................................. 30
4.2.2. The appropriateness of the material to the aims of the course in terms of
language skills ................................................................................................ 33
4.3. The appropriateness of the material to content requirements of the course .. 34
4.3.1. The appropriateness of the content in terms of language aspects ........... 34
4.3.2. The appropriateness of the content of the course book in terms of language
skills ............................................................................................................... 35
4.3.3. Matching and discussion ....................................................................... 36
4.4. The appropriateness of the material to methodology requirements of the course
.......................................................................................................................... 37
4.4.1. Material analysis and survey results ...................................................... 37
4.4.2. Matching and discussion ....................................................................... 39
4.5. Recommendations for the course book’s adaptation .................................... 40
4.5.1. Addition................................................................................................ 40
v


4.5.2. Deletion ................................................................................................ 40
4.5.3. Combination ......................................................................................... 41
PART C. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 42
1. Conclusion of the study ..................................................................................... 42
2. Limitations and suggestions for future research ................................................. 43
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... I
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... III
Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................. III
HUTCHINSON AND WATERS’S CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR MATERIALS
EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... III
Appendix 2 .............................................................................................................. VIII
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................. VIII

Appendix 3 ............................................................................................................... XII
TEACHER INTERVIEW......................................................................................... XII
Appendix 4 .............................................................................................................. XIII
NOTE-TAKING OF THE TEACHER INTERVIEW .............................................. XIII

vi


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CLT: Communicative Language Teaching
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
ELT: English Language Teaching
ESL: English as a Second Language
GE: General English
TL: Thang Long

vii


LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures
Figure 1: Material evaluation model by McDonough and Shaw.
Figure 2: Material evaluation model by Hutchinson & Waters.
Tables
Table 2.1: Types of information in the student questionnaire
Table 4.1: Teachers’ opinions of the appropriateness of the material to the students’
level of English.
Table 4.2: Teachers’ opinions of the difficulty of different parts in the material.
Table 4.3: Students’ assessments of the difficult sections in the material.
Table 4.4: Students’ opinions of the reasons why some sections are difficult.

Table 4.5: Students’ opinions of the appropriateness of the material for the aims of the
course in terms of language aspects.
Table 4.6: Students’ opinions of the appropriateness of the material for the aims of the
course in terms of language skills.
Table 4.7: Students’ opinions of the appropriateness of the material to the content
requirements of the course.
Table 4.8: Students’ opinions of the appropriateness of the material to the
methodology requirements of the course.

viii


PART A. INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
With the rapid development of technology and means of mass communication,
people are exposed to a lot of choices for learning resources. As the result, some
people become lazier because it is totally convenient and cheap even free to have an
useful learning document from the Internet. However, we cannot deny that books
always play a vital role. Many theorists have emphasized on the importance of
textbooks in the classroom to both teachers and students. According to Sheldon
(1998:237), textbooks “represent the visible heart of any ELT program.” Textbook is
like a teacher, a friend, and a source of helpful information for people to get
knowledge from. However, there is a wide variety of textbooks, materials for teachers
and students to select. The question of what, how and why a material is chosen for a
course and a level of students is difficult for teachers to answer. Therefore, it is
necessary for material evaluators to evaluate the appropriateness of each textbook for
each class and students’ level.
Being a teacher of Communicative English Programs for learners at TL Canon
factory, the researcher would like to find out the most effective teaching methodology
to help learners communicate successfully in daily situations at work. In addition, the

course book “English Unlimited A1” which has just been used to teach staff and
workers here in two courses, is a new material published in 2011. Hence, it is
necessary to have a critical view of this material to help teachers adapt and use the
book the most effectively.
2. Aims of the study
The purpose of the thesis is to evaluate the appropriateness of the material
“English Unlimited A1” in terms of audience, aims, content and methodology to the
English beginners at TL Canon factory. In other words, it investigates the suitability
of the material to the students’ level of English and looks into the appropriateness of

