Evaluation of 7th Grade English Coursebook in Iran from Teachers’ and Students’ Perspective
AliReza Asadi
1
(
Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Bahcesihir University, Istanbul, Turkey
)
Enisa MEDE
2
(
Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey
)
الکلمات المفتاحية: Course-book, Course-book Evaluation, Evaluation, Materials.,
ملخص المقالة :
The pivotal role of English language textbook in language pedagogy is widely recognized by language teachers in various ESL and EFL contexts. English learners usually face difficulty in attaining EGP due to the traditional reliance on old approaches in designing course-books and generally outdated teaching methodologies. To fulfill this gap, a new course-book, based on a communicative approach, was introduced for the seventh grade in public high schools in Iran during the academic year 2013-2014. The present research, a mix-method comparative study, aims at evaluating this new English course-book. Specifically, it attempts to investigate the effectiveness of the course-book from the students’ and teachers’ perspective. Data were obtained through a 50-item five-point Likert Scale questionnaire. Interviews were administered to two groups of participants in order to collect qualitative data. The quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS 20.0, and the qualitative data, once analyzed using MAXQDA, was also quantified and analyzed by SPSS v 20.0. Students’ Mean for the Teacher Textbook Evaluation Form is 2.77. Teachers’ Mean for the same form is 3.33. The Mean value for the quantified, qualitative data is 2.33. In the researcher’s assessment, these Mean values clearly signify that the majority of participants were not satisfied with the overall efficacy of the reviewed features of the textbook. This calls for revision of the current coursebook. The findings of the present research, reflecting the assessed and analyzed views of both students and teachers, could be found of interest – and use - to textbook designers and policy makers.
Evaluation of 7th Grade English Coursebook in Iran from Teachers’ and Students’ Perspective
AliReza Asadi, Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Bahcesihir University, Istanbul, Turkey
Enisa MEDE, Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Bahcesihir University, Istanbul, Turkey
enisa.mede@bau.edu.tr
Received: 2024/07/06 Revised: 2024/09/13 Accepted: 2024/10/26
Abstract
The pivotal role of English language textbook in language pedagogy is widely recognized by language teachers in various English as a Second Language and English as a Foreign Language contexts. As for the Iranian English as a Foreign Language context, English learners usually face tremendous difficulty in attaining EGP due to the traditional reliance on old approaches in designing course-books and generally out-dated teaching methodologies. To fulfill this gap, a new course-book, based on a communicative approach, was introduced for the seventh grade in public high schools in Iran during the academic year 2013-2014. The present research, a mix-method comparative study, aims at evaluating this new English course-book. Specifically, it attempts to investigate the effectiveness of the course-book from the students’ and teachers’ perspective. Data were obtained through a 50-item five-point Likert Scale questionnaire. Semi-structured interviews were administered to two groups of participants in order to collect qualitative data. The quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS 20.0, and the qualitative data, once analyzed using MAXQDA, was also quantified and analyzed by SPSS v 20.0. Students’ Mean for the Teacher Textbook Evaluation Form is 2.77. Teachers’ Mean for the same form is 3.33. The Mean value for the quantified, qualitative data is 2.33. In the researcher’s assessment, these Mean values clearly signify that the majority of participants were not satisfied with the overall efficacy of the reviewed features of the textbook. This calls for revision of the current coursebook. The findings of the present research, reflecting the assessed and analyzed views of both students and teachers, could be found of interest – and use - to textbook designers and policy makers.
Keywords: Course-book; Course-book Evaluation; Evaluation; Materials.
INTRODUCTION
Textbooks play a fundamental role in any educational system. Language teaching rarely happens in an educational environment without a textbook. Grant (1987) points out that coursebooks try to solve the problem by creating opportunities for learners to use the target language in the classroom – as a sort of “halfway house” before using it in real life.
Due to a number of factors in the modern world, English language has evolved into the most commonly spoken language across the world. This is despite the fact that English does not have the largest number of speakers in the world. Hence, it is of utmost importance for curriculum developers to devise a solid English language foundation for students. Use of effective materials constitutes an important part of such an effort.
Iran, unlike many other countries during the modern centuries, was never a formal colony. Therefore, English never became its second language. Despite the fact that English is used on a daily basis by millions of Iranians of different walks of life, it is still taught as a foreign language.
Due to the vital role of materials in the process of language learning, and considering the rather widespread critique within the educational system of the English textbooks used in Iran in recent years, the present study has chosen to conduct research on the newly-designed high school coursebook, English for Schools, PROSPECT 1 authored by Dr. Alavi Moqaddam in 2013. Teaching English is part of the high school education in Iran, and students take English for six years. However, high school graduates are generally weak in general English.
Theoretical Framework
According to Hutchinson and Torres (1994), efficient material provides a good deal of facilitative input to trigger constructive activities in classrooms. Even rapid, qualitative advances in technology and development of multi-purpose material for learning and teaching aims have not undermined the status and importance of coursebook in language pedagogy.
The rationale for any assessment is to discover the strengths and weaknesses, and coursebooks are often evaluated in order to improve their effectiveness. Sheldon (1988) has offered several reasons for textbook evaluation. He suggests that the selection of an ELT textbook often signals an important administrative and educational decision in which there is considerable professional, financial, or even political investment. A thorough evaluation, therefore, would enable the management and teaching staff of a specific institution or organization to improve their current coursebooks and remedy possible demerits.
A host of checklists have been developed by different researchers for such an evaluation. For the immediate purpose of this study, the three complementary criteria checklists adapted from McDonough and Shaw (2003) have been used to evaluate the effectiveness and functionality of the English coursebook taught at seventh grade of public high schools in Iran. The findings of this study could shed light on material development for improving the efficiency of teachers and increases the proficiency for high school students in Iran.
The Problem
Despite significant changes in teaching approaches and methods at the international level in recent years, English learners in Iran usually face tremendous difficulty in attaining English for General Purposes (EGP) due to the traditional reliance on out-dated approaches in designing coursebooks as well as generally out-dated methodologies used by the teachers.
After six years of learning English, most high school graduates are generally poor in general English (Ghorbani, 2009). This is mainly due to the fact that the highly standardized national tests force both teachers and learners to focus on formal grammatical features of English in order to perform well in the exams.
The new coursebook is somewhat different from previous ones, has been designed according to the communicative approach, which “is based on the idea that learning language successfully comes through having to communicate real meaning. When learners are involved in real communication, their natural strategies for language acquisition will be used, and this will allow them to learn to use the language.” (British Council website) However, as a newly introduced coursebook, it is still difficult and premature to evaluate its effectiveness and functionality.
