Teachers’ Evaluation on “Skillful 2 - Listening and Speakingâ€
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26486/jele.v7i2.1930Keywords:
Coursebook Evaluation, Coursebook Evaluation Criteria, Coursebook Evaluation Checklist, Coursebook for teaching speaking and listeningAbstract
There have been many reforms in English teaching and learning in Vietnam. Therefore, it raises a sufficient need for exploring the effectiveness of different coursebooks. This research is more qualitative than quantitative to investigate EFL teachers’ evaluation of the coursebook Skillful 2 – Listening and Speaking in a specific educational institution in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Six teacher participants using this coursebook partook in this study. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected by using two instruments, questionnaires and semi-interviews. The study provided a new checklist for evaluating materials in teaching and learning speaking and listening. The findings showed that (1) the strengths of the coursebook: e.g. the well-presented content page or the potential of building a strong English foundation of students’ proficiency; and (2) weaknesses of the book: via unimpressive cover page, the mismatch between the book’s content and the curriculum assigned in Vietnam, and the challenges found for teaching mixed-level classes. This study suggested some implications enhancing the effectiveness of sufficient materials for higher educational institutions.References
AbdelWahab, M. M. (2013). Developing an English language textbook evaluative checklist. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 1(3), 55-70.
Alamri, A. A. M. (2008). An evaluation of the sixth grade English language textbook for Saudi boys’ schools. Unpublished MA thesis, Riyath, Saudi Arabia.
Çakit, I. Ş. I. L. (2006). Evaluation of the EFL textbook" New Bridge to Success 3" from the perspectives of students and teachers. Unpublished MA thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Language teaching approaches: An overview. Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 2(1), 3-10.
Chegeni, N., Kamali, B., Noroozi, A., & Chegeni, N. (2016). General English textbook evaluation: A closer look at “Four Cornersâ€. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(12), 2325-2330.
Cunningsworth, A (1995). Choosing Your Coursebook. London: Heinemann.
Daoud, A., & Celce-Murcia, M. (1979). Selecting and evaluating a textbook. Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 2(3), 302-307.
England, S. (2017). Skillful reading & writing 2. The Language Teacher, 41(3). Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/node/16/articles/5856-skillful-reading-writing-2.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research education (8th ed.). Boston, MA : McGraw Hill
Grabe, W. P., & Stoller, F. L. (2013). Teaching and researching: Reading. Routledge.
Hashemi, S. Z., & Borhani, A. (2015). Textbook evaluation: An investigation into “American English File†series. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 3(5), 47-55.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge university press.
Jolly, D., & Bolitho, R. (2011). A framework for materials writing. Materials development in language teaching, 107-134.
Le, T., Le, M., & Nguyen, Q. (2021). EFL Teachers' Evaluation on “Skillful-Teaching Writing and Reading 02â€. FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(3), 398-417.
Litz, D. R. (2005). Textbook evaluation and ELT management: A South Korean case study. Asian EFL journal, 48(1), 1-53.
McKay, I. (2000). The liberal order framework: A prospectus for a reconnaissance of Canadian history. Canadian Historical Review, 81(4), 616-678.
MOET. (2015). Vietnam: Education for All 2015 National Review. Hanoi, Vietnam: MOET.
Mukundan, J., Hajimohammadi, R., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2011). Developing an English language textbook evaluation checklist. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 4(6), 21-28.
Nicholson, G. A. (1995). The Contents of Queensland Secondary School Textbooks: Computational, Grammatical, and Conceptual Features (Doctoral dissertation, Griffith University).
Nimehchisalem, V., & Mukundan, J. (2015). Refinement of the English Language Teaching Textbook Evaluation Checklist. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 23(4).
Riasati, M. J., & Zare, P. (2011). Textbook evaluation: EFL teachers’ perspectives on “New Interchangeâ€. Studies in Literature and Language, 1(8), 54-60.
Riazi, M., Beyzaei, S., & Zare, F. (2002). Paragraph writing: A textbook for basic writing. Shiraz UP.
Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT journal, 42(4), 237-246.
Tomlinson, B. (1998). Part D Ideas for materials development 11 Seeing what they mean: helping L2 readers to visualise. Materials development in language teaching, 265.
Williams, D. (1983). Developing criteria for textbook evaluation. ELT journal, 37(3), 251-255.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with JELE (Journal of English Language and Education) agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the JELE (Journal of English Language and Education)  right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the work for any purpose, even commercially with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in JELE (Journal of English Language and Education). Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in JELE (Journal of English Language and Education)
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
