Đề tài Đánh giá giáo trình “Tiếng Anh Cơ Bản III” dành cho sinh viên không chuyên năm thứ hai Trường Cao Đẳng Sư Phạm Bắc Giang

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HANOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES POST- GRADUATE DEPARTMENT GIAP THI YEN AN EVALUATION OF THE MATERIAL “BASIC ENGLISH III” FOR THE SECOND YEAR NON- ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT BAC GIANG TEACHERS’ TRAINING COLLEGE (Đánh giá giáo trình “Tiếng Anh Cơ Bản III” dành cho sinh viên không chuyên năm thứ hai Trường Cao Đẳng Sư Phạm Bắc Giang) MINOR PROGRAM THESIS FIELD : MOTHODOLOGY CODE : 601410 HA NOI- 2008 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HANOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES POST- GRADUATE DEPARTMENT GIÁP THỊ YẾN AN EVALUATION OF THE MATERIAL “BASIC ENGLISH III” FOR THE SECOND YEAR NON- ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT BAC GIANG TEACHERS’ TRAINING COLLEGE (Đánh giá giáo trình “Tiếng Anh Cơ Bản III” dành cho sinh viên không chuyên năm thứ hai Trường Cao Đẳng Sư Phạm Bắc Giang) MINOR PROGRAM THESIS FIELD : METHODOLOGY CODE : 601410 SUPERVISOR: ĐINH HẢI YẾN, M.A ha noi - 2008 CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I certify my authorship of the minor thesis submitted today entitled “An evaluation of the material Basic English III for the second year non-English major students at Bac Giang Teachers’ Training College” in terms of the statement of requirements for the thesdis and the field study reports in Masters’ programs is the result of my own work, except where otherwise acknowledged and that this minor thesis or any part of the same had not been submitted for a higher degree to any other universities or institution. Signature Date: August 29th, 2008 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On the completion of the thesis, I would like to thank the following people: I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Ms. Dinh Hai Yen, for her patient guidance, helpful suggestions, encouragement and constructive supervision in the course of writing this research. Without her help, this work would have been impossible. I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to Mr. Le Hung Tien, Head of the Department of Post- Graduate Studies, and all the professors and lecturers at College of Foreign Language (CFL), Vietnam National University (VNU) for their insightful lectures, invaluable assistance and useful guidance. I am also grateful for the valuable materials provided by Ms. Le Thu Ha- the librarian at the post- graduate studies library of CFL, VNU. I would like to take this opportunity to express my thankfulness to all of my English staff at Bac Giang Teachers’ Training College for their great help and kind cooperation in completing the questionnaires for the thesis. I wish to extend my thanks to all of my friends who have been most helpful and supportive to me during the completion of my research. Last but not least, my sincere thanks go to my parents whose love and encouragement have been equally important to my educational endeavors, especially my little son who has given me so much inspiration, energy, and support in accomplishing this challenging work. ABSTRACT It is obvious that materials evaluation is one of the essential aspects of language teaching and learning. Within this regard, the thesis was carried out to evaluate the material “Basic English III” which is currently in use for the second year non- English major students at Bac Giang Teachers’ Training College (BGTTC) since 2006 with the hope that practical suggestions would be given for further improvements of the material in the near future to meet the target of ensuring the effectiveness of the teaching and the learning English at BGTTC. The data collection instruments used in this study were questionnaires and document analysis. In this sequence, the material in use is analyzed basing on the criteria suggested by Hutchinson and Waters’ (1987) with an aim to determine how the material realizes the course requirements. A survey on the teachers' opinions about the extent to which the material meets the requirements of the course in terms of the aims, content and methodology is conducted. Research results have revealed some strengths and weaknesses of the material which allows the author to conclude that the material is not very relevant to the course aims, content and methodology. Based on the findings, the thesis suggests some recommendations on materials adaptation such as addition, deletion, and replacement that should be made to remedy the weaknesses of the material so that the students can benefit more from it in future courses. TABLE OF CONTENTS Trang PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 References I Appendixes III Appendix 1 III Appendix 2 VII Appendix 3 VIII Appendix 4 X Appendix 5 XV LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CFL : College of Foreign Language VNU : Vietnam National University BGTTC : Bac Giang Teachers’ Training College BEIII : Basic English III LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figures Figure 1: Materials Evaluation Model of McDonough and Shaw Figure 2: The materials evaluation model of Hutchinson & Waters Tables Table 2.1: Types of information in the teacher questionnaire Table 3.1: The vocabulary list of unit 1 (Basic English III, p. 87) Table 3.2: The content requirements for the third term Table 3.3: The methodology requirements of the course Table 3.4: Teachers’ opinions about the suitability of the material (Q 1- 6) Table 3.5: Teachers’ opinions about language points and languages skills covered in this material (Q7-8) Table 3.6: Teachers’ opinions about effectiveness of sub-skills (Q 9) Table 3.7: Teachers’ opinions about the topics in the material (Q10- 11) Table 3.8: Teachers’ opinions about the text- types in the material (Q14) Table 3.9: Teachers’ opinions about the organization and sequence of content (Q12- 13) Table 3.10: Teachers’ opinions about time allocation in the material (Q15) Table 3.11a: Students’ learning strategies and preference (Q16) Table 3.11b: Students’ learning strategies and preference (Q17) Table 3.11c: Students’ learning strategies and preference (Q18) Table 3.12: Teachers’ opinions about tasks and activities of language points and language skills (Q19- 22) Table 3.13: Teachers’ opinions about teaching/ learning techniques in the material (Q23-24) Table 3.14: Teachers’ opinions about the methodology guidance in the material (Q25) PART I: INTRODUCTION 1. Rationale of the thesis Materials play an important role in the process of language teaching and learning as appropriate materials can stimulate effective teaching and learning. Thus, to have a successful language- teaching program, it is necessary to have good materials, especially in Vietnamese setting. English has been taught in Bac Giang Teachers Training College (BGTTC) since 1980s, and English course books for non- English major students have been changed from time to time to suit the training objectives as well as the students’ needs. Although many textbooks are available on the market, it is really difficult to choose the materials that meet the needs of non- English major students whose English proficiency is comparatively varied. Due to these reasons, the teachers of English at BGTTC decided to produce the materials suitable for their own students. Undeniably, since these in- house materials were put to use, they have had certain positive impacts on language teaching and learning at BGTTC. But there remain some complaints and dissatisfaction. Until now, no research on the course book evaluation has been carried out to examine how well the materials being in use match the course requirements in terms of aims, content and methodology. Therefore, the author decided to choose one of those in- house materials named “Basic English III” (BEIII) for evaluation with the intention that it will not only help improve the material’s quality but also enhance the learning efficiency as well as stimulate students’ interest in language learning. 2. Aims of the thesis This study is intended to investigate: How well the material has satisfied the requirements of the course in relation to aims, content and methodology? What improvements should be made to the material to make it more effective in responding to the course requirements and students’ needs? Hopefully, the findings of the thesis will provide reliable basis for further suggestions, which helps the teachers - material designers at BGTTC improve this in- house material. 3. Significance of the thesis The findings of the thesis will be useful not only to the researcher, and the course book designers but also to the teaching staff and the second year non- English major students at BGTTC. Besides, the given findings will help form a foundation toward improving the quality of the in-house material “Basic English III” which is currently used for the students at BGTTC. Further more, it is hoped that those research results will make some contributions to the field of materials evaluation 4. Scope of the thesis In materials evaluation, there have been a great number of criteria that should be taken into consideration such as: the audience, the content, the methodology, the cultural bias, the layout, the authenticity, and so on. In this study, the researcher bases on Hutchinson and Waters’s (1987) criteria for evaluation with focus on the three following criteria: aims of the material, content of the material, and methodology. Due to the limited scope of a minor thesis, research subjects are primarily confined to English teachers who have been teaching the material for 2 years rather than to students who have learnt this material. However, to ensure the validity and reliability of the given information, students’ feedback, which is collected in an informal way through teachers’ observation and experience in working/talking with students, is also taken into account. 5. Design of the thesis There are three main parts in this thesis: introduction, development, and conclusion. The introduction provides the rationale, the aims, the significance, the scope, and design of the thesis. The development consists of three chapters: Chapter one presents a review of literature concentrating on the issues related to materials evaluation. It discusses the roles and types of materials in language teaching and learning. and presents major issues in materials evaluation including definitions of materials evaluation, purposes for materials evaluation, types of materials evaluation, materials evaluators, models for materials evaluation, criteria for materials evaluation, as well as material adaptation. Chapter two focuses on the methodology employed in this thesis including an overview of current English teaching and learning at BGTTC, research methods, and the data collection procedures. Chapter three discusses the findings of the study; points out the strengths, weaknesses, and suggests the recommendations for the material improvement. The conclusion provides a brief summary of all the major parts being present in the study, the conclusions drawn out and suggests directions for further research. PART 2: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: Literature Review 1.1. Materials in Language Teaching and Learning 1.1.1. Roles of Teaching Materials in General English Courses There are five important components involved in English language instruction namely students, teachers, materials, teaching methods, and evaluation among which the most essential constituents are the textbooks and instruction materials because these instructional materials provide the foundation for the content of the lesson, the balance of the skills taught, as well as the kinds of language practice the students engage in during class activities. Stressing the role of materials, Richard (2001: 