Đánh giá giáo trình solutions upper intermediate dùng cho học sinh chuyên anh lớp 10 tại trường thpt chuyên

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

NGUYỄN THI ̣PHƢƠNG

AN EVALUATION OF THE COURSEBOOK “SOLUTIONS UPPERINTERMEDIATE” FOR TENTH-GRADE ENGLISH MAJORS AT
FOREIGN LANGUAGE SPECIALIZED SCHOOL, ULIS, VNU
(Đánh giá giáo trình “Solutions Upper-intermediate” dùng cho học sinh
chuyên Anh lớp 10 tại trƣờng THPT Chuyên Ngoại Ngữ, Đại học Ngoại Ngữ,
Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 6014.0111

HANOI – 2016


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

NGUYỄN THI ̣PHƢƠNG

AN EVALUATION OF THE COURSEBOOK “SOLUTIONS UPPERINTERMEDIATE” FOR TENTH-GRADE ENGLISH MAJORS AT
FOREIGN LANGUAGE SPECIALIZED SCHOOL, ULIS, VNU
(Đánh giá giáo trình “Solutions Upper-intermediate” dùng cho học sinh
chuyên Anh lớp 10 tại trƣờng THPT Chuyên Ngoại Ngữ, Đại học Ngoại Ngữ,
Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 6014.0111
Supervisor: Prof. Nguyễn Hòa

HANOI - 2016


CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT

I, Nguyen Thi Phuong, hereby certify that the thesis entitled:
An evaluation of the coursebook “Solutions Upper-intermediate” for tenthgrade English majors at Foreign Language Specialized School, ULIS, VNU
is the results of my research for the degree of Master of Arts at University of
Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi and the
thesis has not been submitted for any degrees at any other universities or tertiary
institutions.

Hanoi, 2016

Nguyễn Thị Phƣơng

i


ACKNOWLEDEGEMENT

A thesis costs every researcher a lot of time to complete and mine does, too.
However, I could not finalize this study with personal efforts and without the
assistance of some enthusiastic people who I want to send my deep thanks to.
The first one, I want to sincerely thank is Prof. Nguyen Hoa. He is my

supervisor. His constructive comments helped me realize my mistakes and have the
reasonable corrections. In addition, his enthusiasm made each step in my research
process easier and made me feel more comfortable and be under less stress caused
by the great amount of work. Nothing can totally and exactly express my gratitude
to him. I also acknowledge my gratitude to Dr. Tran Thi Tuyet for her useful
lectures on materials evaluation and development. She also gives me valuable
instructions, comments, and her kindly encouragement during the development of
this thesis.
Additionally, I would like to express my appreciation to many teachers,
especially Tran Thi Lan, (M.A), who is a head of English Division at FLSS and
tenth-grade English majors at FLSS, ULIS, VNU for their cooperation as well as
their help in the survey. Without their support, the questionnaires and interviews
which orientate the suggestions – the heart of my thesis – could not be completed as
expected.
Lastly, I want to thank my parents who gave me the life and stand by me on
each step I take in this life. The completion of my research could not be achieved
without their spiritual supports.

ii


ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to gauge the suitability of a coursebook titled
“Solutions Upper-intermediate” for students‟ levels of English and general
expectations in terms of the content and language skills. Following that, the
teaching-listening situation can be identified and unsuitable content will be adapted.
Quantitative and qualitative data are obtained through questionnaires with 70
students and semi-structured interviews with 4 teachers, in which survey questions
are developed based on the students‟ general expectations and MOET‟s criteria.
Quantitative data in the questionnaires are calculated manually into rounded