1


the material to beginners at TL Canon factory in terms of aims, content, and
methodology.
3. Significance of the study
The thesis will be useful not only for the researcher but also for the teachers and
learners at TL Canon factory. It will contribute to the improvement of English
learning and teaching quality at TL Canon factory. In addition, the results of the
thesis will provide a basis for the adaptation and improvement of the material.
Additionally, the thesis will theoretically contribute to the field of GE material
evaluation in general.
4. The research questions
The study is carried out to achieve the following objectives:
 To find out the appropriateness of the material to students’ level of English at
TL Canon factory.
 To identify the appropriateness of the material to beginners at TL Canon
factory in terms of aims, content, and methodology.
Therefore, the following research question designed as follows:
1. How appropriate is the material “English Unlimited A1” to beginners at

TL Canon factory in terms of audience, aims, content and methodology?
5. The scope of the study
It is not doubtful that, to have an overall critical evaluation on a material, an
evaluator ought to look at every specific aspect of the material. According to Brown
(1995), the process of material evaluation is to find out the effectiveness, efficiency,
and attitudes of the interested party of the course. Indeed, to measure the
effectiveness and efficiency of materials, quantitative methods (an experiment with
diagnostic and achievement test) are required while investigation of attitudes of the
material can be carried out with qualitative methods (interviews, questionnaire,
2


observation, and document analysis, etc.). Although it is necessary to investigate the
material from all the three aspects mentioned above, the limitation of time and scope
of a minor thesis does not allow the researcher to do as many jobs as expected.
Therefore, the evaluator of this research only investigates the attitudes of the learners
and teachers at TL Canon factory towards the following aspects of the material:
 Audience (in terms of the students’ level of English), aims, content, and
methodology.
6. Overview of the study
The INTRODUCTION comprises the rationale, the aims, the significance, the
scope, and the design of the study.
The DEVELOPMENT includes three chapters:
Chapter one – Literature Review – presents an overview of theoretical issues
of material evaluation discussed and analyzed by ELT experts and researchers. The
focus is on material evaluation and adaptation.
Chapter two – Methodology – is divided into five sections. The first one
describes the setting of the study. The second one provides information of the
material under evaluation. Data collection methods is the third section of the chapter.
Next, the writer focuses on the procedure of data collection. Finally, the subjects of

the research will be discussed.
Chapter three – Findings and Discussion – reports and discusses the results of
the study as well as gives a summary of the major findings.
The CONCLUSION provides a brief summary of what is discussed in the study
and recommends room for further research.

3


PART B. DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, the researcher attempts to draw an overview of the theoretical
background of the study which is divided into three sub-parts. First, the author will
state the definitions as well as the similarities and differences among textbooks,
course books and materials. Next, the researcher will indicate in detail material
evaluation that provides the fundamental basis to conduct this study including
definition, types, methods, models and some other criteria. The theoretical discussion
of textbook adaptation will be presented in the last sub-parts.
1.1.

Textbooks, course books, and materials

1.1.1. Definition
In fact, the terms “textbooks, course books and materials” are most commonly
found in learning and teaching. Researchers, authors, teachers and learners usually
use

them

interchangeably.

However,

what

are

similarities

among

these

terminologies?
In a GE course, a textbook has the function of a source of language, a learning
support, a source for stimulation and motivation, and also a source of reference, so it
plays an important role in the success of the language course. However, “there is no
such a thing as a perfect textbook” (Brown, 1995: 166); sometimes textbooks should
be evaluated to judge the appropriateness to the targeted students. In many
circumstances, teaching will be based on a single textbook although other materials
may be used at the teacher’s discretion.
The term “course book” is used to refer to a textbook which a course is based
on. In ELT, Tomlinson (1998:9) defines it specifically as: “a textbook which provides
the core materials for a course. Its aim is to provide as much as possible in one book
and is designed so that it could serve as the only book which the learners necessarily