251) states that The teaching materials can serve as basis for much of language input that the learners receive and as the source for much of the language practice that occurs in the classroom. Richard further explains that materials provide “basis for the content of the lesson, balance of skills taught, and the kind of language practice students take part in” (p. 251). In other situations, textbooks may be used to supplement the teacher's instructions. For learners, textbooks may provide a major source of contact they have with the target language, excluding the input provided by the teacher. In the case of novice teachers, textbooks may also be utilized as a form of teacher training; that is, they provide the teachers with ideas on how to plan and teach lessons as well as with formats that teachers can use. Much of the language teaching that occurs throughout the world today could not take place without the extensive use of commercial textbooks. Hence, learning how to use and adapt textbooks is an important part of a teacher's professional knowledge. Allwright (1990) supports Richard’s point of view by emphasizing that Materials should teach students to learn, that they should be resource books for ideas and activities for instruction, and that they should give teachers rationales for what they do. It is true that in many cases, teachers and students rely heavily on textbooks, and textbooks determine the components and methods of learning, that is, they control the content, methods, and procedures of learning. Students learn what is presented in the textbook, and the way the textbook presents material is the way students learn it. The educational philosophy of the textbook will influence the class and the learning process. Therefore, in most situations, materials are the center of instruction and one of the most important influences on what goes on in the classroom. According to Nunan (1991), good teaching materials help inexperienced and poorly trained teachers a lot, but they also help experienced teachers. Theoretically, experienced teachers can teach English without a textbook. However, it is not easy to do it all the time, though they may do it sometimes. Many teachers do not have enough time to design supplementary materials, so they just follow the textbook. Textbooks, therefore, take on a very important role in language classes. That is also the reason why the writer chooses one of the in- house materials in use in her college for evaluation to see if it is appropriate or not to the current teaching circumstance. 1.1. 2. Types of Materials Teaching materials are a key and crucial component in any language teaching contexts. There are different types of teaching materials. According to Robinson (1991), choosing published textbooks or in- house materials is what specialists in the field of English language teaching weigh up for arguments. There are some arguments for and against using a published textbook. According to Ur (1996), published textbooks have many advantages as follows: - Framework: a textbook provides a clear framework for teachers and learners to know where they are going and what is coming next, and build up a sense of structure and progress. - Syllabus: in many places, the course book serves as a syllabus. If the syllabus is followed systematically, a carefully planned and balanced selection of language content will be made. - Ready- made texts and tasks: the course book provides texts and learning tasks, which are likely to be of an appropriate level for most of the class. This of course saves time for the teacher who would otherwise have to prepare his or her own. - Economy: a book is the cheapest way of providing learning material for each learner; alternatives, such as kits, set of photocopied papers or computer software, are likely to be more expensive relative to the amount of material provided. Convenience: A book is a convenient package. It is bound, so its components stick together and stay in order. Moreover, it is light and small enough to carry around easily. It is also of a certain shape/ size that is easily packed and stacked. In addition, it does not depend for its use on hardware or a supply of electricity. Guidance: For teachers who are inexperienced or occasionally unsure of their knowledge of the language, the course book can provide useful guidance and support. Autonomy: The learners can use the course book to learn new material, review and monitor progress with some degree of autonomy. A learner without a course book is more teacher- dependent. However, not everything in the textbook is wonderful (Hammer, 1991). Though the textbooks are well planned, they can be inappropriate for teachers and students. The counter-arguments for using textbooks are also listed by Ur (1996) as follows: - Inadequacy: In every class, every learner has his/ her own learning needs: no one textbook can possibly supply these satisfactorily. - Irrelevance, lack of interest: the topics dealt with in the textbook may not necessarily be relevant or interesting for any individual class. - Limitation: a textbook is confining that is, its set structure and sequence may inhibit a teacher’s initiative and creativity, which leads to boredom and lack of motivation on the part of the learners. - Homogeneity: Textbooks have their own rationale, chosen teaching, and learning approach. They do not usually cater for the variety of levels of ability and knowledge, or learning styles and strategies that exist in most classes. - Over-easiness: Teachers find it too easy to follow the textbook uncritically instead of using their initiatives; they may find themselves functioning merely as mediators of its content instead of as teachers in their own right. In practice, the teacher should take into consideration the given advantages and disadvantages when choosing a published textbook so as to enhance the strengths and minimize the weaknesses which might incur in the course of teaching and learning. Unlike published textbooks, in-house materials are always designed for a particular group of learners so they correspond to learners’ need and match with the aims and objectives of the language-learning program. According to Robinson (1991:58), - In-house materials are likely to be more specific and appropriate than published materials and have greater face validity in terms of the language dealt with and the contexts it is presented in. - In-house materials may be more flexible than published textbooks. -The writers of in-house materials can make sure of the suitability of methodology for the intended learners. However, it is noted that making in-house materials is time consuming and expensive. As stated above, published textbooks and in-house materials offer both good points and bad points, so choosing which one as a teaching and learning material depends largely on the purposes of the course as well as the available facilities and constraints of a particular situation. 1.2. Materials Evaluation 1.2.1. Definitions of Materials Evaluation There are many ways of defining evaluation. According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987, p. 96) materials evaluation is defined as “a matter of judging the fitness of something for a particular purpose.” Evaluation is, then, concerned with relative merit. It is neither absolutely good nor bad - only the degree of fitness for the required purpose is taken into account. Trochim (?just put a question mark like that to note that it is not identified ) at Cornel University supports Hutchinson and Waters by stating, “evaluation is the systematic acquisition and assessment of information to provide useful feedback about some object”Thisdeleted entry will be put in References. . This definition emphasizes “acquiring and assessing information” rather than assessing worth or merit because all evaluation work involves collecting and sifting through data, making judgments about the validity of the information and of inferences we derive from it, whether or not an assessment of worth or merit results. From the above definitions of evaluation, it can be inferred that material involves the determination of what needs to be evaluated, the objectives and requirements of the materials, and the judgments of the value of the materials being evaluated in relation to the objectives and the requirements determined. 1.2.2. Purposes of Materials Evaluation An evaluation of teaching materials helps to identify particular strengths and weaknesses of the materials in use. After being used in the classroom for a certain period of time, teaching materials need to be evaluated to see if they have worked well for the intended situation and students. According to Ellis (1997), there are two main reasons for carrying out materials evaluation. Firstly, there may be a need to choose among the materials available the most suitable ones to use for a particular situation. Secondly, there can be a need for materials evaluation to determine whether the material, which has been chosen, works for that situation after it has been used for a period of time. This may help in deciding whether to use the material again or replace it with a better one. At BGTTC, ‘Basic English III’, which was compiled by two English teachers at English Department in 2005, has revealed certain advantages as well as disadvantages. All these things call for the need to evaluate the material, which ultimately becomes the author’s purpose in carrying out this research. 1.2.3. Types of Materials Evaluation In materials evaluation literature different authors offer different ways of categorizing it. Robinson (1991:59) classifies materials evaluation into three types: preliminary, summative and formative while McGrath (2002: p.14-15) divides materials evaluation into three stages: pre-use, in -use and post-use evaluation. Although different terms are used to indicate types of materials evaluation, these terms are basically similar. Preliminary or pre- use evaluation often takes place before the course starts with the aim to select the appropriate materials most appropriate for the particular group of learners and for the aims of the course. Formative or in- use evaluation occurs during the learning process, the result obtained can be used to modify what is being done or in other words, such results may suggest the development of the material in the future. Summative or post- use evaluation is normally carried out when the course is finished with the aim to determine whether the program was successful and effective and the findings of this evaluation will lead to the decision whether to repeat or use the materials again or not. In short, there are different types of materials evaluation so when making an evaluation; the evaluators have to determine what type of materials evaluation will be suitable with their work. As for BGTTC situation, since the material has been in use for two years, the researcher decided to use summative/post-use evaluation with an aim to determine whether this material is effective or not and offer some recommendations for further improvements of the material. 