Having this in mind, the present study aims to evaluate the newly introduced coursebook in light of the three complementary criteria; that is, external, internal, and overall evaluation. External evaluation involves assessment of materials where the cover, the introduction and the table of contents are investigated. Internal evaluation involves a more detailed in-depth assessment of the material whose main purpose is to investigate whether the components examined in the external evaluation stage match with the tasks in the materials. And overall evaluation contains a general assessment of the suitability of the materials (McDonough and Shaw, 2003).
The ultimate goal of the research is premised on the hope that its findings could be used by material developers, language teachers, and students studying English in high schools in Iran.
Research Questions
Given the importance of the subject of research, this study addressed the following two questions:
RQ. What are the students’ and teachers’ perceptions in relation to using English for Schools, PROSPECT 1 at a seventh grade EFL classroom in Iran? And
RQ2. What are the necessary changes needed to improve the quality of this specific textbook?
Research Hypothesis
The following null hypothesis was hence formulated:
H0: There is no significant difference between the students‟ and teachers‟ perspective about the instructional value of English for Schools PROSPECT 1.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The role of textbook in the EFL classroom
In many language programs, and particularly in countries where English is taught as a second or foreign language, textbooks play a crucial role. “In some situations, they serve as the basis for much of the language input learners receive and the language practice that occurs in the classroom. In other situations, the textbook may serve primarily to supplement the teacher’s instruction. For learners, the textbook may provide the major source of contact they have with the language apart from input provided by the teacher” Richards, J.C., (2012). Textbooks often create a framework for teachers and provide meaningful input for learners. Hence, it is of utmost importance to know the role of the textbook in any language program.
Cunningsworth (1995) summarized the role of textbooks in language teaching as:
· A resource for presentation of materials (spoken and written);
· A source of activities for learners 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 (where they reflect learning objectives that have already been determined);
· A resource for self-directed learning or self-access work; and
· A support for less experienced teachers who have yet to gain in confidence.
Arguments for and against using textbooks
The use of textbooks in a teaching-learning atmosphere, like other materials, has both proponents and opponents. A textbook has always been the most preferred instructional material in ELT. They are best seen as a resource in achieving the aims and objectives that have already been set concerning learner needs (Cunningsworth, 1995).
In the process of teaching and learning, textbooks play a pivotal role and they are mostly the primary agents of conveying the knowledge of the learners. Besides, one of the basic functions of textbooks is to make the existence knowledge available and apparent to the learner in a selected, easy and organized manner.
Hutchinson and Torres (1994) argue that the textbook has a very important and positive part to play in teaching and learning English. Contrary to their view, the present researcher believes that a suitable and well-designed textbook can play such a role if it meets with the demands and needs of the learner.
As indicated by Ur (1996), a textbook provides a clear framework. It clarifies what needs to be done; students will know what to expect and where they are heading in the process of learning. Sharing the same viewpoint, Richards (2001) states that without textbooks a program may have no path, therefore they provide structure and a syllabus. The use of a textbook in a program can also guarantee that students in different classes will receive a similar content and therefore can be evaluated similarly. In other words, textbooks provide the standards in instruction.
Moreover, they include a variety of learning resources such as workbooks, CDs and cassettes, videos, etc., which make the learning environment interesting and enjoyable for the learners. As for inexperienced teachers, Richards (2001) believes that textbooks can serve as a training tool. Finally, he concludes that textbooks are efficient in that they allow much time for the teacher to focus on teaching rather than material production.
In contrast with the forgoing brief review of the advantages a coursebook has for a language teacher and the vital role it plays in language pedagogy, a number of well-known ELT experts, including Swales (1980), Allwright (1981), and Harwood (2005) argue against the beneficial role of textbook in ELT context. In their view, the textbook usage can not only cause educational failure (Swales 1980), it could also have “strong” and “weak” demerits (Harwood 2005, p.154).
Empirical studies on textbook evaluation
Several studies have highlighted the importance of textbook evaluation in ESL and EFL contexts. Aytug (2007), for example, evaluated teachers’ attitudes towards the New Bridges to Success for 9th Grade New Beginners (NBS) textbook and the main characteristics of a model ELT textbook designed for High School students in Ankara, Turkey. Sixty English teachers from 13 different Anatolian High Schools in Ankara took part in the study. A questionnaire was used and 12 teachers were also interviewed for qualitative data collection. According to the analysis, the teachers’ evaluations reflected both agreement and disagreement with respect to the features of the textbook. The findings also showed that researcher’s own observations of the textbook elements corresponded to the teachers’ evaluations.
In a parallel study, Lawrence (2011) conducted research, attempting to propose a framework on how curriculum fitness of textbooks can be evaluated. The theoretical framework was then empirically tested by engaging in a post-use textbook evaluation with local teachers within the Hong Kong ELT environment. A checklist was designed and was first piloted with two in-service NSS English teachers. Two separate interviews were then conducted to collect qualitative data. The textbook under evaluation was “Theme Book” of the NSS ELECT series authored by John Potter, Sarah Rigby, Kitty Wong (2010), Pearson Longman.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The present study is a mixed-method study, intending to evaluate the effectiveness and functionality of the 7th grade English coursebook taught at public high schools in Iran from the perspective of teachers and students. The primary data were derived from the response to a questionnaire given by participants.
This research seeks to gather information about the perceptions of teachers and learners about the English textbook. The emphasis of the research is on description rather than on judgment or interpretation. The researcher provided detailed description of all the necessary figures, aiming to verify a formulated hypothesis by analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data. The researcher used IBM SPSS Statistics, version 20, to analyze the quantitative data collected from the teacher textbook evaluation form.
Each item of the teacher textbook evaluation form was further explored in the descriptive statistics of the analyzed table. Case Processing Summary, Descriptive table, and Test of Normality for each item are illustrated. Histogram and Normal Q-Q Plot graph of each item were also illustrated along with a detailed analysis. An independent T-test was run for each item, followed by an in-depth description and analysis of each item. The qualitative data was analyzed using MAXQDA. The data were code segmented. For interpreting the codes of each section, the researcher grouped the codes into a three-point Likert scale item of satisfied, partially satisfied, and dissatisfied. This item was then analyzed in IBM SPSS Statistics, version 20.
Participants and Setting
Twenty-five students at 7th grade in public high schools took part in this study. 44 were male and 8 were female. The male students studied at Fazilat public high school, in the 4th District of Tehran, and the female participants studied at Karime public high school, located in the 2nd District of Tehran. In addition to students, 30 high school teachers also took part in the study. Teachers filled out the 5-point Likert scale questionnaire, and were also asked to answer the open-ended questions. Teachers who took part in this study were teaching at public high schools in the 2nd, 4th, and 6th Educational District of Tehran.