percentages to answer two research questions. Qualitative data from “Comments” in
the questionnaires with the students and from interviewed teachers are used to
contribute more information to the answers to the research questions.
The results reveal that the coursebook is partly appropriate to students‟ levels
and expectations. Firstly, it could be affirmed that this coursebook partly suits their
levels. Reading passages are fully appreciated by the respondents. Speaking, writing,
and vocabulary relatively match students‟ levels. In contrast, listening skills and
grammar are unsuitable for them. It is recommended to find more difficult listening
passages and grammar for the students. Although vocabulary is somewhat suitable
for them, it is better for several lessons with many technical terms or complex
words to have more guidance and activities. Secondly, as regards the
appropriateness for the students‟ expectations, in general, the survey results indicate
that the coursebook meets their expectations in terms of the content and language
skills to a certain extent. The topics are various and impressive but it is advisable
that more contemporary and compelling topics should be added. Reading and
writing are two parts which are appreciated by both the students and the teachers.
Listening and speaking are unable to meet the expectations of the students, which
means more activities and tasks on developing these skills should be added. The
language content including vocabulary and grammar are generally suitable.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT ................................................................................i
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES .................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................1
1.1. Rationale ........................................................................................................1
1.2. Aims and objectives.......................................................................................2

1.3. Significance ...................................................................................................2
1.4. Scope .............................................................................................................2
1.5. Methodology ..................................................................................................3
1.6. Organization of the thesis ..............................................................................3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................4
2.1. Definition of coursebook ...............................................................................4
2.2. Definition of evaluation .................................................................................5
2.3. Definition of materials evaluation .................................................................6
2.4. Types of materials evaluation ........................................................................7
2.4.1. Pre-use evaluation .....................................................................................9
2.4.2. In-use evaluation or whilst-use evaluation................................................9
2.4.3. Post-use evaluation....................................................................................9
2.5. Purposes of materials evaluation .................................................................10
2.6. Methods of textbook evaluation ..................................................................11
2.6.1. The impressionistic method ....................................................................11
2.6.2. The checklist method ..............................................................................11
2.6.3. The in-depth method ...............................................................................12
2.7. Criteria for materials evaluation ..................................................................13
2.8. Previous studies on materials evaluation .....................................................15
2.9. Summary ......................................................................................................17
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLODY .........................................................................18
iv


3.1. THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY ............................................................18
3.1.1. The course ...............................................................................................18
3.1.2. The coursebook “Solutions Upper-intermediate” – Student‟s book .......19
3.1.3. The students ............................................................................................21
3.1.4. The teachers ............................................................................................22
3.2. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................22

3.2.1. Research methods....................................................................................22
3.2.2. Participants ..............................................................................................22
3.2.3. Data collection instruments .....................................................................23
3.2.4. Procedure of data collection ....................................................................27
3.2.5. Data analysis procedure and presentation of data ...................................28
3.2.6. Summary .................................................................................................28
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................30
4.1. Findings for the first research question .......................................................30
4.2. Findings for the second research question...................................................32
4.2.1. The appropriateness of general content to students‟ expectations ..........32
4.2.2. The appropriateness of listening skills to students‟ expectations ...........35
4.2.3. The appropriateness of speaking skills to students‟ expectations ...........36
4.2.4. The appropriateness of reading skills to students‟ expectations .............37
4.2.5. The appropriateness of writing skills to students‟ expectations .............38
4.2.6. The appropriateness of language content to students‟ expectations .......39
4.3. Summary ......................................................................................................40
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...............................................................................41
5.1. Conclusion ...................................................................................................41
5.2. Recommendations .......................................................................................42
5.3. Limitations ...................................................................................................43
5.4. Suggestions for further studies ....................................................................43
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................44
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... I
v


APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................II
APPENDIX 2 ....................................................................................................... VIII
APPENDIX 3 ....................................................................................................... XIII
APPENDIX 4 .................................................................................................... XVIII