1.2.4. Materials Evaluators Robinson (1991), Tomlinson (1998), Richards (2001), and Dudley-Evan & St. John (1998) state that materials evaluators can be either outsiders or insiders. Outsiders are those who have not been involved in the program such as consultants, inspectors and administrators. Accordingly, they may not fully understand the teaching and learning situation in which the evaluation is being carried out. In addition, it may take them more time to be aware of the local situation such as learners’ needs, facilities and time constraints so it may be difficult for them to make truly judgments and recommendations of the program. In contrast to the outsiders, the insiders are those who have been directly involved in the language-teaching program such as teachers, students, course and materials designers. Therefore, they can provide the most valid information in the evaluation process. Also, their understanding of cultural and political factors of the institution in which the evaluation takes place would enhance the reliability of judgments and recommendations. To stress the role of the insiders as evaluators, Richard (2001) states that the involvement of the insiders plays an important part in the success of evaluation because “as a consequence, they will have greater degree of commitment to acting on its result” (p. 296). He also adds that the teachers can watch out for when the materials are being used. Consequently, they can know exactly the extent that the materials work for their purposes and they can make modifications to improve the effectiveness of the materials. However, there are also disadvantages to insiders when they are “too close and involved” (Dudley- Evan and St. John, 1998, p.131) so the evaluation may be influenced by their subjective points of view and their teaching experience. In short, who will carry out the evaluation, outsiders or insiders, should be determined according to the purposes of the evaluation. In this research, due to the limited scope of a minor thesis, the insiders, especially, the teachers have been chosen as material evaluators because the teachers are not only designers but also those who have been teaching this material so they understand clearly about the material, the teaching context and the learners. Their opinion and their evaluation, therefore, are critical to the improvement of the material in particular and of teaching and learning in general. Also, the data have been collected from various sources to minimize the subjectivity of the study. 1.2.5. Models for Materials Evaluation There are many different models for materials evaluation. However, the most commonly adopted models are suggested by Ellis (1997), McDonough & Shaw (1993), and Hutchinson & Waters (1987). 1.2.5.1. Evaluation by Ellis (1997) This is a micro- evaluation. In this model, Ellis suggests the practice of a detailed empirical evaluation and focuses on evaluation at the task level with reference to its actual teaching and learning context. Following are its steps: 1. Choosing a task to follow; 2. Describing the task with specification of input, procedures, language activities, and outcomes; 3. Planning the evaluation with reference to the dimensions above; 4. Collecting information before, while and after the task was used, and what and how the task was performed; 5. Analyzing the information collected; 6. Reaching conclusions relating to what has been discovered, and making recommendations for the future teaching; 7. Writing the report. The aim of this model is to identify the match between task planned and task in use. It can be conducted when the materials are being used in the classroom. 1.2.5.2. Evaluation by McDonough and Shaw (1993) This is a combination of macro- and micro- evaluation. In this model, the authors suggest a three-stage evaluation model called: external evaluation, internal evaluation, and overall evaluation (see figure 1). The external stage (macro- evaluation) is used to identify whether the material is potentially appropriate, then the internal stage starts and if the findings show that the material is inappropriate, the evaluation will be finished at the external stage. The internal stage (micro- evaluation) requires an in-depth investigation into the materials so we need to examine at least two or more units of the book to examine the extent to which the factor in the external evaluation stage actually match the internal consistency and organization of the materials staged by the author/ publisher. The final step is the overall evaluation. It helps to determine the suitability of the materials for specified groups or individuals by considering a number of the factors such as the usability, the generalizability, the adaptability, and the flexibility. This model is shown in figure 1: Macro- evaluation inappropriate/ potentially appropriate (External) EXIT Micro- evaluation inappropriate/ appropriate adopt/ select (Internal) EXIT Figure 1: Materials Evaluation Model of McDonough and Shaw (1993, p.75) The model suggested by McDonough and Shaw (1993) presents a logical procedure for materials evaluation. To examine if the materials are suitable for a certain group of learners or not, there must be certain criteria against which our judgments or evaluation are based. It is also necessary to determine the objectives or the requirements for the materials because we cannot measure the success of a particular activity or a whole set of materials if there is not clear objective for it.good comments. 1.2.5.3. Evaluation by Hutchinson and Waters (1987) Evaluation by Hutchinson and Waters (1987) is a perfect macro- evaluation. According to them, the materials evaluation process can be divided into four major steps (see figure 2). OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS How does the material being evaluated realize the criteria? MATCHING How far does the material match your needs? DEFINE CRITERIA On what bases will you judge materials? Which criteria will be more important? SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS What realization of the criteria do you want in your course? Figure 2: Materials Evaluation Process (Hutchinson and Waters 1987, p. 98) As can be seen above, the first step is to define the criteria on which the evaluation is based. In this step, the evaluator has to define what bases the materials will be judged and which criteria the evaluator wants to include in the course. The second step is to determine the subjective analysis, that is, to identify the requirements for materials so the evaluator should describe in detail on what criteria the course is based. The third step is to determine the objective analysis, that is, to evaluate whether the existing materials realize the criteria set in the subjective analysis. The last one is the matching process, which finds out how far the material matches the course requirements. In summary, Hutchinson and Waters (1987) suggest a logical model for materials evaluation. It can help the evaluators know exactly what must be done to analyze the materials in comparison with the course requirements. good commnent Therefore, in this study, the author has chosen the evaluation framework by Hutchinson and Waters (1987) to check whether the existing material is suitable for the students at BGTTC. Also, it is very useful for the author to set out both subjective analysis (i.e. analysis of BGTTC curriculum) and objective analysis (i.e. analysis of the materials being evaluated). Then the findings of the two analyses are compared to find out whether they match to each other and if not, to what extents they do not match up. Based on the research results, good aspects as well as problematic parts of the material can be identified, which may serve as a reliable ground for further suggestions on material improvements. 1.2.6. Criteria for Materials Evaluation According to Dudley- Evans and St. John (1998), in the evaluation process, evaluators must take evaluation criteria into account before any evaluation takes place. Criteria for materials evaluation depend on what is being evaluated and why they need to be evaluated. William (1983) suggests seven criteria, each of which has the following aspects: - General criteria: give introductory guidance on the presentation of language items and skills. - Speech criteria: suggest aids for the teaching of pronunciation: e.g. phonetic system - Grammar criteria: offer meaningful situations and a variety of techniques for teaching structural units. - Vocabulary criteria: distinguish the different purposes and skills involved in the teaching of vocabulary. - Reading criteria: provide guidance on the initial presentation of passages for reading comprehension. - Writing criteria: demonstrate the various devices for controlling and guiding content and expression in composition exercises. - Technical criteria: contain appropriate pictures, diagrams, tables, etc… The criteria suggested by William (1983) seem to be very useful and appropriate for evaluating a course book. However, such frameworks are more suitable for the selection of course books available in the market than for the examination of an in- house material to see whether they meet the intended objectives. With its more comprehensive content, tth its more comprehensive content,pful tool he evaluating criteria defined by Hutchinson and Waters, therefore, seems to be a more helpful tool to language materials evaluators. According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987) there are four main criteria for materials evaluation any evaluator should concern: the audience, the aims, the content, and the methodology. - The audience of the materials: the evaluator should obtain information about and from learners to find out whether the materials are suitable to the students’ age, knowledge of English, interest and so on. - Aims of the materials: the evaluator has to check if the materials match the aims and objectives of the course. - Content of the materials: the evaluator has to check whether the materials’ language points, macro-skills/ micro-skills, and topics suit the learners’ needs. - Methodology of the materials: the evaluator has to find out if techniques, aids, guidance provided in the materials satisfy the learners and the teachers of the course. Comparing the two sets of criteria presented above by William (1983) and by Hutchinson and Waters (1987), it is obvious that the work of developing and choosing evaluative criteria is rather subjective and depends on what the evaluators consider to be important. In this evaluation research, the four criteria including audience, aims, content and methodology suggested by Hutchinson and Waters (1987) were adopted. to see how much ‘English Basic III’ match with the aims and the requirements of the course. 1.3 Materials Adaptation Materials adaptation is a process of matching the teaching material with the needs, interests of learners, and the teachers’ own capabilitiescomplete this sentence (matching what and what?) . Its purpose is to maximize the appropriateness of teaching materials in context, by changing some of the internal characteristics of a course book to better suit the particular circumstances. McDonough and Shaw (1993: 86) state that reasons for adaptation rely on four main aspects namely “language use; skills; classroom organization; supplementary material.” and there are also six important ways of modifying materials. - Adding: the materials are supplemented simply by putting more into them. In the quantitative way, we can add the technique of extending but the model remains unchanged. The qualitative way, which can be termed as expanding refers to the development of the methodology in new directions by putting in different language skills or a new component. This can be thought of as “a change in the overall systems.” (McDonough and Shaw, 1993: 90). Therefore, addition can be made before, during or after the intended area. - Deleting or omitting: deletion means cutting one or more stages within an activity or omitting a whole activity or even a whole lesson. Therefore, addition and deletion often work together. The tasks in the material may be deleted and compensated by a more suitable one to meet the objectives of the whole unit. However, when the techniques for adaptation are applied, it is necessary to take into account the balance of the lesson as well as the time allocation. - Modifying: Modification can be divided into two specific ways: re-writing and re-structuring. Re-writing refers to the modification of the linguistic contents whereas the re-structuring applies to the classroom management, especially the structuring of the class. In short, teachers may occasionally decide to rewrite material, especially exercise material, to make it more appropriate, more ‘communicative’, more demanding and more motivating to their students. - Simplifying: simplification is a type of modification namely re-writing activity. Many elements of the material can be simplified such as the instructions, explanations or even the visual layout of materials but the texts or most often reading passages are applied to this technique. Teachers can simplify the texts with sentence structures, the grammar structures, and the lexical content - Re-ordering: teachers may decide that the order in which the material is presented is not suitable for their students. They can use the technique of re-ordering to put parts of a course book in a different order, adjusting the sequence of presentation within a unit, or to arrange of different units in a course book. - Re-placing: after being evaluated, text or exercise material which is considered ineffective or inappropriate fro whatever reasons may be replaced by a more suitable one. In short, materials adaptation plays an important part in the process of language teaching and learning. It makes the teaching materials more relevant to the needs of students and to the objectives of the course, and therefore, would stimulate the effectiveness of teaching and learning. 