Instruments
For the purposes of this study, two different instruments were used. A 50-item 5point Likert scale included 48 items of 5-point Likert scale, and 2 questions asking for additional comments were administered to both students and teachers using the book. The questionnaire, adapted from Arıkan (2008), aimed at evaluating the effectiveness and functionality of the English coursebook under consideration. The questionnaire consisted of the following six sections: layout and design, activities, language skills, language type, subject and content, and further opinion (see Appendix A).
The questionnaire was translated and administered in Persian in order for the participants to better understand each item. Semi-structured interview questions were also constructed. The interview questions were parallel to the questionnaire items (See Appendix B). The interview questions were also translated and administered in Persian. Both, the questionnaire and the semi-structured interview questions were back-translated.In order to secure the reliability of the questionnaire, and measuring the internal consistency of the questionnaire, the Cronbach’s Alpha formula was used. The result for reliability was 0.853, which appears to be high enough to ensure internal reliability. The 5-point Likert scale was piloted to 25 students of 7th grade high school students in an Education District in Tehran, Iran.
RESULTS
Results of Quantitative Data
The research provided a thorough description of the analyzed data. Due to the space limitation, the researcher only provides the findings of the first question of each section of the Teacher textbook evaluation Form. The total population’s Mean value, and what he tends to conclude from the following figure.
Findings for total participants
Descriptive Statistics for Teachers | |||
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation |
MeanValue | 30 | 3.3326 | .52843 |
Valid N (listwise) | 30 |
|
|
Descriptive Statistics for Students | |||
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation |
MeanValue | 52 | 2.7711 | .53166 |
Valid N (listwise) | 52 |
|
|
Group Statistics | |||||
| Role | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean |
MeanValue | Student | 52 | 2.7711 | .53166 | .07373 |
Teacher | 30 | 3.3326 | .52843 | .09648 | |
| t-test for Equality of Means | |||||||||||||
t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||||||||
Lower | Upper | |||||||||||||
Total Population | Equal variances assumed | 4.6171 | 80 | 0.0001 | -.0.561500 | 0.122 | -0.803519 | -0.319481 | ||||||
Item #1: The textbook includes a detailed overview of the functions, structures and vocabulary that will be taught in each unit.
Descriptives | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Role | Statistic | Std. Error | ||||||||||||||||||
Layout and Design 01 | Student | Mean | 3.1538 | .18296 | |||||||||||||||||
Std. Deviation | 1.31931 |
| |||||||||||||||||||
Teacher | Mean | 3.4667 | .23358 | ||||||||||||||||||
Std. Deviation | 1.27937 |
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Normal Q-Q Plots | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
T-Test (Item #1)
Group Statistics | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Role | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |||||||||||||||||
Layout and Design 01 | Student | 52 | 3.1538 | 1.31931 | .18296 | |||||||||||||||||
Teacher | 30 | 3.4667 | 1.27937 | .23358 | ||||||||||||||||||
Independent Samples Test | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Levene's Test for Equality of Variances | t-test for Equality of Means | ||||||||||||||||||||
F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||||||||||||||
Lower | Upper | |||||||||||||||||||||
Layout and Design 01 | Equal variances assumed | .044 | .834 | -1.046 | 80 | .299 | -.31282 | .29919 | -.90823 | .28258 | ||||||||||||
Equal variances not assumed |
|
| -1.054 | 62.189 | .296 | -.31282 | .29670 | -.90588 | .28024 | |||||||||||||
Frequency Table (Item #1): Layout and Design 01 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||||||||||||||||||
Valid | I TOTALLY AGREE | 6 | 7.3 | 7.3 | 7.3 | |||||||||||||||||
I AGREE | 25 | 30.5 | 30.5 | 37.8 | ||||||||||||||||||
I AM NOT SURE | 10 | 12.2 | 12.2 | 50.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
I DON'T AGREE | 23 | 28.0 | 28.0 | 78.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
I DON'T AGREE AT ALL | 18 | 22.0 | 22.0 | 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total | 82 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| ||||||||||||||||||
The result of the conducted t-test illustrates that all of the teachers answered item #1 with a Mean of 3.46, and Standard Deviation of 1.27. All of the students also answered this item with a Mean of 3.15, and Standard Deviation of 1.31. As seen in the gathered data (t(80)=-1.04, p=.299), the observed value of t is less than its critical value, therefore, the H0 is not rejected.
In an attempt to support the quantitative data, teacher’s frequency histogram for the first item illustrates that more than 56% of teachers do not think that the textbook includes a detailed overview of the functions, structures and vocabulary that will be taught in each unit. 10% of teachers were not sure about it, and more than 33% of teachers think that the textbook includes a detailed overview of the functions, structures and vocabulary that will be taught in each unit.
Furthermore, the total population frequency histogram for the first item clarifies that 50% of participants do not think that the textbook includes a detailed overview of the functions, structures and vocabulary that will be taught in each unit. 12.2% were not sure about it and 37.8% think that that the textbook includes a detailed overview of the functions, structures and vocabulary that will be taught in each unit. The frequency table shows the same data as in the frequency histogram, but in a numerical format.
Moreover, according to the student’s frequency histogram for the first item, more than 46% of students do not think that the textbook includes a detailed overview of the functions, structures and vocabulary that will be taught in each unit. More than 13% of students were not sure about it, and more than 40% of students think that the textbook includes a detailed overview of the functions, structures and vocabulary that will be taught in each unit.
As for the teacher's frequency histogram, only one teacher has chosen the 'I totally agree' in the evaluation form. On the contrary, the student's histogram illustrates that students have chosen different answers and the pattern of distribution is more even.
Furthermore, teacher’s and student’s Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the first item shows that there is a normal distribution of answers for all of the observed values. The research claims this because the dots are dispersed close to the straight line. The total population Normal Q-Q Plot graph also for the first item displays a normal distribution of answers for all of the observed values. The research claims this because the dots are dispersed close to the straight line.
Taking into consideration the ratio of teacher and student participants, it can be observed from the Population Pyramid that teachers’ and students’ perceptions about this item is very much similar.