APPENDIX 5 ....................................................................................................... XIX

vi


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ELT: English Language Teaching
FLSS: Foreign Language Specialized School
MOET: Ministry of Education and Training
ULIS: University of Languages and International Studies
VNU: Vietnam National University

vii


LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: Four basic components of evaluation .........................................................5
Figure 2: Macro and micro-evaluation in language teaching .....................................8
Table 1: Adaption from MOET‟s checklist ..............................................................25
Table 2: Students‟ evaluation on the appropriateness of the content and language
skills to their levels....................................................................................................31
Table 3: Students‟ evaluation on the appropriateness of general content to their
expectations ...............................................................................................................33
Table 4: Students‟ evaluation on the appropriateness of listening skills to their
expectations ...............................................................................................................35
Table 5: Students‟ evaluation on the appropriateness of speaking skills to their
expectations ...............................................................................................................36
Table 6: Students‟ evaluation on the appropriateness of reading skills to their
expectations ...............................................................................................................37
Table 7: Students‟ evaluation on the appropriateness of writing skills to their

expectations ...............................................................................................................38
Table 8: Students‟ evaluation on the appropriateness of vocabulary and grammar to
their expectations ......................................................................................................39

viii


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Rationale
In Vietnamese high schools, textbooks or coursebooks are an indispensable part in
English teaching and learning. For non-specialized high schools, they have used the
standard textbooks set by Ministry of Education and Training (MOET).
Nevertheless, in addition to the use of piloted textbooks, other schools like
specialized high schools have selected coursebooks for their own students. With the
current numerous number of books, the decision to choose one coursebook cannot
be taken lightly and whether it is acceptable or not is one challenging question.
Hence, teachers need to be knowledgeable enough to opt for the most suitable ones
for their students through evaluating these materials based on the guidelines and
criteria. Foreign Language Specialized School (FLSS) is a specific instance which
has chosen the coursebooks for their own students in learning English. Teachers at
English Division held a meeting and came to the conclusion that they selected
“Solutions Upper-intermediate” as the core material for tenth-grade English major
students, and this material has been used for three years. A question that plagues the
researcher is just whether this coursebook suits the students or not. Nevertheless,
there have been no strict criteria established or research on evaluating this
coursebook carried out so far.
For that reason, the current research is undertaken to gauge this coursebook and it
specifically seeks to see how far the main factors - the content and language skills
suit the students‟ levels of English and general expectations of the coursebook. In

other words, the researcher will conduct a study titled An evaluation of the
coursebook “Solutions Upper-intermediate” for tenth-grade English majors at
FLSS, ULIS, VNU. This research will acquaint teachers and administrators at FLSS
with a general picture about the content and language skills of this material in the
eyes of their students after collecting and analyzing data. Following that, the
impetus for improvements which suit students‟ levels and expectations is evident.

1


1.2. Aims and objectives
Aims
By doing this study, the author wishes to find out students‟ and teachers‟ evaluation
on the coursebook with the focus on the suitability of the content and language
skills for the students‟ language levels and general expectations. From that, the
learning and teaching situation will be identified and some recommendations about
adaptation appropriate to the learners will be made, which aims at improving the
quality of language teaching at FLSS.
Objectives
The achievable goal of the study is to answer the following research questions:
“To what extent does the coursebook suit tenth-grade English majors‟ levels in
terms of the content and language skills?”
“To what extent does the coursebook match tenth-grade English majors‟ general
expectations of the coursebook in terms of the content and language skills?”
1.3. Significance
The undertaking of this research has a profound significance for FLSS. Evaluative
feedback from the students and the teachers will help teachers and those in positions
of authority at FLSS have a better understanding about the learning and teaching
situation. From that, they will have necessary improvements for English course in
the future.

1.4. Scope
Firstly, this paper will highlight the suitability of the content and language skills for
students‟ levels and expectations of the coursebook. Due to this, other criteria to
evaluate the coursebook and other factors relating to learners will not be referred to.
Secondly, the study is carried out with tenth-grade English majors at FLSS of the
2014-2015 school year and teachers who are teaching them. Finally, the study is
limited to judging the coursebook “Solutions Upper-intermediate” – Student‟s book
so that its companying teacher‟s book and workbook will not be mentioned.