1.4. Summary This chapter has provided a brief review of literature on materials evaluation. It includes three sections. The first section addressed major issues reflecting the roles of the materials in language learning - teaching; and types of materials. The second sections presented major issues in materials evaluation: definitions of materials evaluation, purposes of materials evaluation, types of materials evaluation, materials evaluators, models for materials evaluation and criteria for materials evaluation. The last section also included some theoretical discussions about materials adaptation. Therefore, this chapter can be seen as the theoretical foundation for the applications for the study in chapter III and the improvements that should be made to the course book “Basic English III” for non- English major students at BG Teachers’ Training College. Chapter 2: Research Methodology 2.1. An overview of current English Teaching and Learning at BGTTC Bac Giang Teachers Training College is the only college in Bac Giang province responsible for training junior teachers of English and other subjects. Recently, there has been no more need for English teachers in the province. Consequently, 16 teachers of English department have been assigned to teach English for non- English major students. BGTTC is situated in a mountainous province. Thus, the teaching conditions are quite poor. This college does not have special rooms for studying foreign language. The classrooms are narrow with nearly 50 students in each, and the teaching facilities only include textbook, board, and chalk, there are neither visual aids, nor modern facilities. The reference books for students are very limited as well. Besides that, most of non- English major students at BG College come from rural areas in BG province. By the time they enter the College, they have experienced 3 to 7 years studying English at secondary school. Some of them have learned other foreign languages such as Russian or French, so their level of English proficiency and their learning style were varied. Until now, no official examination has ever been held to measure students’ English proficiency at the beginning stage. In addition, the class time is limited and the class size is too large which is a real problem for effective classroom management. In class, only some strong students are motivated to follow new methods of teaching and participate actively in group discussions, presentations, and so on.... Meanwhile, the weaker ones sit quietly noting down teachers’ explanations of grammar and vocabulary. They are separated from all group activities and prefer working on the materials individually. Most of the students do not have obvious communicative needs. All they need is adequate knowledge of grammar and vocabulary to pass the examinations and good reading skills to read books and newspapers. The differences in studying styles causing a lot of difficulties for teachers to conduct their lesson effectively and arouse the learning interest among students. In such a teaching context, the teachers of the college tend to adopt both traditional and communicative approaches in their classroom practices to help students achieve the most essential requirements of their English courses. 2.2. Research Methods 2.2.1. Research questions As mentioned earlier, the aims of this study are to answer the two following research questions: 1. To what extent does “Basic English III” satisfy the requirements of the course provided at BGTTC in terms of aims, content and methodology? 2. What improvements should be made to the material to meet the course requirements and students’ need?this question is too general. Make it more specific in relation to course requirements and students’needs. 2.2.2. Participants The teacher respondents in this study included sixteen English teachers of whom there were two material designers, thirteen English teachers and the researcher herself. They were all from English department at BGTTC and by the time the research was conducted, they had been teaching English for more than 7 years and had experience in teaching this material to non-English major students. The material designers were well trained and considered experienced with at least 8 years teaching English one of whom had a M.A degree from College of foreign Languages, Vietnam National University while the other was an English staff that had a post- graduate certificate for a methodology training course. The other thirteen teachers chosen as respondents of this study were nine females and four males whose age ranges from 32 to 50. They had used this material to teach the second year students of different classes. Therefore, they were in a better position to evaluate the material than those who had little experience using the material. The researcher of this study was also an English teacher at BGTTC having 7 years teaching experience and had also used this material to teach the second year non-English major students. 2.2.3. Data collection procedures 2.2.3.1. Document analysis Document analysis is an effective method to collect the data for the study. As Robinson (1991: 71) said it can provide useful information and “form an essential part of the data for an evaluation exercise”. In this study, the evaluator is also a teacher who has worked with the material “Basic English III” for two years and is now in a position to conduct an evaluation of the material, which is based on an analysis of the teaching material, and the requirements of the course. Therefore document analysis of this study was the analysis of the course syllabus and the material “Basic English III” with three major criteria namely aims, content, and methodology. * Syllabus analysis The syllabus was analyzed according to three criteria: aims, content and methodology. The course objectives in the syllabus were carefully examined as a subjective analysis. * Material analysis The material analysis was conducted after the curriculum analysis was finished. The material itself was analyzed objectively under the same three criteria used in curriculum analysis above. Then fourteen units were analyzed to give a detailed description of the material’s contents so that comparison between the material and the requirements of the course could be made. Both syllabus and material analysis were broken into sub- criteria as follows: · Aims of the course · Content - Language points: Vocabulary and Grammar structures and pronunciation - Proportion of macro- skills - Micro-skills covered - Text types - Topics - Organization of content - Sequence of content - The teachers’ opinions about the students’ learning strategies and preference - Time allocation for each unit · Methodology - Kinds of exercises/ tasks - Teaching- learning techniques - Methodological guidance The results of syllabus analysis (subjective analysis) were then matched with those from the “Basic English III” analysis, as a kind of objective one to see whether they are well matched to each other. 2.2.3.2 Questionnaires There are many ways of collecting data such as: mail survey, telephone survey, interview, questionnaire, and so on.... but questionnaire is one of the instruments which is often used to collect data by most of researchers in social sciences. Gillham (2000: 6) points out that questionnaire has a number of significant advantages such as: - Low cost in time and money. - Easy to get information from a lot of people very quickly. - Respondents can complete the questionnaire when it suits them. - Analysis of answers to closed questions is straightforward. - Less pressure for an immediate response. - Respondents’ anonymity. - Lack of interviewer bias. - Standardization of questions (but true of structured interview). - Can provide suggestive data for testing a hypothesis. The overall purpose of choosing the questionnaire for this study was to collect the information from the teachers about the material. Most importantly, completing the questionnaire, the respondents of this study had less pressure in completing the questionnaire, than in taking part in other forms such as interviews or direct discussions with the researcher. Besides, the collected data from questionnaire is relatively easy to be summarized and reported as all the informants answer the same questions. The questionnaires were designed based on the results of syllabus analysis and material analysis. They were distributed to the material designers and the teachers who had designed and taught this material, one week after the first term of the school year 2006- 2007 was over. The questionnaires were given to the material designers and the teachers at the same time. First, they read through the questionnaires to make sure that any unambiguity could be avoided. The questionnaires then were asked to return in a week. The questionnaire is divided into four parts: Part A investigates the material designers and teachers’ opinions about the aims of the material. Part B seeks their opinions about the content of the material Part C asks for their opinions about the methodology Part D requires them to offer suggestions for the material’s further improvement The questionnaire is summarized in detail as follows: Parts Types of information Question A The aims of the material in relation to the aims of the course Q 1- 6 B Language points: Vocabulary and Grammar structures and pronunciation Q 7 Proportion of macro- skills Q 8 Micro-skills covered Q 9 Topics Q 10, 11 Organization of content Q 12 Sequence of content Q 13 Text types Q 14 Time allocation for each unit Q 15 Students’ learning strategies and preference Q 16,17,18 C Kinds of tasks/ exercises Q 19- 22 Teaching and learning techniques Q 23 Methodological guidance Q 24 D Suggestions for the contents and methodology Q 25- 32 Table 2.1: Types of information in the teacher questionnaire 2.3. Summary This chapter has provided an overview of the current English teaching and learning context at BGTTC. The participants involved in this research were Bac Giang English teachers who had been teaching the material “BEIII” for two years. Besides, questionnaire, institutional document analysis, and material analysis being primarily based on three criteria: aims, content, and methodology were employed as major research instruments to seek answers to the two research questions given in 2.2.1. Chapter 3: Data Analysis and Discussion 3.1. Document Analysis 3.1.1. The Suitability of the Material to the Aims of the Course To determine the appropriateness of the material to the aims of the course, the author has based upon the analysis of the syllabus objectives and that of the material. 