Item #12: The activities encourage sufficient communicative and meaningful practice.
| |||||||||
| Role | Statistic | Std. Error | ||||||
Activities 12 | Student | Mean | 2.7885 | .17441 | |||||
Std. Deviation | 1.25771 |
| |||||||
Teacher | Mean | 3.6667 | .18775 | ||||||
Std. Deviation | 1.02833 |
| |||||||
Descriptives | |||||||||
| Statistic | Std. Error | |||||||
Activities 12 | Mean | 3.1098 | .13774 | ||||||
Std. Deviation | 1.24728 |
| |||||||
|
| ||||||||
Normal Q-Q Plots | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
T-Test (Item #12)
Group Statistics | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Role | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |||||||||||||||||
Activities 12 | Student | 52 | 2.7885 | 1.25771 | .17441 | |||||||||||||||||
Teacher | 30 | 3.6667 | 1.02833 | .18775 | ||||||||||||||||||
Independent Samples Test | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Levene's Test for Equality of Variances | t-test for Equality of Means | ||||||||||||||||||||
F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||||||||||||||
Lower | Upper | |||||||||||||||||||||
Activities 12 | Equal variances assumed | 3.552 | .063 | -3.247 | 80 | .002 | -.87821 | .27047 | -1.41646 | -.33995 | ||||||||||||
Equal variances not assumed |
|
| -3.427 | 70.708 | .001 | -.87821 | .25626 | -1.38921 | -.36720 | |||||||||||||
Frequency Table (Item #12): Activities 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||||||||||||||||||
Valid | I TOTALLY AGREE | 10 | 12.2 | 12.2 | 12.2 | |||||||||||||||||
I AGREE | 19 | 23.2 | 23.2 | 35.4 | ||||||||||||||||||
I AM NOT SURE | 15 | 18.3 | 18.3 | 53.7 | ||||||||||||||||||
I DON'T AGREE | 28 | 34.1 | 34.1 | 87.8 | ||||||||||||||||||
I DON'T AGREE AT ALL | 10 | 12.2 | 12.2 | 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total | 82 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| ||||||||||||||||||
The result of the conducted t-test denotes that all of the teachers answered item # 12 with a Mean of 3.66, and Standard Deviation of 1.02. 49 students answered the item with a Mean of 2.78, and Standard Deviation of 1.25. As seen in the gathered data (t(80)= -3.24, p= 0.002), since the observed value of t is less than its critical value, the H0 is not rejected.
As for the total population frequency histogram for the item, it displays that 46.3% of participants did not think that the activities encourage sufficient communicative and meaningful practice. While 35.4% expressed an opposite view, 34.1% did not express a clear view. The Frequency table shows the same data as in the frequency histogram, but in a numerical format.
Moreover, teacher’s frequency histogram for the item indicates that 70% of teachers did not think that the activities encourage sufficient communicative and meaningful practice. While more than 16% thought the opposite, more than 13% were not sure about it.
Furthermore, student’s frequency histogram for the item shows that more than 46% of the students thought that the activities encourage sufficient communicative and meaningful practice. While more than 32% expressed an opposite view, more than 21% were not sure about it.
In addition, the teacher’s Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the item signifies a normal distribution of answers for the observed values of 2 to 5, since the dots are dispersed close to the straight line. The observed value of 1 is not normally distributed in the answers, since the corresponding dot is a not close to the straight line.
As for the student’s Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the item, it illustrates that there is a normal distribution of answers since the dots are dispersed close to the straight line. For the same reason, the total population Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the item displays a normal distribution of answers for all of the observed values.
Given the ratio of teacher and student participants, it can be observed from the Population Pyramid of the item that teachers and student’s perception about this item is very much similar.
Item #18: The materials include and focus on the skills that I/my students need to practice.
Descriptives | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Role | Statistic | Std. Error | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Skills 18 | Student | Mean | 2.5882 | .16131 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Std. Deviation | 1.15198 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Teacher | Mean | 3.4333 | .21805 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Std. Deviation | 1.19434 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Descriptives | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Statistic | Std. Error | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Skills 18 | Mean | 2.9012 | .13677 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Std. Deviation | 1.23090 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Normal Q-Q Plots | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Group Statistics | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Role | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Skills 18 | Student | 51 | 2.5882 | 1.15198 | .16131 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Teacher | 30 | 3.4333 | 1.19434 | .21805 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Independent Samples Test | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Levene's Test for Equality of Variances | t-test for Equality of Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
F | Sig. | t | Df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lower | Upper | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Skills 18 | Equal variances assumed | .204 | .653 | -3.145 | 79 | .002 | -.84510 | .26868 | -1.37989 | -.31031 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Equal variances not assumed |
|
| -3.116 | 59.151 | .003 | -.84510 | .27124 | -1.38781 | -.30239 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Frequency Table (Item #18): Skills 18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Valid | I TOTALLY AGREE | 9 | 11.0 | 11.1 | 11.1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I AGREE | 29 | 35.4 | 35.8 | 46.9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I AM NOT SURE | 13 | 15.9 | 16.0 | 63.0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I DON'T AGREE | 21 | 25.6 | 25.9 | 88.9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I DON'T AGREE AT ALL | 9 | 11.0 | 11.1 | 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total | 81 | 98.8 | 100.0 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Missing | .00 | 1 | 1.2 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total | 82 | 100.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The result of the conducted t-test displays that all of the teachers answered item # 18 with a Mean of 3.43, and Standard Deviation of 1.19. 51 students answered the item with a Mean of 2.58, and Standard Deviation of 1.15. Based on the gathered data (t(79)= -3.14, p= 0.002), since the observed value of t is less than its critical value, the H0 is not rejected.
As for the total population frequency histogram for the item, it suggests that 46.4% of participants thought that the materials include and focus on the skills that I/my students need to practice. While more than 36.6% expressed the opposite view, 15.9% were not sure about it. The Frequency table shows the same data as in the frequency histogram, but in a numerical format.
Furthermore, teacher’s frequency histogram for the item indicates that more than 56% of teachers did not think the materials include and focus on the skills that I/my students need to practice. Although 30% expressed the opposite view, more than 13% were not sure about it. Only one teacher chose ‘I totally agree’, implying that the 30% who agreed, did not express any categorical agreement.
Moreover, student’s frequency histogram for the item reveals that more than 56% of students thought that the materials include and focus on the skills that I/my students need to practice. Although more than 25% expressed the opposite view, more than 17% did not express a clear view.
Additionally, Teacher’s and student’s Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the item shows that there is a normal distribution of answers since the dots are dispersed close to the straight line. For the same reason, the total population Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the item displays that there is a normal distribution of answers for all of the observed values.
Given the ratio of teacher and student participants, it can be observed from the Population Pyramid of the item that the views of teachers and students about this item were very much different. Most of the students thought that the materials include and focus on the skills that I/my students need to practice.
Item #25: The language used in the textbook is authentic - i.e. like real-life English.