2


1.5. Methodology
In order to achieve the objectives of this thesis, qualitative and quantitative research
methods are employed. Data are collected from the students through questionnaires
and from the teachers through interviews. The questionnaire is designed to gather
data about the students‟ ideas on the intended criteria. Information gained from
interviews with the teachers will be taken notes, analyzed and used for providing
more information.
1.6. Organization of the thesis
Chapter 1 “Introduction” is an overview of all main contents of this study.
Chapter 2 “Literature review” presents a review of literature concentrating on the
definitions of coursebook, evaluation, and materials evaluation. After that, types of
and purposes materials evaluation, textbook evaluation methods, and criteria for
evaluating coursebook are shown. Finally, some previous studies are mentioned.
Chapter 3 “Methodology” has the first part about the course, the coursebook, the
students and the teachers at FLSS. The second part includes participants, data
collection instruments and data collection process and analysis.
Chapter 4 “Results and discussion” reports the result of analysing data from
collected questionnaires, interviews and discuss them.

Chapter 5 “Conclusion” summarizes all the main issues mentioned in the study. It
consists of the conclusion of the research, recommendations based on the research,
limitations of the research and suggestions for further studies.

3


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter clarifies key terms which are encountered in this thesis. It aims at
evaluating the coursebook “Solutions Upper-intermediate”; therefore, it would be
reasonable that the theories of “coursebook”, and “evaluation” emerged first before
the concept “materials evaluation”. After that, purposes, types and methods of
materials evaluation will be referred. Next, “Criteria” includes the criteria have been
suggested and what will be used in this thesis. The last part is “Previous studies”.
2.1. Definition of coursebook
The coursebook has become a significant part of ELT and it has contributed
enormously to the teaching and learning of English (Hutchinson & Torres, as cited
in Tomlinson, 2003). In order words, it is the visible heart of any ELT program
(Sheldon, 1988).
“Coursebook” is considered as a different name of “textbook” by both McGrath
(2002) and Tomlison (1998). Tomlinson states that it is “a textbook which provides
the core materials for a course” (p. ix). In his opinion, such book is the only book
which the learners need and it consists of some fundamental parts such as grammar,
vocabulary, pronunciation, functions and four language skills (listening, speaking,
reading and writing). In addition, he shows that 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-Rom, a
video, a photocopied handout, a newspaper, a paragraph written on a white board”
(Tomlinson, 1998, p. xi). Accordingly, a textbook is a form of language teaching

materials and McGrath also consents to this. Textbook is a kind of text materials
and a coursebook is “a textbook on which a course is based” (McGrath, 2002, p. 7).
Hence, the terms “textbook”, “coursebook” and “materials” in this thesis are used
interchangeably for the convenience of explanation and the repetition avoidance.

4


2.2. Definition of evaluation
In an educational setting, evaluation is “a process of collecting, analyzing and
interpreting information about teaching and learning so as to make informed
decisions that enhance student achievement and the success of educational
programs” (Rea-Dickins & Germaine, 1993; Genesee & Upshur, 1996; O‟Malley &
Valdez-Pierce, 1996, as cited in Carter & Nunan, 2001, p. 144). In order to make
the definition of evaluation clearer, three following characteristics are given by
Genesee (as cited in Carter & Nunan, 2001, p. 144). He asserts that evaluation can
concentrate on various aspects of teaching and learning. What is more, evaluation
can be made for different reasons and the reasons impact in substantial ways.
Finally, evaluation consists of four components:

Articulate
purposes for
evaluation

Identify and
collect relevant
information

Make
decisions

Analyse and
interpret
information

Figure 1: Four basic components of evaluation

5


From the figure above, the purpose of the evaluation is first mentioned. After that,
the relevant information is identified and collected. Next, the collected information
is analysed and interpreted before any decisions are made.
One of examples which Genesee (as cited in Carter & Nunan, 2001) gave is as
follows:
The English Language Institute at Central University, South Africa offers courses in oral and
written English for business purposes to adult non-native speakers of English whose
employers want to transfer them to international operations. They have designed an
evaluation to decide whether to continue using them in the coming year. Questionnaires will
be used to collect feedback from the students, their teachers and their employers. (p. 144)

This evaluation is comprised of four main components, including the purpose of
the evaluation to decide whether to continue using courses in oral and written
English in the coming year, relevant information (feedback from students, teachers
and employers), the interpretation of the feedback, and decisions made on whether
the materials should be kept or rejected.
In this thesis, the evaluation also consists of four parts as follows:


The purpose of the evaluation to identify the current situation and to

have suitable changes in the coursebook,


Relevant information (feedback from students and teachers),



The interpretation of the feedback,



Decisions made about what can be adapted.

2.3. Definition of materials evaluation
Materials evaluation has become such a crucial activity that has attracted the
attention of several linguistic researchers with various definitions.
“Evaluation is a matter of judging the fitness of something for a particular purpose”
(Hutchinson & Waters, 1987, p. 96). The authors does not consider the evaluation
as an activity to find out what is good or bad of the material, just the suitability of
something for a purpose. Furthermore, making materials evaluation is considered as
“a procedure that involves measuring the value (or potential value) of a set of
learning material. It involves making judgements about the effect of the materials

6


on the people using them” (Tomlinson, 2003, p. 15). This process measures, for
instance, the appeal of the materials to the learners, the ability of the materials to
interest the learners and the teachers and so forth (Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2004).

Tomlinson (2003) also indicates that there is a distinction between an evaluation
and an analysis. He explains that an evaluation concentrates on the users of the
materials and an evaluator will make judgements about their effect on the users.
This process is subjective. An analysis focuses on the materials only and this way is
objective. Littlejohn (1998, as cited in Tomlinson, 2003) also agrees with this
separation.
While Hutchinson, Waters and Tomlinson just mention what materials evaluation is,
Brown (1995) adds the benefits of this process in his definition. Textbook
evaluation is the collection and analysis of all relevant information in a systematic
way necessary to improve a curriculum and assess its effectiveness within a certain
context.
From the above definitions, this research highlights some following aspects:


Judging the fitness of the content and language skills of the

coursebook for the students‟ levels and expectations,


Making judgements about the effect of the material on the users

(tenth-grade English majors),


Promoting the improvement of the English coursebook at FLSS,



Evaluating within the specific context which is at FLSS.

2.4. Types of materials evaluation
Two ways of categorization suggested by Ellis (as cited in Tomlinson, 1998),
Tomlinson (2003), McGrath (2002) and Cunningsworth (1995) are mentioned in the
existing literature. The first way, according to Ellis, is based on the aspects of
evaluation whereas in the second one, Tomlinson, McGrath and Cunningsworth
divide the process into 3 types built on 3 stages of evaluation. These two methods of
classification complement each other to help the evaluator have a full view of
materials evaluation.

7


Firstly, Ellis divides materials evaluation into macro-evaluation and microevaluation. As shown in the article “The evaluation of communicative tasks”, they
have some differences as follows:
Program/project evaluation

Administrative matters

Curricular matters

Macro-

Materials

Teacher

Learner

evaluation

evaluation

evaluation

evaluation

task
evaluation,
etc.

evaluation of
questioning
practices, etc.

Microevaluation

timetable
evaluation
, etc.

evaluation of
levels of
participation, etc.

Figure 2: Macro and micro-evaluation in language teaching
Marco-evaluation can be defined as evaluation that seeks to answer one or both of the
following questions:
1. To what extent was the program/project effective and efficient in meeting its goals?
2. In what way can the program/project be improved?
(As cited in Tomlinson, 1998, p. 218)

He claims that the implementation of a macro-evaluation of a program or project
involves collecting various kinds of information relating to administrative matters
and/or curriculum matters (materials, teachers, and learners).
Micro-evaluation, according to Ellis (as cited in Tomlinson, 1998, p. 219), “is
characterized by a narrow-focus on some specific aspects of the curriculum or the
administration of the program.”