3.1.1. 1 Syllabus objectives analysis The course “Basic English III” is aimed at providing students with: - basic grammatical structures, - basic vocabulary for daily communication, - the opportunity to improve pronunciation with focus on reduced vowels, word linking, stress and intonation, - the opportunity to practice reading skills through reading passages about different themes, - the opportunity to practice writing skill with focus on writing complex sentences, paragraphs, and essay, and - the opportunity to practice everyday spoken language in common situations. As can be seen above, the primary focus of the course is improving students’ basic grammatical knowledge and vocabulary which, in fact, are of great significance to students’ success in learning English for communicative purposes at low intermediate level. To guarantee that the given purposes of the course can be achieved, stress is also on the development of all the four language skills namely reading, speaking, writing and listening. Also, pronunciation improvement is included as an important objective to be fulfilled. 3.1.1.2. Material analysis The aims of the material “Basic English III”, which were built on the aims of the syllabus objectives for second- year non-English major students were described in 14 units of the material in terms of language points and language skills ( see Appendix 3). The language points in terms of grammar, vocabulary and the language skills (reading, writing, and speaking) seem to match with the requirements of the course. However, the pronunciation part did not exist in the material. So it could be concluded that the requirements for pronunciation improvement was not fulfilled. * Language points Grammar The grammar section aims to orientate students to the language work that is to come. It presents and gives students the chance to practice basic grammar structures. The grammar section has three stages: presentation, rules and practice (see Sample Unit 4 in Appendix 5). In the presentation stage, students are given a task that highlights the new grammar points. In the second stage, students are asked to work out the rules and usage for those grammatical items. In the third stage, students are provided with some exercises to practice the newly introduced structures in order to help students reinforce their grammar knowledge. As shown above, the material proves to be successful in providing students with the basic grammatical structures as the course requires. Vocabulary The vocabulary section deals with vocabulary for daily communication on common topics such as: sleep (unit 1), student’s life (unit 3), work (unit 4), food and drink (unit 5), English- speaking countries (unit 6), healthy food (unit 7), daily activities (unit 8)... However, there is not a separate vocabulary section for students to learn. The list of new vocabulary is just found at the end of the book (for a sample, see table 3.1 below). drowsy (adj): ngủ gật snooze (n) ngủ gà gật forty winks: chợp mắt doze (v) ngủ lơ mơ shut- eye (n): nhắm mắt skip (v) ngủ siesta (n): giấc ngủ trưa ở sứ nóng nap (v) chợp mắt một lát Table 3.1: The vocabulary list of unit 1 (Basic English III, p. 87) In addition, there are no examples for further explanation or illustration of the use of each new word. Vocabulary exercises for are also missing in this section. Since new vocabulary is just presented to students without giving them the chance to practice, it is reasonable to conclude that the material has failed to meet the requirement of improving students’ vocabulary. Pronunciation The material could not help students to learn the essential pronunciation elements including stress, intonation, reduced vowels, and word linking, because it does not provide any pronunciation practice in each unit. Moreover, there is no pronunciation section in the map of contents (see Appendix 3). It is only present in the outline of the syllabus (see Appendix 2). Therefore, the objective of pronunciation improvement has not been fulfilled. * Language skills Reading The reading skill, as stated in the aims of the course, is the element teachers much focus on. In this material, the topics of the texts are mostly relevant to everyday life. As can be seen in Appendix 5 (a sample of unit 4), the reading section in the material is very clearly developed following the model of three stages: pre- reading, while reading and post reading that help both students and teachers use the section effectively. In pre- reading, students are given some questions concerning the content of the lesson and they have to predict the answers. In while- reading, they spend time reading the text and giving the right answers to the questions raised in the pre- reading stage. After that, various types of post-reading tasks are given to check readers’ comprehension such as: short answers, multiple choice, true/ false statements, and so on. These task types help develop students’ reading skills. Writing and speaking Throughout the book, writing and speaking skills are normally found as follow- up activities, which are used to reinforce introduced grammatical structures and for post reading practice, not as separate sections. In addition, the presentation and practice of the given skills as compared to the syllabus objectives are insufficient. For example, with writing skill, unit 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 14 give students the chances to practice writing complex sentences while unit 8 is aimed at developing students’ paragraph writing skills but none of these units is devoted to essay writing. With speaking skill, in unit 11, after doing language focus about gerunds, students are asked to tell their partners what they like or dislike doing in their free time. Because of the lack of specific instructions, students have many difficulties in performing these tasks. From the facts above, it could be said that the material has partly met the course requirements in terms of writing skill and speaking skill. * Conclusion of the material evaluation From the above mentioned analysis, it can be concluded that the material has fully achieved the aims of the course in terms of grammar and reading skill, partly fulfilled the aims of the course in terms of writing skills and speaking skills, and failed to meet the requirement for pronunciation and vocabulary development. 3.1.2. The Suitability of the Material to the Content Requirements of the Course 3.1.2.1. Syllabus analysis To determine whether the material has well responded to the content requirements of the course, the author made a comparison between the content requirements of the course and the content of the material. Contents Course requirements 1. Language points - Grammatical structures Vocabulary Pronunciation 2. Macro-skills and their proportion 3. Micro-skills Reading Writing Speaking 4. Text types 5. Topics 6. Organization of content 7. Sequence of content 8. Time allocation Basic English grammatical structures such as modal verb, modals + perfect infinitive, expression of quantity, subject- verb agreement with coordinators, linking verbs, used to, too + adj/ adv + to infinitive, adj/ adv + enough + to infinitive, enough + noun + to infinitive, gerund, infinitive, adj + prep, nouns formation Words related to common topics Reduced vowels, word linking, stress and intonation. Reading, writing, speaking (with more focus on reading and writing skills) Guessing, scanning, skimming Writing complex sentences, paragraphs, and essays Asking for information, making an interview, making a description, asking for clarification Reading texts, dialogues, newspapers, invention, story, and descriptions Common, interesting topics with updated information Around the language points Recycle available Three periods per unit Table 3.2: The content requirements for Semester 3 Table 3.2 above presents the description of the course content requirements in terms of language points, macro-skills and their proportion, micro-skills, text types, topics, organization of content, sequence of content, and time allocation. 3.1.2.2. Material analysis Fourteen units in the material were analyzed with respect to language points, language skills, topics, text types, organization of content, sequence of content and time allocation to find out the suitability of the material in terms of content. * The language points - Grammar: this material provides basic English grammar structures such as modal verb, modals + perfect infinitive, expression of quantity, subject- verb agreement with coordinators, linking verbs, used to, too + adj/ adv + to infinitive, adj/ adv + enough + to infinitive, enough + noun + to infinitive, gerund, infinitive, adj + prep, nouns formation As can be seen from table 3.2 above, it is obvious that the grammar components in the material could meet the objectives as stated in the syllabus. - Vocabulary: the requirements of the course for vocabulary are words related to common, interesting topics. Analysis of the material showed that the material supplied students with much of vocabulary of various common topics such as sleep (unit 1), student’s life (unit 3), work (unit 4), food and drink (unit 5), English- speaking countries (unit 6), healthy food (unit 7), daily activities (unit 8), and so on. Therefore, the material could match well with the course requirement in terms of vocabulary. - Pronunciation: the material analysis showed that there was not any section for pronunciation practice, so students did not have the chance to improve pronunciation related elements such as stress, intonation, reduced vowels, and word linking while they were learning this material, so it can be concluded that the requirement for pronunciation improvement was not satisfied. * The macro-skills and their proportion The aims of the course are to develop students’ reading, writing and speaking skills. Among these skills, more emphasis is put on reading skills. As it was shown in table 3.2, the material mainly focuses on reading skills, which is part of course requirements. However, after analyzing fourteen units of the material, the researcher found that in most units, there were no separate sections for speaking and writing skills. The speaking and writing practices were mostly found integrated with reading activities, and grammar sections. For example, after reading the text and doing the post- reading tasks about childhood memories in unit 8, students are required to write a paragraph about childhood. Another example is the presentation part in unit 8, after reading the conversation between Tom and Mary about expressing changes, students are asked to ask and answer questions about Tom. In unit 11, they are required to tell their partners about what they like and dislike doing in free time. Examples as such have revealed that this material was primarily designed to develop students’ reading skills, not writing and speaking skills. Therefore, it could be said that the material did not fully respond to the course requirements in terms of macro-skills. * The micro- skills All of the skills work for reading, writing and speaking skills are presented in table 3.2. In order to achieve the syllabus objectives as mentioned in 3.1.1, students are trained to acquire the following micro-skills (or sub-skills): - Reading skill: guessing, scanning, and skimming. - Writing skill: writing complex sentences, paragraphs and complete essays. - Speaking skill: asking for information, making an interview, making a description, and asking for clarification. Regarding the sub-skills of guessing, scanning, and skimming in reading, students were exposed to those skills in all the reading texts and they were well developed in such a way that taught students to read through the text for extracting general information or