Descriptives | |||||||||
| Role | Statistic | Std. Error | ||||||
Language Type 25 | Student | Mean | 2.5686 | .20437 | |||||
Std. Deviation | 1.45952 |
| |||||||
Teacher | Mean | 3.7000 | .16010 | ||||||
Std. Deviation | .87691 |
| |||||||
Descriptives | |||||||||
| Statistic | Std. Error | |||||||
Language Type 25 | Mean | 2.9877 | .15365 | ||||||
Std. Deviation | 1.38288 |
| |||||||
| Teachers
| ||||||||
Normal Q-Q Plots | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
T-Test (Item #25)
Group Statistics | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Role | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |||||||||||||||||
Language Type 25 | Student | 51 | 2.5686 | 1.45952 | .20437 | |||||||||||||||||
Teacher | 30 | 3.7000 | .87691 | .16010 | ||||||||||||||||||
Independent Samples Test | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Levene's Test for Equality of Variances | t-test for Equality of Means | ||||||||||||||||||||
F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||||||||||||||
Lower | Upper | |||||||||||||||||||||
Language Type 25 | Equal variances assumed | 15.261 | .000 | -3.851 | 79 | .000 | -1.13137 | .29380 | -1.71617 | -.54657 | ||||||||||||
Equal variances not assumed |
|
| -4.358 | 78.941 | .000 | -1.13137 | .25962 | -1.64813 | -.61461 | |||||||||||||
Frequency Table (Item #25):Language Type 25 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||||||||||||||||||
Valid | I TOTALLY AGREE | 16 | 19.5 | 19.8 | 19.8 | |||||||||||||||||
I AGREE | 16 | 19.5 | 19.8 | 39.5 | ||||||||||||||||||
I AM NOT SURE | 15 | 18.3 | 18.5 | 58.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
I DON'T AGREE | 21 | 25.6 | 25.9 | 84.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
I DON'T AGREE AT ALL | 13 | 15.9 | 16.0 | 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total | 81 | 98.8 | 100.0 |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Missing | .00 | 1 | 1.2 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||
Total | 82 | 100.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
The result of the conducted t-test reveals that all of the teachers answered item # 25 with a Mean of 3.70, and Standard Deviation of 0.87. 51 students answered the item with a Mean of 2.56, and Standard Deviation of 1.45. As seen in the gathered data (t(79)= -3.85, p= 0.000), since the observed value of t is less than its critical value, the H0 is not rejected.
In an attempt to support the quantitative data, the total population frequency histogram for the item denotes that more than 41.5% of participants did not think that the language used in the textbook is authentic – i.e. like real-life English. While 39% expressed the opposite view, more than 18.3% were not sure about it. The Frequency table shows the same data as in the frequency histogram, but in a numerical format.
Furthermore, teacher’s frequency histogram for the item displays that more than 63% of teachers did not think that the language used in the textbook is authentic. 10% expressed the opposite view, and more than 26% were not sure about it. No teacher chose ‘I totally agree’, implying that the 10% who agreed, did not express any categorical agreement.
On the contrary, student’s frequency histogram for the item illustrates that more than 56% of students thought that the language used in the textbook is authentic. While more than 29% expressed the opposite view, more than 13% did not express a clear view.
Moreover, teacher’s Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the item indicates that there is a normal distribution of answers for observed values 2, 3, 4, and 5 since the dots are dispersed close to the straight line. The teacher’s Normal Q-Q Plot graph does not include the observed value of 1, since no one responded to the first choice.
Likewise, student’s Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the item signifies that there is a normal distribution of answers for all of the observed values since the dots are dispersed close to the straight line. For the same reason, the total population Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the item shows that there is a normal distribution of answers for all of the observed values.
Taking into consideration the ratio of participants, it can be observed from the Population Pyramid of the item that students and teachers had opposing views about this item.
Question #35: The subject and content of the textbook meet my students' language needs.
Descriptives | ||||||||||||||
| Role | Statistic | Std. Error | |||||||||||
Subject and Content 35 | Student | Mean | 3.2400 | .17742 | ||||||||||
Std. Deviation | 1.25454 |
| ||||||||||||
Teacher | Mean | 3.4667 | .20752 | |||||||||||
Std. Deviation | 1.13664 |
| ||||||||||||
Descriptives | ||||||||||||||
| Statistic | Std. Error | ||||||||||||
Subject and Content 35 | Mean | 3.3250 | .13522 | |||||||||||
Std. Deviation | 1.20940 |
| ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Normal Q-Q Plots | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
T-Test (Item #35)
Group Statistics | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Role | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |||||||||||||||||
Subject and Content 35 | Student | 50 | 3.2400 | 1.25454 | .17742 | |||||||||||||||||
Teacher | 30 | 3.4667 | 1.13664 | .20752 | ||||||||||||||||||
Independent Samples Test | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Levene's Test for Equality of Variances | t-test for Equality of Means | ||||||||||||||||||||
F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||||||||||||||
Lower | Upper | |||||||||||||||||||||
Subject and Content 35 | Equal variances assumed | .359 | .551 | -.810 | 78 | .421 | -.22667 | .27991 | -.78393 | .33059 | ||||||||||||
Equal variances not assumed |
|
| -.830 | 66.014 | .409 | -.22667 | .27303 | -.77178 | .31844 | |||||||||||||
Frequency Table (Item #35): Subject and Content 35 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||||||||||||||||||
Valid | I TOTALLY AGREE | 6 | 7.3 | 7.5 | 7.5 | |||||||||||||||||
I AGREE | 17 | 20.7 | 21.3 | 28.7 | ||||||||||||||||||
I AM NOT SURE | 16 | 19.5 | 20.0 | 48.8 | ||||||||||||||||||
I DON'T AGREE | 27 | 32.9 | 33.8 | 82.5 | ||||||||||||||||||
I DON'T AGREE AT ALL | 14 | 17.1 | 17.5 | 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total | 80 | 97.6 | 100.0 |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Missing | .00 | 2 | 2.4 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||
Total | 82 | 100.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
The result of the conducted t-test denotes that all of the teachers answered item # 35 with a Mean of 3.46, and Standard Deviation of 1.13. 50 students answered the item with a Mean of 3.24, and Standard Deviation of 1.25. Based on the results of the t-test (t(78)= -0.81, p= 0.421), since the observed value of t is less than its critical value, the H0 is not rejected.
In an attempt to support the quantitative data, the total population frequency histogram for the item exhibits that 50.0% of participants did not think that the subject and content of the textbook meet the students’ language needs. While 28.0% expressed the opposite view, 19.5% were not sure about it. The Frequency table shows the same data as in the frequency histogram, but in a numerical format.