4


use during a course. Such a book includes work on grammar, vocabulary,

pronunciation, functions and the skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking.”
There are various opinions of teaching materials defined by different authors
and researchers in language teaching and learning aspect. Dudley – Evans and St
John (1998: 170) give their viewpoint that “materials can be used as a source of
language, a learning support for motivation and stimulation, and for reference” while
Hutchinson (1987: 37) believes “materials are not simply the everyday tools for the
language teachers; they are an embodiment of the aims, values and methods of a
particular teaching and learning situation.”. Another opinion of Tomlinson (1982:2),
language teaching materials are anything which is used by teachers or learners to
facilitate the learning of a language. “It can be in the form of a textbook, a workbook,
a cassette, a CD-Room, a video, a photocopied handout, a newspaper, a paragraph
written on a white board, anything that presents or informs about the language being
learnt”. Among them, textbooks are the most widely used in language teaching.
In short, in this thesis, the researcher will use the terms “textbook, course book
and material” interchangeably for the convenience of analysis and explanation.
1.1.2. The role of textbooks in EFL/ ESL classroom
According to Sheldon (1988: 237), textbooks not only “represent the visible
heart of any ELT program” but also “offer considerable advantages for both teachers
and learners when they are being used in the EFL/ ESL classroom”. Indeed,
textbooks play an significant role in training programs as well as in classroom, which
not only provide a teaching and learning structure for teachers and students to follow
but also help to standardize instructions. The textbook in a course can assure the
similarities in terms of contents for different classes, so learners will be tested in the
same way.
Moreover, Cunningsworth (1995) explains that “textbooks provide a syllabus
for a program, thus support novice teachers, train them in methodology, and save
their time and effort for more worthwhile pursuits than material production”. Without
5

textbooks, they may think their learning is not seriously taken, so textbooks are
psychologically essential for students. Textbooks may constitute an effective resource
for learning in the classroom and self-directed learning. A learner without a textbook
might be out of focus and teacher-dependent.
In addition, Garinger (2001: 34) supports these opinions by pointing out that
“textbooks play a pivotal role in language classroom in all types of educational
institutions – public school, colleges, and language schools – all over the world”.
Riazi (2003: 52) also agrees with that point of view and clarifies that “textbooks play
a very crucial role in the realm of language teaching and learning and are considered
as the next important factor in classrooms after the teacher”
Indeed, it has become increasingly clear that context-sensitive EFL instruction
requires teachers to take into account many anthropological and sociocultural factors
which influence the conditions English is taught. Currently, global textbooks
produced for teaching and learning English as a foreign language in many different
countries are criticized for paying too little attention to these, especially for largely
failing to assist EFL teachers in teaching cultural background for students with the
diversity of English-speaking target language cultures. Because of these potential
problems, textbooks should be carefully evaluated and selected before being used for
a language program.
1.2.

Textbook evaluation

1.2.1. Definition
Evaluation defined by Hutchinson and Waters (1987:96) “is a matter of
judging the fitness of something for a particular purpose”. In addition, evaluation is a
complete process “which begins with determining what information to gather and
ends with ringing about changes in current activities or influencing future ones.”
(Dudley – Evan & St.John, 1998:128). Hence, textbook evaluation is considered as a
kind of educational judgment.

6


Also, according to Hutchinson and Waters (1987:97) “textbook evaluation is
basically a straightforward, analytically matching process: matching needs to
available solution”. Cunningsworth (1995) and Ellis (1997) suggest that textbook
evaluation helps teachers move beyond impressionistic assessments and acquire
useful, accurate, systematic, and contextual insights into the overall nature of
textbook material. Textbook evaluation, therefore, can potentially be a particularly
worthwhile means of conducting action research as well as a form of professional
empowerment and improvement. Similarly, textbook evaluation can also be a
valuable component in teacher training programs, which makes students, teachers be
aware of the important feature to look for in textbooks.
According to Ellis (1997), there are two main reasons for carrying out material
evaluation. First, there may be a need to choose among the materials available the
most suitable one to use for a particular situation. Second, there can be a need for
material evaluation to determine whether the materials which have been chosen for
certain situation are suitable or not.
1.2.2. Types of textbook evaluation
Various researchers offer different ways of categorizing material evaluation.
However, the offer by McGrath (2002) seems to be the most widely accepted. He
divides textbook evaluation into three stages:
 Pre-use evaluation: establishes potential suit.
 In-use evaluation: gathers data on planning decisions, implementation and
response, may stimulate preliminary reconsiderations.
 Post-use evaluation: uses data on incourse use and data on effects to accesses
suitability of selection.
In short, there are different types of materials evaluation so when making an
evaluation; the evaluators have to determine what type of materials evaluation will be