scanning for specific information by doing a number of tasks such as answering short questions, true or false exercises, matching and so on. The skills of writing and speaking were not consistent with the course requirements. The requirements of the course for writing were writing complex sentences, paragraphs and complete essays. The material analysis showed that students only had opportunities to write a paragraph in unit 8; completing the sentences in unit 4, 6, 7, and 11; and building sentences in unit 6, 10, 11, 13, and 14, all of which indicate that throughout the course students had no opportunities to practice writing essays. For speaking, the course requirements were asking for information, making an interview, and so on. In this material, students were required to ask for information in unit 8 and unit 11 which means students had little opportunity to practice speaking skill. From the given analysis, it is apparent that only reading skill has satisfied the course requirements while writing and speaking skills were far from satisfactory as compared to the course requirements. * The text types According to the requirements of the course, the content of the material should be introduced in various forms such as reading texts, dialogues, newspapers, invention, story, and descriptions. Dialogues, and reading texts often appeared in grammar section and the others were in the reading section. From the material analysis, the researcher found that the text types used in the material were relevant to the course requirements. * The topics The treatment of topics as presented in table 3.2 deals with common and interesting topics with updated information for social communication purposes. All the topics found in the material provided students with useful background knowledge and suit students’ interest some of which are sleep (unit 1), food (unit 5), work and retirement (unit 4), expressing changes (unit 8), a healthy diet for everyone (unit 7), greenhouse effect (unit 11), expressing feelings (unit 13). In short, the topics in the material were the “fit- all” topics and they satisfied the requirements of the course. * Organization of content The content of the material was divided into three parts: Part 1 was grammar presented through texts or dialogues, language focuses and exercises. Part 2 was the reading texts, which went together with tasks. Part 3 was exercises concerning language focuses. Since the content of this material was organized around the specified language points, it is reasonable to state that the content organization has achieved the course requirements. * Sequence of content The content of the material did not go from easier to more difficult level. As can be seen from the organization of content, the material was divided into three parts: grammar, reading and exercises. These parts were repeated throughout the book. Therefore, recycling the learned knowledge was available. Accordingly, it is reasonable to state that the sequence of content completely fits the course specification. * Time allocation There were three periods allotted for each unit. The first period was for grammar and some exercises. The two remaining periods were for reading and exercises for further practice. Thus, time allocation for each unit as such seemed appropriate. * Conclusion of the material evaluation The data analysis from the institutional document and the material indicated that the contents reflected in the material matched the contents of the course requirements in terms of the grammar structures, vocabulary, reading skills, the text types, the topics, organization of content, sequence of content, and time allocation. However, writing and speaking skills, as well as pronunciation failed to meet the requirements of the course. 3.1.3. The Suitability of the Material to the Methodology Requirements of the Course 3.1.3.1. Syllabus analysis The following table presents…. Contents Methodology requirements of the course 1. Kinds of tasks and exercises A. Language points: grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. B. Language Skills - Reading - Writing -Speaking 2. Learning–Teaching techniques Choose the correct word/ grammar structure; correct the grammatical error; give the right tense of verbs; change the word form; gap-fill; match words with definitions; circle the best answer. Choose the correct answers; read the text and mark True (T), false (F); read the text and answer the questions; read the text and correct the mistakes in the statements; read the text and numbering the sentences or the paragraphs; read the text and find the similar words in the reading text; read the text and find the best title for the passage. Writing description, paragraphs and essays; completing the sentences; building the sentences with guided words; transforming the sentences. Role- play the dialogue; Making a description; Making an interview Working individually/ in pairs/ in small groups; role-play Table 3.3: The methodology requirements of the course As indicated above, there were two main parts in the methodology requirements of the course. They were tasks/ exercises with focus on language points and language skills, and learning–teaching techniques which stresses different forms of teaching/learning. 3.1.3.2. Material analysis As can be seen in table 3.3, the course requirements for methodology suggested the different types of tasks and exercises, and teaching/learning techniques used in the classroom. * Types of tasks/ exercises After analyzing the material, the researcher found that the material could meet some of the methodology requirements of the course in terms of types of tasks/ exercises. As for the types of tasks/ exercises for language points: grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation, there were a variety of tasks/ exercises such as: gap- fill (in unit 1, 8, 10, and 14); grammar error correction (unit 5); give the right tense of the verbs (unit 3); change the word form (unit 2, 6, 12, and 14); choose the correct word/ grammar structure (unit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14). Most of the tasks/ exercises here were for grammar and some were for vocabulary. However, the tasks/ exercises for pronunciation practice could not be found in the material. In comparison with the requirements shown in table 4.3, the material could partly meet the requirements for the types of tasks/ exercises for language points. The tasks for reading included in the material were various with different types. For example, reading the text and marking, True / False (T/F) exercise could be found in unit 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 11, 12, and 13; choosing the correct answers in unit 1, 4, 5, 11, 13, and 14; reading the text and answering the questions in unit 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14; reading the text and correcting the mistakes in unit 3, and 6 and so on. In comparison with the requirements shown in table 3.3, it could be said that this material has responded successfully to the requirements for the task types. For writing and speaking, as mentioned above, there was no separate section on these skills in the material. As a result, only some tasks of writing and speaking were suggested as being integrated with other skills namely listening or reading in the material. Tasks were designed to develop students’ writing and speaking skills were found in the material, for writing such as building sentences with guided words in unit 7, 10; writing a paragraph in unit 8; transforming the sentences in unit 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14; Task for speaking such as making an interview in unit 8, 11. However, the number of exercises on these skills found in the material was few. It only included some main types of exercises as mentioned above. Therefore, it could be said that the material has not offered suitable tasks to achieve the course objectives for the development of writing and speaking skills. * The teaching/ learning techniques In terms of teaching/ learning techniques, the researcher found no instructions for the techniques required by the course in the material such as working individually, role-play, or working in small groups, just the technique of working in pairs could be found in all pre- reading tasks. However, some of the exercises required students to talk with their partners (units 1, and 8), answer the questions (can be seen in grammar section of most units). Therefore, students have a little chance of learning by cooperating with each other. So this material failed to improve the teaching/ learning techniques. Conclusion of the material evaluation The results about the methodology of the course reflected in the material as compared to the methodology requirements of the course confirms that the reading practice activities could meet the requirements of the course perfectly. Meanwhile, grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation practice activities in the material partly matched the course requirements. Especially, the task types of writing and speaking skills, and the learning–teaching techniques did not fulfill the course requirements. The given weaknesses will serve as a basis for further suggestion for revision and improvement of the material, which will be presented in part 3.5. 3.2. Survey Results 3.2.1. The Suitability of the Material to the Aims of the Course Results from teachers’ questionnaire (Questions 1-6) about the suitability of the material to the aims of the course are shown in table 3.4 below: Does the material provide students with opportunity to... Yes No Not sure develop basic grammatical points 100% 0% 0% widen general vocabulary of most common topics 31.3% 68.7% 0% improve pronunciation, stress, intonation, linking word, and reduced vowels 6.3% 93.7% 0% acquire and improve reading skills to complete the reading task- types 100% 0% 0% acquire and improve writing skills to write complex sentences, paragraphs, and essays 43.7% 56.3% 0% practice everyday spoken English in common situations 18.7% 75% 6.3% Table 3.4: Teachers’ opinions about the suitability of the material (Q 1- 6) The data presented in table 3.4 revealed that all the teachers accounting for 100% believed that the material successfully provided students with basic grammar points and improved reading skill which enabled them to understand reading texts and did reading exercises using reading strategies given in the material. However, for pronunciation, approximately 93.7% of the teachers disagreed that the material improved students’ pronunciation in terms of stress, intonation, reduced vowels, and word linking, because pronunciation was only presented in the outline of the syllabus and it could not be seen in any parts in the material. As for vocabulary, there was not a separate vocabulary section and there were neither example for each new word nor vocabulary exercises. As a result, only 31.3% of the teachers claimed that the material helped students to widen the general vocabulary of most common topics. Meanwhile, about two third of them accounting for 68.7% had an opposing view. As regards to writing, nearly half of the teachers (43.7%) affirmed that students could acquire and improve writing skill through practices of writing complex sentences, paragraphs, and essays while 56.3% were against that. A cause for complaint was that the material only helped improve students’ skill in writing complex sentences. For speaking skill, only 18.7% of the teachers admitted that the material offered them the opportunity to practice this skill while 75% of them strongly disagreed about this opinion. Especially, 6.3% of the teachers did not know exactly whether the material improved students’ speaking or not. In sum, as the data implied, the material could fit in with the aims of the course in terms of grammar, and reading skill. However, it failed to improve students’ vocabulary, pronunciation, writing and speaking skills. Consequently, students did not have many chances to practice pronunciation, vocabulary, writing, and speaking skills. This finding is a perfect match with the results of document and material analysis. 