As can be seen from the figure, timetable

evaluation, task evaluation, evaluation of questioning practices, and evaluation of
levels of participants are examples of this type.

8


The second way mentioned by Tomlinson (2003), McGrath (2002) and
Cunningsworth (1995) shows that there are three types of materials evaluation,
including pre-use, in-use or whilst-use, and post-use evaluation. This means that the
evaluation can take place before a coursebook is used, during its use and after its
use respectively.
2.4.1. Pre-use evaluation
As shown by Tomlinson (2003), evaluators predict about the potential value of
language teaching materials for their users. It can be context-free, contextinfluenced or context-dependent. Pre-used evaluation is often impressionistic and a
teacher can gain a quick impression of its potential value. Nonetheless, in order to
reduce subjectivity and make the evaluation more principled, evaluators can
establish an evaluation criterion. As commented by Cunningsworth (1995), this is
the most challenging kind of evaluation. The reason is that teachers and learners
have not been working through the coursebook for some time. Thus, they cannot
make a good evaluation of that book.

2.4.2. In-use evaluation or whilst-use evaluation
According to Tomlinson (2003, p. 24), in-use evaluation means “measuring the
value of materials while using them or while observing them being used”; therefore,
this process is less subjective than pre-use evaluation. However, it is a fact that
people only can measure what is observable.
Tomlinson includes what can be measured in an in-use evaluation as follows: clarity
of instructions, clarity of layout, comprehensibility of texts, credibility of tasks,
achievability of tasks, achievement of performance objectives, potential for
localization, practicality of the materials, teachability of the materials, flexibility of
the materials, appeal of the materials, motivating power of the materials, impact of
the materials, and effectiveness in facilitating short-term learning.
2.4.3. Post-use evaluation
Post-use evaluation is considered by Tomlinson (2003, p. 25) as “the most valuable
type of evaluation as it can measure the actual effects of the materials on the users”.

9


He points out that this process can answer some huge questions below:


What do the learners know which they did not know before starting to use the

materials?


What do the learners still not know despite using the materials?



What can the learners do which they could not do before starting to use the

materials?


What can the learners still not do despite using the materials?



To what extent have the materials prepared the learners for their examinations? (p.

25)

He also indicates methods of measuring the post-use effects of materials including:


tests of what has been „taught‟ by the materials;



tests of what the students can do;



examinations;



interview;



questionnaires;



criterion – referenced evaluations by the users;



post – course diaries;



post – course „shadowing‟ of the learners;



post – course reports on the learners by employers, subject tutors, etc. (p. 25)

The main problem is that it takes time and expertise to measure post-use effects
reliably. However, as shown by Cunningsworth, this type of evaluation can be
useful for identifying strengths or weaknesses of the coursebook over a period of
continuous use. It can be useful in helping to decide whether to use the same
coursebook in the future.
This study belongs to micro-evaluation and the post-use evaluation method is used
to carry out the evaluation to collect useful information about real effects of the
coursebook on the students.
2.5. Purposes of materials evaluation
There are various reasons for materials evaluation.