Moreover, teacher’s frequency histogram for the item displays that 60% of teachers did not think that the subject and content of the textbook meet the students’ language needs. Although more than 26% stated the opposite view, more than 13% did not express a clear view. Among the teachers who agreed, only one teacher chose ‘I totally agree’, implying that those who agreed, did not express any categorical agreement.
Furthermore, student’s frequency histogram for the item illustrates that 46% of students did not think that the subject and content of the textbook meet the students’ language needs. 30% expressed the opposite view, and 24% were not sure about it.
Additionally, teacher’s and student’s Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the item indicates that there is a normal distribution of answers for all of the observed values since the dots are dispersed close to the straight line. For the same reason, the total population Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the item reveals that there is a normal distribution of answers for all of the observed values.
Taking into consideration the ratio of participants, it can be observed from the Population Pyramid that both groups have relatively similar views about this item.
Question #43: There should be more authentic texts in the textbook.
Descriptives | ||||||||
| Role | Statistic | Std. Error | |||||
Further Opinion 43 | Student | Mean | 1.9020 | .16863 | ||||
Std. Deviation | 1.20424 |
| ||||||
Teacher | Mean | 1.7000 | .14503 | |||||
Std. Deviation | .79438 |
| ||||||
Descriptives | ||||||||
| Statistic | Std. Error | ||||||
Further Opinion 43 | Mean | 1.8272 | .11888 | |||||
Std. Deviation | 1.06993 |
| ||||||
|
|
Normal Q-Q Plots | |
| |
| |
T-Test (Item #43)
Group Statistics | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Role | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |||||||||||||||||
Further Opinion 43 | Student | 51 | 1.9020 | 1.20424 | .16863 | |||||||||||||||||
Teacher | 30 | 1.7000 | .79438 | .14503 | ||||||||||||||||||
Independent Samples Test | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Levene's Test for Equality of Variances | t-test for Equality of Means | ||||||||||||||||||||
F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||||||||||||||
Lower | Upper | |||||||||||||||||||||
Further Opinion 43 | Equal variances assumed | 4.313 | .041 | .819 | 79 | .415 | .20196 | .24669 | -.28906 | .69298 | ||||||||||||
Equal variances not assumed |
|
| .908 | 77.868 | .367 | .20196 | .22242 | -.24085 | .64477 | |||||||||||||
Frequency Table (Item #43): Further Opinion 43 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||||||||||||||||||
Valid | I TOTALLY AGREE | 41 | 50.0 | 50.6 | 50.6 | |||||||||||||||||
I AGREE | 23 | 28.0 | 28.4 | 79.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
I AM NOT SURE | 10 | 12.2 | 12.3 | 91.4 | ||||||||||||||||||
I DON'T AGREE | 4 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 96.3 | ||||||||||||||||||
I DON'T AGREE AT ALL | 3 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total | 81 | 98.8 | 100.0 |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Missing | .00 | 1 | 1.2 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||
Total | 82 | 100.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
The result of the conducted t-test reveals that all of the teachers answered item # 43 with a Mean of 1.70, and Standard Deviation of 0.79. 51 students answered the item with a Mean of 1.90, and Standard Deviation of 1.20. As seen in the results of t-test (t(79)= 0.81, p= 0.415), since the observed value of t is less than its critical value, the H0 is not rejected.
As for the total population frequency histogram of the item, it illustrates that 78.0% of participants thought that there should be more authentic texts in the textbook. While 8.6% stated the opposite view, 12.2% were not sure about it. The Frequency Table shows the same data as in the frequency histogram, but in a numerical format.
Moreover, teacher’s frequency histogram for the item depicts that more than 86% of teachers thought that there should be more authentic texts in the textbook. While only one teacher expressed the opposite view, more than 10% did not express a clear view. The teacher who disagreed, chose ‘I don’t agree’, suggesting lack of categorical disagreement.
Furthermore, student’s frequency histogram for the item reveals that more than 74% of students thought that there should be more authentic texts in the textbook. While more than 11% stated the opposite view, more than 13% did not give a clear answer.
Additionally, student’s frequency histogram for the item exhibits that more than 49% of students thought that there is a variety in the subject and content of the textbook. While more than 33% expressed the opposite view, more than 17% were not sure about it.
As for the teacher’s Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the item, it indicates that there is a normal distribution of answers for the observed values of 1, 2, and 3 because the dots are dispersed close to the straight line. The observed value of 4 is not normally distributed. The teacher’s Normal Q-Q Plot graph does not include the observed value of 5, since no one responded to the last choice.
Similarly, student’s Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the item displays that there is a normal distribution of answers for the observed values of 1, 2, 3, and 4 because the dots are dispersed close to the straight line. The observed value of 5 is not normally distributed. For the same reason, the total population Normal Q-Q Plot graph for the item shows that there is a normal distribution of answers for the observed values of 1, 2, and 3.
Taking into consideration the ratio of participants, it can be observed from the Population Pyramid that both groups have similar views about the item.
The following seven paragraphs provide an overall analysis of the collected data. The final paragraph of this section provides the findings for all participants.
The total population’s Mean value regarding the layout and design of the coursebook was 3.03. Based on this Mean value, the researcher concludes that participants were not either fully satisfied or dissatisfied with the layout and design of the textbook. This implies that revision in certain areas will make the layout and design more user-friendly for both teachers and students.
The total population’s Mean for the coursebook activities was 2.91. With this Mean value, the researcher tends to conclude that participants were not either fully satisfied or dissatisfied with the activities of the textbook. This implies that minor modifications of activities will improve the efficacy of the activities.
The total population’s Mean regarding the distribution of language skills in the coursebook was 3.01; implying that the participants were not either fully satisfied or dissatisfied with the way language skills are presented in the coursebook. Given this, minor revisions in the presentation of skills will improve the efficacy of the coursebook for both teachers and students. The total population’s Mean regarding the use of language in the coursebook was 3.20; which implies that the participants were not either fully satisfied or dissatisfied with the types of language presented in the coursebook.
The total population’s Mean regarding subject and content in the coursebook was 3.32. Based on this Mean value, the researcher tends to conclude that the participants were not either fully satisfied or dissatisfied with the subject and content of the language presented in the coursebook.
The total population’s Mean for items #43 to #48 (Further Opinion) is 2.36. Based on this Mean value, the researcher tends to conclude that the majority of the participants thought that there should be more authentic texts, and also more grammar, reading, writing, speaking, and listening exercises.