suitable with their work. As for the situation of the study, since the material has been

7


in use for two years, the researcher decided to use post-use evaluation with an aim to
determine whether this material is appropriate or not and offer some
recommendations for further improvements of the material.
1.2.3. Methods of textbook evaluation
McGrath (2002:25) refers to three basic methods of textbook evaluation: The
impressionistic method, the checklist method, and the in-depth method.
The impressionistic method.
The impressionistic method is concerned to obtain a general impression of the
material. According to Cunningsworth’s (1995:1), the term “impressionistic
overview” suggests such an overview typically involves glancing at the publisher’s
blurb (i.e. the brief description of the book on the back cover), and at the content page
(for an indication of the syllabus type and coverage), and then skimming through the
book, looking at organization, layout, topics, and visuals. For that reason, this method
is sometimes called “first-glance evaluation.” This kind of overview is undoubtedly
inadequate if it constitutes the sole basis for textbook evaluation and selection.
The checklist method
This method makes good use of a checklist to evaluate materials. According to
McGrath (2002: 27), the checklist method has at least four advantages:
1. It is systematic, ensuring that all elements that are deemed to be important
are considered.
2. It is cost effective, permitting a good deal of information to be recorded in a
relatively short space of time.
3. The information is recorded in a convenient format, allowing for easy
comparison between competing sets of material.
4. It is explicit, and, provided the categories are well understood by all

involved in the evaluation, offers a common framework for decisionmaking.

8


The in-depth method
In-depth techniques “go beneath the publisher’s and author’s claims. It
considers the kind of language description, underlying assumption about learning or
values on which materials are based on” (McGrath, 2002: 27-28). In a broader sense,
this method seeks to find out whether the materials are likely to live up to the claims
being made for them.
Although, there are three kinds of methods of textbook evaluation, in the
study the author used in-depth method.
1.2.4. Models of material evaluation
In the literature review, various authors have presented different models for
material evaluation. However, depending on purpose and kinds of materials need
evaluating, the researcher has to find out the most appropriate model.
1.2.4.1. Evaluation model by McDonough and Shaw (1993) (a combination of
macro and micro evaluation)
In 1993, McDonough and Shaw suggested a three-stage model of material
evaluation called external evaluation, internal evaluation and overall evaluation (see
Finger 1). This model introduced based on the view that it is helpful and useful for
teachers to perform an external evaluation of material so that they can gain an
overview of organizational principles, then move to detailed internal evaluation of the
materials to see how far the materials match up to what the author claims as well as to
the aims and objectives of a given teaching program. Therefore, external evaluation is
considered as a preliminary evaluation or a macro evaluation, which is an
examination of the claims made for the whole materials by the author or publisher.
These claims can be made somewhere on the cover of the book, in the instructions, or
even in the table of contents. The evaluation at this stage helps to identify whether the

material is potentially appropriate.