10


The first reason is to select a new suitable material, which is the frequent and major
reason for evaluation as shown by Cunningsworth (1995), Hutchinson and Waters
(1987) and Ellis (1997). Secondly, thanks to the materials evaluation, teachers can
be aware of their teaching and learning situation (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987).
Finally, teachers can identify strengths and weaknesses of in-use coursebook in
order that strong points can be made use of and weak points can be substituted or
adapted (Cunningsworth, 1995) or decide whether to continue using the material or
to replace it with a better material (Ellis, 1997).
By virtue of the materials evaluation in this current research, teachers and
administrators at FLSS can understand their teaching and learning situation.
Furthermore, suitable and unsuitable points to the students‟ levels and expectations
will be identified and inappropriate ones will be substituted or adapted.
2.6. Methods of textbook evaluation
Three methods for evaluating textbooks identified by McGrath (2002) include the
impressionistic method, the checklist method, and the in-depth method.
2.6.1. The impressionistic method
This method is “to obtain a general impression of the material” (McGrath, 2002, p.
25). Cunningsworth (1995, p. 1, as cited in McGrath, 2002, p. 25) uses the term
“impressionistic overview” for this method which suggests that it is “wide-ranging
but relatively superficial.” He shows that in the case of global textbooks, when
using this method, evaluators will skim through the publisher‟s “blurb” (i.e. the
brief description of the book on the back cover), the content page, organization,
layout, topics, and visuals. Therefore, it is inadequate if it intends for textbook
evaluation and selection.
2.6.2. The checklist method
A checklist consists of “list of items which is referred to for comparison,

identification or verification” (Collins English Dictionary, 1992, as cited in
McGrath, 2002, p. 26). The use of checklists for specific evaluation purposes has at
least four following benefits:

11


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 decision-making.

(McGrath, 2002, p. 27)

The systematicity of the checklist method ranks the first among all the advantages.

It is well brought out by Skierso (1991, p. 440, as cited in McGrath, 2002):
A textbook evaluation checklist should consist of a comprehensive set of criteria based on
the basic linguistic, psychological, and pedagogical principles underlying modern methods
of language learning. These criteria should be exhaustive enough to insure assessment of
all characteristics of the textbook. And they should be discrete enough to focus attention on
one characteristic at a time or on a single group of related characteristics (Tucker, 1978, p.
219)

However, this method also has its limitations. Firstly, the systematicity is only
strength if the criteria of which a checklist is composed are relevant to the specific
context in which it is used. Secondly, a checklist cannot be a statistic phenomenon
as indicated by Williams (1983, as cited in McGrath 2002, p. 27). This means that
the categories in the checklist are “a reflection of the time at which they were
conceived and of the beliefs of their designer.”
2.6.3. The in-depth method
In-depth techniques are explained by McGrath (2002, p. 27-28) as follows:
“go beneath the publisher‟s and author‟s claims to look at, for instance, the kind of language
description, underlying assumptions about learning or values on which the materials are
based on.”

In a broader sense, this method explores whether the materials are likely to live up
to the claims being made for them.
McGrath argues that while such techniques ensure that the selection process is a
more considered affair, they may also have certain disadvantages:

12


1. Representativeness of samples: the samples (e.g. exercises, lessons, units) selected
for analysis may not be representative of the book as a whole, and this may therefore

distort any judgment.
2. Partiality: because in-depth analysis is normally narrowly focused (being based
either on a particular section of the material or one or more threads running through it).
It gives only a partial insight into what the material offers.
3. Time and expertise required: some proposals for in-depth evaluation would
involve a good deal of time; others require expert knowledge (e.g. of language
description) that is not available. Though it can be argued that the time spent on
evaluation is well spent if a potentially unsuitable textbook is rejected, there may be
more economical ways of arriving at this decision. (p. 28)

In this thesis, the checklist method is chosen for evaluating the coursebook
“Solutions Upper-intermediate” because it is cost effective and convenient for the
researcher. Additionally, the advantages of this method when applied in this
research paper overweigh its disadvantages. Two potential limitations are not true in
the case of this research. This study only evaluates the coursebook used for tenthgrade English major students at FLSS in the 2014-2015 school year; therefore, the
criteria in the checklist are relevant to the context in which it is used. The categories
in the checklist reflect the time at which the study is undertaken, which is obvious.
2.7. Criteria for materials evaluation
A set of criteria for evaluation is a basis to “reach a decision regarding what to be
evaluated” (Tomlinson, 1998, p. 220). This means they are the foundation on which
evaluators base when making judgments. Accordingly, one of the most crucial steps
that evaluators should spend time on is determining evaluation criteria.
According to Dudley-Evans and John (2007), criteria for materials evaluation
depend on what is being evaluated and the reason why they need to be evaluated. A
number of experts such as Cunningsworth (1995), Hutchison and Waters (1987),
Tomlinson (2003) and MOET (2015) have tried to establish practical checklists on
textbook evaluation.

