A Comparative Textbook Evaluation of Vision Versus Former English High School Series in Iranian EFL Academic Context
محورهای موضوعی : Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English
Mehdi Solati
1
,
Shima Ahmadi-Azad
2
,
محمد حسین یوسفی
3
1 - English teaching department, Sarab branch, Islamic Azad University, Sarab, Iran.
2 - English deprtment, Sarab branch, Islamic Azad University, Sarab, Iran
3 - Islamic Azad University, Bonab Branch, Bonab, Iran
کلید واژه: Textbook, Evaluation Iranian, EFL Academic, Context Vision, Series, FES, Checklist,
چکیده مقاله :
This research evaluated and compared Vision series, a series of three obligatory textbooks for all students from grades 10 to 12 in Iranian academic context since 2013, versus former English series (FES). The study aimed to explain the weaknesses and strengths of the two series and provide recommendations about how to ameliorate the Vision series to learn English more effectively. The evaluation was accomplished using a checklist founded on the evaluation criteria suggested by Tomlinson (2013), Cunningsworth (1984, 1995), McDonough and Shaw (2003), Crookes and Gass (1993) and Jolly and Bolitho (2011). The evaluation checklist was applied to five sections namely theoretical considerations, organizational features and practical considerations, language components, language skills, and teacher’s manuals. Results showed that in theoretical considerations, grammar, speaking, listening, and teachers’ manuals, Vision series surpassed FES but in organizational features and practical considerations, vocabulary, reading, and writing there was no considerable change in these criteria. The results suggested some key points for the authors of Vision to improve its quality. Furthermore, the study proposed an established checklist for textbook evaluation in various educational settings.
This research evaluated and compared Vision series, a series of three obligatory textbooks for all students from grades 10 to 12 in Iranian academic context since 2013, versus former English series (FES). The study aimed to explain the weaknesses and strengths of the two series and provide recommendations about how to ameliorate the Vision series to learn English more effectively. The evaluation was accomplished using a checklist founded on the evaluation criteria suggested by Tomlinson (2013), Cunningsworth (1984, 1995), McDonough and Shaw (2003), Crookes and Gass (1993) and Jolly and Bolitho (2011). The evaluation checklist was applied to five sections namely theoretical considerations, organizational features and practical considerations, language components, language skills, and teacher’s manuals. Results showed that in theoretical considerations, grammar, speaking, listening, and teachers’ manuals, Vision series surpassed FES but in organizational features and practical considerations, vocabulary, reading, and writing there was no considerable change in these criteria. The results suggested some key points for the authors of Vision to improve its quality. Furthermore, the study proposed an established checklist for textbook evaluation in various educational settings.
Alavi Moghaddam, B., Kheirabadi, R., Rahimi, M., & Davari, H. (2018). Vision 3. Textbook Publication Company.
Azarnoosh, M., Zeraatpishe, M., Faravani, M., & Kargozari, H. (2016). Issues in materials development. Rotterdam.
Crookes, G., & Gass, M. S. (1993). Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon.
Cunningsworth, A. (1984). Evaluating and selecting EFL teaching materials. Heinemann.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your course book. Heinemann.
Daoud, A., & Celce-Murcia, M. (1979). Selecting and evaluating a textbook. In M. Celce-Murcia and L. McIntosh (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 302- 307). Cambridge, MA.
Ghafarzare, M. (2017). Evaluation of the high school textbook (Vision 1): An online systematic vocabulary analysis [Master’s thesis, Imam Reza International University]. https://ganj.irandoc.ac.ir//#/articles/e73c9d02cf681091e98b1b0e04234de6
Hill, M., (2005). Harsh words: English words for Chinese learners. HKU Press.
Jafari, S. (2017). Evaluating the English book Vision 1 based on McDonough and Shaw [Master’s thesis, Islamic Azad University Shahrood Science and Research Branch]. https://ganj.irandoc.ac.ir//#/articles/ddd1983054751cc4a214ecb9065acff1
Litz, R. A. D., (2002). Textbook evaluation and ELT management: A South Korean case ctudy. Asian EFL Journal, 48 (1), 1-53.
Pouya, H. (2018). Students' perspectives on English textbook, Vision 1 and its role in their attitude toward learning English [Master’s thesis, Islamic Azad University Shahrood Branch]. https://ganj.irandoc.ac.ir//#/articles/cbb6d1a548e675ba33cc7c104811c90b
Read, J. (2004). 7. Research in teaching vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 146-161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000078
Richards, C. J., (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Skierso, A., (1991). Textbooks selection and evaluation, in Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. MA Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Tomlinson, B., (2011). Introduction, in Tomlinson, B. (ed.). Materials development in language teaching (pp. 1-31). Cambridge University Press
Tomlinson, B. (2013). Developing materials for language teaching. Continuum.
Vandergrift, L. & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge.
Wong, L. (2011). Textbook evaluation: A framework for evaluating the fitness of the Hong Kong new secondary school (NSS) curriculum [Master’s thesis, City university of Hong Kong]. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22405.65769
Zolfaghari, V. (2017). Teachers' perceptions of the new English textbook (Vision 1) used in Iranian secondary schools [Master’s thesis, Imam Reza International University]. https://ganj.irandoc.ac.ir//#/articles/b8eb585fab08b52b790faee4effdfcc4