3.2.2. The Suitability of the Material to the Content Requirements of the Course * Language points and macro- skills Language points and language skills are main parts in the material. The researcher analyzed teachers’ opinions in questions 7, and 8 about grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and skills work on reading, writing, speaking in order to get the conclusion about contents of the material. What do you think about the amount of language points and language skills covered in this material? Too much Adequate Not much Not at all Structures of grammar 0% 100% 0% 0% Vocabulary 43.7% 56.3% 0% 0% Pronunciation 0% 0% 12.5% 87.5% Reading 0% 100% 0% 0% Writing 0% 12.5% 87.5% 0% Speaking 0% 12.5% 87.5% 0% Table 3.5: Teachers’ opinions about language points and languages skills covered in this material (Q7-8) With regard to language points covered in the material, all of the grammatical items required by the course were introduced in the material. For macro- skills, there was a priority to reading skill. As it can be seen from table 3.5, 100% of the teachers found that grammar structures and reading in the material were adequate. More than half of them (56.3%) thought that the vocabulary in the material was satisfactory to students’ needs. However, there was 43.7% of the teachers’ thought that the number of vocabulary was a lot for students to learn in a short period. For pronunciation, 87.5% of the teachers’ opinions agreed that pronunciation was not available in the material, except for a limited amount of teachers (12.5%) found that there was pronunciation practice in this material but there was not much of it. Interestingly, 87.5% of the teachers who used this material for teaching gave the same responses about writing and speaking skills. They thought that this material did not develop students’ writing and speaking skills. The reasons were that there were some tasks/ exercises of these skills integrated in the post- reading, and grammar section. Besides, teachers themselves had to design tasks/ exercises of writing and speaking for students to practice. As a result, only some teachers agreed that the material covered these skills. The collected data and facts lead the researcher to the conclusion that grammar structures and reading skills were appropriate to the course requirements; vocabulary was partly suitable to the course requirements; but pronunciation, writing, and speaking skills proved completely unsatisfactory to the content requirements. *The micro- skills The micro- skills consist of the sub- skills of reading, writing, and speaking. Table 3.6 below will illustrate teachers’ feedback on the micro- skills (or sub-skills) coverage. What sub- skills does the material help students develop? Reading Yes No Not sure Guessing 100% 0% 0% Scanning 100% 0% 0 (0%) Skimming 100% 0% 0% Writing Brainstorming ideas 31.2% 68.8% 0% Completing sentences 50% 50% 0% Building sentences 50% 50% 0% Transforming sentences 50% 50% 0% Using appropriate structures to express ideas when writing 12.5% 87.5% 0% Using appropriate vocabulary to express ideas when writing 12.5% 87.5% 0% Using good connecting words to link sentences in writing 12.5% 87.5% 0% Organizing ideas into a paragraph, and a complete essay 31.2% 68.8% 0% Speaking Asking for information 37.5% 62.5% 0 % Making an interview 12.5% 87.5% 0 % Making a description 12.5% 87.5% 0 % Asking for clarification 12.5% 87.5% 0 % Table 3.6: Teachers’ opinions about effectiveness of the sub-skills (Q 9) When being asked to give opinions about each of the given micro- skill, all of the teachers (100%) thought that the material helped students develop reading sub-skills such as guessing, skimming, and scanning. This might be because students are at low intermediate level, so these sub- skills help them become more effective readers. However, for writing, half of the teachers shared the opinion that the material helped develop some techniques of completing sentences, building sentences, transforming sentences and 31.2% of them agreed it could teach students how to brainstorm ideas; organize ideas into a paragraph, and a complete essay. Especially, only 12.5% of the teachers’ realized that the material assisted students to use appropriate structures, vocabulary to express ideas when writing, and use good connecting words to link sentences in writing, but 87.5% of the teachers did not. As can be seen from the material result, sub-skills such as “brainstorm ideas, use appropriate structures...” did not appear in the material, but individual teachers in their teaching process might design them. For speaking, only a small percentage of the teachers (about 12.5%) found that students had opportunity to practice making an interview, a description, and asking for clarification while they were learning this material, whereas the majority of them (87.5%) thought that the material did not provide students chances to practice these sub-skills. Concerning the sub-skill of asking for information, 37.5% teachers agreed that students were required to ask for information, while 62.5% of them disagreed. This proves that students had little chance to practice speaking in the class. The reasons could derive from the lack of vocabulary and the difference in students' proficiency and interest. In conclusion, as the data suggested, the micro- skills coverage for reading satisfied the content requirements but that for writing and speaking were not up to the expectation, as there was not adequate practice for these skills. * The topics The purpose of questions 10, and 11 is to see if the topics of the material matched with the course topics. Teachers’ opinions about the topics are shown below. What do you think of the topics in the material? very interesting interesting ok boring very boring 0% 25% 75% 0% 0% Do the topics in the material provide with update information? Yes No Not sure 25% 75% 0% Table 3.7: Teachers’ opinion about the topics in the material (Q10- 11) As indicated in table 3.7, only one fourth of the teachers found the topics interesting and up to date. The majority of them (75%) agreed that the topics were relevant to students’ need but were not up-to-date. The interpretation for this might be because some topics such as “work, sleep, food”, which were already available in “Basic English I”, were repeated in this material. In addition, these topics did not help improve students’ background knowledge about more current issues so they might reduce students’ interest and motivation. Therefore, the topics were not totally satisfactory as compared to the course requirement. * Text types Text types used in this material are reading texts, dialogues, newspapers articles, stories, and descriptions. Here are teachers’ opinions about text types introduced in the material “BEIII”. What do you think about text- types in the material? varied 100% normal 0% monotonous 0% simple 0% normal 100% complicated 0% Table 3.8: Teachers’ opinion about text- types in the material (Q14) Table 3.8 revealed that text- types in the material were appropriate to students’ level. This fact is proved by 100% of the teachers being asked agreed that this material provided students with a variety of text- types, which are neither too simple nor complicated. Thus, text types in this material well met the content requirements of the course. * Organization and Sequence of content Organization and sequence of the textbook content implies how the content of the individual unit is organized and sequenced in a unit. Answers to the questions 12, and 13 are demonstrated as follows. How is the content organized throughout the material? around the language points by topics by skills others, please specify 100% 0% 0% 0% How is the content sequenced throughout the material? from easier to more difficult recycling available various 0% 100% 0% Table 3.9: Teachers’ opinion about the organization and sequence of content (Q12- 13) As can be seen in the material analysis result, the content of the material focused much on grammar. All units had three sections: grammar, reading, and exercise and these sections were repeated throughout the book. Therefore, the learned knowledge could be recycled to help students understand deeply about lessons. Table 3.9 indicated that there was no difference between teachers’ opinions and the course requirement with 100% teacher’s approval. In short, the organization and sequence of content of this book fully satisfied the requirement of the course. * Time allocation This part presents teachers’ opinions about time allocation of the material’s. Do you think 3 periods for each unit is................................................................ too much much enough too little 0% 0% 81.2% 18.8% Table 3.10: Teachers’ opinion about the time allocation in the material (Q15) As shown above, 81.2% teachers approved that three periods for each unit was enough, while only 18.8% of the teachers thought students needed more time to finish their lesson. Thus, this might lead to the conclusion that time allocation for each unit in general was appropriate to the course requirement. * Teachers’ opinions about students’ learning strategies and preference Teachers’ opinions about students’ learning strategies and preference are shown in table 3.11a, 3.11b, and 3.11c. Does the material encourage students to develop appropriate learning strategies and to become independent in their learning? Yes No Not sure 62.5% 37.5% 0% Table 3.11 a: Teacher’s opinions about students’ learning strategies and preference (Q16) Due to the limited scope of a minor thesis, the researcher only focused on teachers’ opinions. From the experience of working with this material, 62.5% teachers in table 3.11a believed that the material encouraged students to develop appropriate learning strategies and helped students become independent in their learning. From your experience of working with students on the given material, which learning items do you find that students are satisfied with? Grammar structures 100% Exercise/ tasks 75% Vocabulary 50% Reading 100% Pronunciation 0% Writing 37.5% Topics 75% Speaking 25% Table 3.11 b: Teachers’ opinions about students’ learning strategies and preference (Q17) Learning items Most interesting Interesting Least interesting Grammar structures 100% 0% 0% Vocabulary 0% 50% 50% Pronunciation 0% 0% 100% Topics 0% 75% 25% Reading 100% 0% 0% Writing 0% 37.5% 62.5% Speaking 0% 25% 75% Exercise/ tasks 0% 75% 25% Table 3.11 c: Teachers’ opinions about students’ learning strategies and preference (Q18) Table 3.11b, and 3.11c presented figures regarding teachers’ opinions about students’ learning strategies and preference. As can be seen from table 3.11b and table 3.11c, 100% teachers realized that students were satisfied with grammar structures, and reading section and found them the most interesting learning items. The reasons for that are: a) these sections had specific instructions, and b) they provided students with various tasks types of grammar and reading. However, only few tasks types for vocabulary, writing, and speaking were realized. Thus, students were partly happy with the topics, and tasks/ exercises with 75% teachers’ approval. Meanwhile, 50% of them discovered that students were interested in vocabulary. That means students needed more opportunity for vocabulary practice, but there were few exercises for them to practice in this material. However, teachers recognized that students were less interested in writing and speaking activities with 37.5% and 25% respectively. Especially, all the teachers confirmed that students were not at all satisfied with pronunciation and it was the least interesting learning item. The reasons are because this material did not have separate section for pronunciation and there were not any exercises for students to practice. In sum, from their own experience of working with students on this material, most teachers being asked claimed that students were quite pleased with grammar and reading sections; partly pleased with the topics, tasks/ exercises, and vocabulary; dissatisfied with writing, speaking, and pronunciation. 