13

Cunningsworth (1995) suggests a list of checklists covering seven areas: Aims and
approaches; design and organization; language content; skills; topic; methodology;
teachers‟ books and practical considerations.
Tomlinson (2003) agrees that material evaluation is a procedure to measure some or
all of the aspects such as: appeal to learners; credibility to learners, teachers and
administrators; validity; reliability; ability to interest learners; ability to motivate
learners; short-term and long-term learning value; learners‟ and teachers‟ perception
of the value of the material; assistance given to teachers in terms of preparation,
delivery and assessment, and so on.
MOET (2015) suggests a checklist (see appendix 1) for the process of evaluating
materials, which is composed of 45 criteria under 4 main headings:


Objectives, teaching principles and methodology (from item 1 to 10):

focus on the aims of the coursebook corresponding with the aims of the
teaching program and the methods of teaching


Design and organization (from item 11 to 18): give an overview of the

organizational foundation of the coursebook through its cover, introduction
and table of contents statements, visuals, book size and weight


Content and language skills (from item 19 to 42): concentrate on

topics, content, four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and
writing), the language content (vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation)



Textbook user supports (from item 43 to 45): mean evaluating the

supplementary materials.
To evaluate the coursebook “Solutions Upper-intermediate”, the author is going to
apply the criteria adapted from a tentative checklist for textbook evaluation of
MOET (2015). The checklist is undeniably appreciated by the evaluator in this
thesis because of its clear-cut and coherent criteria and its suitability in the
Vietnamese context. As shown by Tomlinson (2003), coursebook criteria are
emphatically local and no one is really certain what criteria can be applied in ELT
contexts worldwide. In detail, this study focuses on the evaluation on general

14


learning-teaching content, language skills (Listening, speaking, reading and writing)
and language content (grammar and vocabulary). Pronunciation is not evaluated
because it is not covered in this coursebook.
2.8. Previous studies on materials evaluation
The author would like to mainly mention several of works which investigate the
same field with this thesis - materials evaluation.
First of all, the author Isil Cakit (2006) evaluated the coursebook “New Bridge to
Success 3” from the perspectives of the teachers and students. This study was
conducted at four high schools, three of which are Super Lycees and one of which is
an Anatolian Fine Arts in the province of Mersin, Turkey. The evaluation of the
textbook was conducted at macro level on the basis of eleven criteria. In the review
of literature, the author mentioned roles of textbooks, approaches to materials
evaluation in ELT, models for the evaluation of materials, and criteria for materials
evaluation. Both quantitative and qualitative data were obtained through student

questionnaires administered to 336 students and interviews with 8 teachers. The
results revealed that both teachers and students felt negative about the most of the
characteristics of the textbook. The majority of the students and all the teachers
mentioned that the level of the textbook was not appropriate for the particular age
group. It also indicated that the materials failed to consider learning style
preferences of the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learner. On the other hand, one
of the strengths of the textbook was up-to-date and helpful for the students to
understand the lessons.
The material “Lifelines” for the first-year non-English major students was appraised
by Tran Thi Chung Oanh (2010) at Hai Phong University. The author adopted the
criteria of Hutchison and Waters (1987) and employed questionnaires and informal
interviews as the research instruments. Major findings of the study revealed that the
material‟s content and methodology suited the students‟ requirements but there was
some mis-match in time allocation. Finally, the suggestions for the material

15