9


In contrast, the internal evaluation stage (micro evaluation) requires an indepth look into two or more units to examine what will actually be presented “inside”
the materials themselves and whether the claims made by the author are the one
found in internal evaluation.
The next step is overall evaluation of the materials, which aims to examine the
suitability of the material by many factors such as usability, generalizability,
adaptation, flexibility. This model will be shown in the following figure:
Macro – evaluation → inappropriate / potentially appropriate →
↓

(External)

Exit
Micro – evaluation → inappropriate / appropriate → adopt/ select
(Internal)

↓
Exit

Figure 1: Material evaluation model by McDonough and Shaw (1993:75)
It can be clearly seen from Figure 1 that the internal stage will be carried out
first when the materials have been evaluated to be potentially appropriate in the
external evaluation. On other words, if the findings at this stage show that materials
are not suitable, the evaluation will be finished.
1.2.4.2. Evaluation model by Ellis (1997) (a micro-evaluation)
Ellis (1997) suggests that the evaluation of language teaching materials should

focus on the whole sets of materials. Thus, he introduces a model that can be carried
out by a series of micro-evaluations. In this model, a detailed empirical evaluation
and evaluating tasks in language teaching are focused on, which aims to identify the
match between task planned and task in use. In this model, he supposes some
dimensions used for macro evaluation such as approach, purpose, focus, scope,

10


evaluator, types of information that can be applied in micro evaluation process. These
are various steps in evaluating a task suggested by Ellis:
1. Choosing a task to evaluate: the task can be new and teachers want to discover
the effectiveness of using it in classroom. The task can be already used and
teachers want to confirm whether it is as good as they think.
2. Describing the task: it can be described in terms of objectives, input, process
and outcomes.
3. Planning the evaluation.
4. Collecting the information: the information required to evaluate a task can be
collected before, during or after the teaching of the task.
5. Analyzing the information: the data can be analyzed either in a quantitative
way or in a qualitative way.
6. Reaching conclusions and making recommendations.
7. Writing the report.
This model of evaluation is more manageable than a macro-evaluation.
Nevertheless, in order to conduct a macro-evaluation, a series of micro – evaluation
need to be carried out, which consumes a lot of time and efforts.
1.2.4.3. Evaluation model by Cunningsworth (1984)
Cunningsworth (1984) provides a checklist of criteria which aim to examine
different aspects for the course such as linguistic factors of the materials in terms of
language content, topics, skills, and methodology. He states that examination of

language content should focus on the appropriateness of the grammars, structures,
functions, and vocabulary presented in the material to the requirements. Also, he
thinks that the topics should be interesting, various, and sophisticated in content and
help students to expand the awareness within their language level.
Regarding the skills presented in the materials, the authors have to answer the
questions whether the four skills are adequately covered and whether they are suitable
for the course aims and syllabus requirements. Furthermore, the questions about
11


methodology of the materials should find out whether they are appropriate to the
learning teaching situation, and what techniques are used for presenting new language
items, how different skills are taught.
1.2.4.4. Evaluation model by Hutchinson and Water (1987) (a macro – evaluation)
According to Hutchinson and Water (1987), an evaluation ought to be done for
a certain need to check the match between materials and detailed aims. They define
“material evaluation as a matter of judging the fitness of something for particular
purposes”. Basically, evaluation is a matching process between needs and available
solutions. In their opinions, this model is divided into four basic steps as follows (see
Figure 2).

Define criteria
On what bases will you judge materials?
Which criteria will be more important?

Subjective analysis

Objective Analysis

What realization of the criteria do

you want in your course?

How does the material being
evaluated to realize the criteria?

Matching
How far does the material match your needs?
Figure 2: Material evaluation model by Hutchinson and Waters (1987)
It is clear that if the evaluator wants to evaluate something, he/she first has to
answer two questions that which criteria he/ she based on to evaluate and then among
defined criteria, he/she will choose his/her own preferred ones to evaluate. In the
second step, he/she will identify the subjective analysis. In other words, the
12


requirements of the course in aspects related to the criteria will be analyzed. Also,
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) point out that the subjective analysis should not be
considered as a fixed set of requirements. More importantly, the evaluator should
utilize the material evaluation process as a means of questioning and developing his
own ideas. Analyzing objectives is the next step carried out in this model. This is the
stage to analyze the materials in terms of selected criteria. Finally, the evaluator will
consider the results through the evaluation process; the materials may not meet the
requirements totally. In this case, Hutchinson and Water (1987) suggest that the
evaluator should think about the more important criteria for the different people and
select the easier criteria to adapt.
Besides, Hutchinson and Waters (1987) provide their own checklist of criteria
for subjective and objective analyses. The checklist aims to evaluate English teaching
materials by paying attention to such big issues as the audience, aims, the content, the
methodology, price and availability.
Audience