For items #49 and #50, asking the participants to provide additional comments, the number of participants was substantially lower than those for the other 48 Likert scale items. For item #49, a total of 38 participants emphasized the need for the inclusion of more authentic texts, and also exercises for all four skills in the textbook. For item #50, a total of 29 participants emphasized the need for the inclusion of more grammar exercises and more vocabulary in the textbook. A majority of the participants thought that the book needs to introduce the culture of English-speaking countries.
With the 95% confidence interval, and the consequent alpha level of .05, an independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the teachers and students’ answers to the Teacher Textbook Evaluation Form. The results illustrate that all students’ Mean for the entire Teacher Textbook Evaluation Form is 2.77, with Standard Deviation of 0.53. Teachers’ Mean for the entire Teacher Textbook Evaluation Form was 3.33, with Standard Deviation of 0.52. As it can be seen in the Table, conditions (t(80)= 4.61, p=0001), since the observed value of t is less than the critical value of t, therefore H0 is not rejected.
Results of Qualitative Data
The qualitative data was analyzed using MAXQUDA. The data were code segmented. For interpreting the codes, the researcher grouped the codes of each section into a three-point Likert scale item of satisfied, partially satisfied, and dissatisfied. The three-point Likert scale item was designed in SPSS 20.0. Subsequently, the researchers’ interpretation of the qualitative data was organized in a numerical format. In his view, qualitative analysis of the data makes description and interpretation easier.
Layout and Design: Overview of functions, structures, and vocabulary
The histogram illustrates that 60.0% of teachers are not satisfied with the language functions, structures, and vocabulary as presented in the textbook. While 23.3% are partially satisfied with these features, only 16.7% have expressed satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 2.43.
Layout and Design: Vocabulary list or glossary
In addition, 39.5% of teachers are partially satisfied with the vocabulary list or glossary of the textbook. 36.8% are not satisfied, and only 23.7% of teachers have expressed satisfaction with these features. The Mean value for this item is 2.13.
Layout and Design: Review sections and exercises
Finally, 64.7% of teachers are not satisfied with the review sections and exercises in the textbook. 26.5% are partially satisfied, and only 8.8% have shown satisfaction with these features. The Mean value for this item is 2.55.
Layout and Design: Illustrations
The histogram indicates that 66.7% of teachers are not satisfied with illustrations (pictures) of the textbook. 22.2% are partially satisfied with it, and only 11.1% have shown satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 2.55.
Layout and Design: Objectives
According to the histogram results, 69.7% of teachers are not satisfied with the defined objectives of the textbook. While 21.2% have shown satisfaction, another 9.1% are partially satisfied. The Mean value for this item is 2.48.
Layout and Design: Organization of main headings and subheadings
Moreover, 63.9% of teachers are not satisfied with the organization of main headings and subheadings. While 22.2% are partially satisfied, only 13.9% have expressed satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 2.50.
Teacher’s book
Besides, 36.4% are satisfied with the teacher’s book. 36.4% are not satisfied, and another 27.3% of teachers have expressed partial satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 2.00.
Student’s book
Lastly, 45% of teachers are partially satisfied with the student’s book. While 35% are not satisfied, only 20.0% have expressed satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 2.15.
Supplementary materials
The histogram indicates that 63.6% of teachers are satisfied with the materials supplementing the textbook. While 18.2% are partially satisfied, another 18.2% have not expressed satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 1.54.
Activities: Sufficient communication and meaningful practice
The histogram illustrates that 63.6% of teachers are not satisfied that the activities in the textbook provide sufficient communicative and meaningful practice. While 21.2% are satisfied with these features of the activities, 15.2% are only partially satisfied. The Mean value for this item is 2.42.
Activities: Incorporation of individual, pair, and group work
According to the histogram results, 43.8% of teachers are not satisfied that the activities in the textbook adequately incorporate individual, pair, and group work. 28.1% are partially satisfied, and only 28.1% have expressed satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 2.15.
Activities: Promotion of creative, original, and independent responses
According to the histogram results, 73.3% of teachers are not satisfied that the activities in the textbook promote enough creative, original, and independent responses. 20.7% are partially satisfied, and only 6.7% have expressed satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 2.66.
Activities: Encouragement of discovery learning
The histogram shows that 90% of teachers are not satisfied that the activities in the textbook encourage discovery learning. 10% are partially satisfied, and no teacher has shown
satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 2.90.
Language skills: Discreteness, adequacy, and effectiveness
The above histogram illustrates that 67.3% are not satisfied with the discreteness, adequacy, and effectiveness of the language skills in the textbook. While 21.2% are partially satisfied, only 11.5% have expressed satisfaction. The Mean value of this item is 2.55.
Language Type: Appropriacy for students’ proficiency level
According to the histogram results, 48.3% of teachers are not satisfied that the type of language in the textbook is appropriate for students’ proficiency level. While 27.6% are partially satisfied, only 24.1% have shown satisfaction. The Mean value of this item is 2.24.
Language Type: Authenticity
As for the authenticity, 67.9% of teachers are not satisfied that the type of language in the textbook is authentic. While 28.6% are partially satisfied, only 3.6% have shown satisfaction. The Mean value of this item is 2.64.
Language Type: Progression of grammatical structures
The histogram results with respect to the progression of grammatical structures revealed that 56.7% of teachers are not satisfied with the progression of grammatical structures in the textbook. While 23.3% have shown satisfaction, another 20.0% are partially satisfied. The Mean value of this item is 2.33.
Language Type: Progression of vocabulary items
The histogram results illustrate that 40.0% of teachers are satisfied with the progression of vocabulary items in the textbook. While 32.0% are not satisfied, 28.0% have expressed partial satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 1.92.
Language Type: Presentation of language functions
As for the presentation of language functions, 72.4% of teachers are not satisfied with the presentation of language functions in the textbook. While 20.7% are partially satisfied, only 6.9% have expressed satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 2.65.
Language Type: Presentation of registers and accents
According to the results obtained from the histogram, 92.6 % of teachers are not satisfied with the presentation of registers and accents in the textbook. Only 7.4% have shown satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 2.85.
Subject and Content: Students’ needs
The histogram results demonstrate that 64.3% of teachers are not satisfied that the subject and content in the textbook meet the students’ needs. While 32.1% have shown satisfaction, only 3.6% are partially satisfied. The Mean value for this item is 2.32.
Subject and Content: Students’ interest and motivation
In order to find out the students’ interest and motivation, the histogram results reveal that 61.3% of teachers are not satisfied that the subject and content in the textbook raise the students’ interest and motivation. While 25.8% are partially satisfied, only 12.9% have expressed satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 2.48.