The authors suppose that one of the most important factors to evaluate is
learners. Indeed, the most vital purpose of a course or a training program is to meet
the requirements of a particular group or learners. For this reason, English teaching
materials are designed and selected to serve these meets.
There are a lot of questions related to audience’s needs such as age, sex,
experience of English, education background, interests. In addition, it consists of the
students’ attitude towards learning English. The information about learners should be
the first criterion mentioned before evaluating others.
Aims
In a material evaluation process, it is vital to consider whether the aims of the
materials and the aims of the course match or not. Therefore, the aims of the course
are always defined clearly in the first part of each training program.

13


Content
According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987), it is necessary to examine
whether the content of the materials is suitable for the content prescribed in terms of
language points, macro-skills and their proportion, micro skills, as well as the kind of
texts or not. Furthermore, the aspects of subject matter areas, learners’ level of
knowledge, type of topics and how those topics are introduced are also considered
carefully. Finally, it is also important to evaluate the way the content is organized and
sequenced within the units and through the course.
Methodology
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) indicate many aspects dealing with material
methodology that need to be evaluated. First, the evaluation has to show whether the
theories of learning which the course bases on are in the line with the ones of the
material. Second, the aspects of the learners’ attitude towards expectations about
learning English could be considered. Third, it is necessary to identify whether the

kinds of exercises and tasks included in the material are suitable for the course
requirements or not. Teaching-learning techniques are another aspect that needs
evaluating. At this time, evaluators have to decide whether the teaching-learning
techniques that are used with the material are those required by the course and
suitable for the learners. In addition, the material evaluation should take into
consideration the aspects such as teaching aids, and guidance support for teaching.
Lastly, it is vital to determine if the materials are flexible so that they can be used in
different orders to suit the teaching contexts.
Other criteria
In addition to the criteria mentioned above, Hutchinson and Waters (1987)
provide some other criteria such as the price, the availability of the materials, and
their attractiveness. These issues are considered as practical concerns and they must
be acknowledged. They may be one of the deciding factors in textbook selection. In
fact, not all the textbooks can be purchased by students because of their high price
14


and scarcity in the local market. Sometimes, it is the purchase that becomes economic
burden students have to face.
1.2.5. Criteria for textbook evaluation
According to Dudley- Evans and St. John (1998), in the evaluation process,
evaluators must take evaluation criteria into account before any evaluation takes
place. Criteria for material evaluation depend on what is being evaluated and why
they need to valuated.
William (1983) suggests seven criteria for textbook adaptation:
1. General criteria: give introductory guidance on the presentation of language
items and skills.
2. Speech criteria: suggest aids for the teaching of pronunciation
3. Grammar criteria: offer meaningful situations and a variety of techniques for
teaching structural units.

4. Vocabulary criteria: distinguish the different purposes and skills involved in the
teaching of vocabulary.
5. Reading criteria: provide guidance on the initial presentation of passages for
reading comprehension.
6. Writing criteria: demonstrate the various devices for controlling and guiding
content and expression in composition exercises.
7. Technical criteria: contain appropriate pictures, diagrams, tables, etc…
The criteria suggested by William (1983) seem to be very useful and
appropriate for evaluating a course book. However, such frameworks are more
suitable for the selection of course books available in the market than for the
examination of an in-house material to see whether they meet the intended objectives.
With its more comprehensive content, the evaluating criteria defined by Hutchinson
and Waters (1987), therefore, seems to be a more helpful tool to material evaluators.
They suggest four main criteria for materials evaluation:

15