Subject and Content: Variety of subjects and content
The histogram illustrates that 76.5% of teachers are not satisfied with the variety of subjects and content of the textbook. 11.8% have expressed partial satisfaction, and another 11.8% are satisfied. The Mean value for this item is 2.64.
Subject and Content: Integration of culture
As for the integration of culture, the histogram displays that 96.8% of teachers have expressed dissatisfaction with the integration of culture in the subject and content of the textbook. Only 3.2% of teachers have expressed partial satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 2.96.
Subject and Content: Methodology
Based on the results gathered from the histogram, 70.4% of teachers are not satisfied with the methodology of subject and content in the textbook. While 18.5% have expressed satisfaction, only 11.1% are partially satisfied. The Mean value for this item is 2.51.
Further Opinion: Overall opinion and additional comments
The histogram results illustrate that 74.1% of the opinions and comments by teachers indicate dissatisfaction with the textbook. While 22.4% are partially satisfied, only 3.4% have expressed satisfaction. The Mean value for this item is 2.70.
The followings are the overall statistics of analysis of the qualitative data.
Layout and Design: Mean value=2.44
2.43 | 2.13 | 2.55 | 2.55 | 2.48 | 2.50 |
Teacher’s Book: Mean value=2.00
Student’s Book: Mean value=2.15
Supplementary Materials: Mean value=1.54
Activities: Mean value=2.53
2.42 | 2.15 | 2.66 | 2.90 |
Language Skills: Mean value=2.55
Language Type: Mean value=2.44
2.24 | 2.64 | 2.33 | 1.92 | 2.65 | 2.85 |
Subject and Content: Mean value= 2.58
2.32 | 2.48 | 2.64 | 2.96 | 2.51 |
Further Opinion: Mean value=2.70
As it can be seen in the above statistics, the researcher has provided the Mean value for various categories of textbook features. As noted in all categories, except for the Teacher’s book and the Supplementary Materials which were not included in the previous textbook, the Mean value is higher than 2; which show, in clear terms, that the majority of teachers are not satisfied with the overall efficacy of the reviewed features of the textbook. This finding has led the researcher to arrive at the conclusion that the majority of teachers are not satisfied with the newly designed English for Schools PROSPECT 1.
DISCUSSION
The study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness and functionality of the English coursebook taught at seventh grade of public high schools in Iran. The following findings, based on a detailed and thorough analysis of the collected data – which has been even painstaking at times – represent the outcome of the study:
1. The participants in the study were not either fully satisfied or dissatisfied with the layout and design of the text book. This means that the coursebook designer failed to produce an attractive presentation. It is recommended that for the new edition, more attractive colors, accompanied by eye-catching, thought-provoking designs and pictures be included in the textbook's layout.
2. The activities were not appealing to learners. This shows that coursebook designers had paid inadequate attention to two main principles of material development; namely novelty and variety. In so far as novelty is concerned, the study has found that more unusual topics, illustrations, and activities must be provided to attract learners' attention. As for variety, it is recommended that monotony of unit routine must be broken up with an unexpected activity (Tomlinson, 2012). A close assessment of the current coursebook shows that the same style of presentation, generally void of richness and variety, has been pursued throughout the book.
3. Language skills were not presented in a suitable manner. Despite the authors’ claim that equal attention had been afforded to all four skills, in reality, writing and reading played second fiddle to speaking and writing. This requires a revision in how skills are presented in a balanced manner in the textbook.
4. Content and subject of the language, as presented in the textbook, which need to be relevant and useful, did not absorb learners. In so far as content is concerned, topics need to be appealing to the language learners and should also facilitate the possibility of learning something new. Inclusion of more engaging stories, along with interesting topics is recommended. Careful analysis of the obtained data point to the rather obvious lack of universal themes, which also need to be integrated within an attractive context.
5. Lack of authentic material throughout the coursebook appears to be its most important defect, and hence, requires due attention in its future revisions. On a related point, the importance of culture and its significant impact on the process of language learning needs to be underlined.
In spite of the authors’ correct emphasis on the need for learners to feel at ease by providing materials in the textbook which are related to the learners' culture, however, it appears that the process of localization of material has simply gone too far; the textbook is practically devoid of any meaningful contact with the culture of English language in general and the culture of English-speaking countries in particular. It is recommended that more authentic, natural material be considered in the next edition.
6. The present coursebook is in need of more grammatical exercises; more vocabulary needs to be introduced to the learners. The participants in the study emphasized on the need for more vocabulary and grammar.
7. As the findings of the study indicate, the majority of teachers were not satisfied with the overall efficacy of the newly designed English textbook for Schools PROSPECT 1. As is widely agreed, successful material achieves impact. The study shows that the majority of teachers believe that the present coursebook has failed to achieve impact and needs revision in the areas stated above.
CONCLUSION
The preceding discussion emphasizes that the current textbook needs to be revised in a number of important respects; that is, in the areas of layout; novelty and variety; equal attention to all four language skills; content and subject; authenticity of material; balance between emphasis on local culture and international standards; and finding ways and means to ensure impact.
References
Alavi-Moqadam, S. (2013). English for schools, PROSPECT 1 Tehran: Ministry of Education Publication.
Arikan, G. (2008). Textbook Evaluation in Foreign Language Teaching: Time for English Grade 4, Teachers' and Students' Views. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Cukurova University of Social Science, Adana, Turkey.
Aytug, S. (2007). An EFL Textbook Evaluation Study in a National High schools: New Bridge to Success for 9thGrade New Beginners. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.
British Council Website (2006) https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/communicative-approach
Genesee, F., & Upshur. J. (1996). Classroom-based evaluation in second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
John Potter, Sarah Rigby, Kitty Wong (2010) Theme Book, Longman NSS ELECT series. Pearson Longman
Lawrence, W. (2011). Textbook evaluation: A framework for evaluating the fitness of the Hong Kong new secondary school (NSS) curriculum. Department of English City University of Hong Kong, Unpublished Master's Thesis, Hong Kong.
McDonough, J. & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and Methods in ELT: A teacher's guide (2nd ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
McDonough, J. & Shaw, J. & Masuhara, H. (2013). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher's guide (3rd ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner-centered Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C., (2012) The Role of Textbooks in a Language Program. Retrieved from www.professorjackrichards.com/wp-content/uploads/role-of-textbooks.pdf
Sheldon, L. E. (ed.). (1987). ELT Textbooks and materials: problems in evaluation and 122 developments. ELT Documents 126. London: Modern English Publications and The British Council.
Tomlinson, B. & Hitomi, M. (2010). Research for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice. London: Continuum.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