3.2.3. The Suitability of the Material to Methodology Requirements of the Course * Tasks/ exercises The assessment of teachers about the variety of tasks/ exercises designed in the material is presented in the following table. Does the material contains a variety of tasks and activities of Yes No Not sure the language points 68.8% 31.2% 0% the reading skill 100% 0% 0% the writing skill 43.7% 56.3% 0% the speaking skill 18.8% 81.2% 0% Table 3.12: Teachers’ opinions about tasks and activities of language points and language skills (Q19- 22) The result from table 3.12 showed that different kinds of tasks and activities used in the classroom were about reading skills (100%). In contrast with language points, 68.8% teachers found that the material consisted of a variety of tasks and activities of language points. As can be seen from the material result, most of tasks/ exercises here were for grammar, and vocabulary. However, tasks/ exercises for pronunciation practice could not be found in the material. Through analyzing the material, the researcher found that most of tasks/ exercises for writing were writing complex sentences, so 43.7% of the teachers agreed that this material gave students opportunities to practice writing skill. Particularly, only 18.8% teacher agreed that students had opportunity to practice tasks/ exercises of speaking skill. The reason for this is that there was only ‘asking for information’ task found in this material. The data analysis from the material and questionnaires indicated that the material could meet methodological requirements of the course in terms of tasks/ exercises for reading skill; partly dealt with tasks/ exercises of language points. However, the findings also indicate that the material did not successfully fulfill the requirement for task types of writing and speaking skills. * Teaching / learning techniques In terms of learning- teaching techniques, teachers gave their opinions as follows: Teaching/ learning techniques Yes No Not sure Does the material provide opportunity for individual work, lockstep, pair work, and group work? 93.8% 6.2% 0% Table 3.13: Teachers’ opinions about teaching/ learning techniques in the material (Q23) Opinions of the teachers’ about teaching/ learning techniques were different from the material analysis result. As can be seen in the material analysis result, just the technique of working in pairs could be found in all pre- reading tasks, but, in fact, most of the teachers accounting for 93.8% agreed that teaching/ learning techniques including individual work, lockstep, pair work, and group work were used in this material, because most of them had used these techniques in teaching this material. Only some of them (6.2%) disagreed with this opinion. This might be because they did not see any instructions for use of these techniques in the material. Therefore, teaching/ learning techniques were partly satisfied with methodology requirements of the course. * Methodology guidance Besides, when being asked about what guidance the material provided teachers, 100% teachers said that the material “Basic English III” only gave teachers the guidance on lists of vocabulary and language- skills points, but it did not provide them any guidance about technical information, teaching aids, suggestions for further work, and methodological hints as it is shown in table 3.14 below. Hence, the guidance for teachers should be put in the teacher’s book to help teachers not only save time in preparing for the lessons, but also assist them in improving the quality of teaching. What guidance does the material provide teachers? Lists of vocabulary and language- skills points 100% Teaching aids 0% Technical information 0% Methodological hints 0% Suggestions for further work 0% Others............. 0% Table 3.14: Teachers’ opinions about the methodology guidance in the material (Q24) 3.2.4 Teachers’ suggestions for the materials improvement Questions 25-32 asked teachers to offer suggestions for further improvement of the material. Below is the summary of their suggestions: * Content Teachers' suggestions for the material improvement actually confirmed the findings about some problems stated in the previous sections. According to them, the following changes should be made: First, the material should have separate sections for vocabulary, pronunciation, writing, and speaking skills. Second, more exercises for these skills should be added into the material so that students would have chances to practice and improve these skills. Especially, these sections should be consistent with the course requirements. Finally, teachers suggested that topics could be various but should contain updated information . * Methodology According to the teachers , the methodology in term of types of tasks/ exercises and guidance for teaching needs to be adapted and supplemented. Specifically, more speaking tasks in the material should be designed in relation to the reading texts so that they can improve students’ discussion skills . Moreover, there should be more guidance for the writing skill so that students can improve the required skill and sub-skills. They also commented that a workbook and a teacher’s manual book with teaching hints as well as progress tests designed periodically for the students should be available. * Others Teachers expected that more visual materials to illustrate the lessons should be supplemented whenever possible in order to make the material more appealing. Most of the teachers affirmed that time allocation for individual units was adequate, but some of them thought that the material should give more time for students to finish all the exercises in the book. Especially, all the teachers complained that the class size was too large, and students’ levels were varied. Therefore, it was very difficult for teachers to use the learner- centered approach in teaching. So an official examination should be held to measure students’ English proficiency at the beginning stage. This would help teachers know more about their students’ level of English which surely lead to more appropriate and effective employment of teaching strategies in their actual teaching practices. 3.3. Summary of major findings Chapter three has analyzed and discussed the data gathered from the document analysis and teachers’ questionnaires. The evaluation result reveals certain strengths and weaknesses of “Basic English III”. As stated in the aim section, the course aims and the material aims seem to match perfectly. However, data collected from teachers’ questionnaires show that there are still a lot of rooms for improvement. The point of concern here is not in the grammar or reading section but the development of vocabulary; pronunciation; writing and speaking sections in their supporting roles to reading. As far as the content is concerned, the strengths, which are easily recognized lay in the grammar structures, reading section, a variety of text-types, and the content organization/sequence throughout the course and within each unit. They progress in such a way that students could learn English with relative ease. However, the aims of vocabulary improvement, especially pronunciation were not well achieved in this material. As can be seen in the document analysis and questionnaire, there were no separate sections for these parts, and there were no exercises for practice, either. Therefore, exercises should be designed to bring students opportunity practice at home and in the classroom. Moreover, students’ writing and speaking skills are difficult to be developed because there were only few task types of these skills found in this material and there were no separate parts for these skills. The failure of the methodological implication through tasks/ exercises mainly fell into the treatment of vocabulary, pronunciation, writing and speaking practice exercises. Students did not have opportunity to personalize what they had learnt since the material lacks the treatment of vocabulary, pronunciation, writing and speaking. The weaknesses of the material could also be found in teaching/ learning techniques when the material did not require teachers to use individual work, group work, or role-play in their teaching. However, individual teachers still used them in their teaching. In addition, there were no supporting materials such as workbook or teacher’s book, especially a set of supplementary reading material including newspapers, articles, stories or poems. In each class, both teachers and students who are willing to share their input readings could create this supplementary reading material. This material would encourage students enjoy their readings that would improve their background knowledge and their vocabulary. From that it could better suit the needs of mixed level students. Moreover, there were no tests included in the material. Tests would help teachers and students assess their own teaching/ learning. Teachers’ opinions prove that there is always a high demand for workbook, teacher’s book, a set of supplementary reading material, and tests. Therefore, they should be supplemented with the core material. The topics were relevant to the students’ knowledge level, but some of them were not interesting and up to date. Time allocation for individual units seemed to meet the course requirements. But some teachers required more time for each unit. However, time for each unit cannot exceed three periods so individual teachers should be more selective about the teaching contents and activities for each period and some tasks/ exercises could be used as homework. From the strengths and weaknesses of the material presented above, the researcher of the thesis can come to the conclusion that the current material can fully respond to the course requirements and better suit the needs of non-English major students of BGTTC if some suggested changes are implemented. Recommendations on what changes should be made and how it is done will be presented in details in the next part. 3.4. Recommendations for material improvements As was analyzed above, the major strengths of “Basic English III” for non-English major students at BGTTC appears to be a good book under present circumstances. However, obvious existing weaknesses also urge for immediate improvements, Therefore, the writer would suggest some recommendations for further improvements of the material by using the techniques of addition, deletion, and replacement as follows. * Addition The technique for addition as was discussed in chapter two refers to the process of supplementing the material by putting more into them quantitatively and qualitatively. In the quantitative way, we may add the techniques of extending more of the same components in the material without changing the methodology or the methodological framework of the material. The qualitative way refers to the development of the material in new directions by putting in different language skills or a new component. In the particular context at BGTTC, the qualitative way could be applied because it serves some certain purposes. First, the material should add the vocabulary practice exercises, such as: change the word form; gap-fill; match words with definitions and so on so that students will have opportunities to use the vocabulary they acquired in fluency work, which stimulate real language use. Second, it is necessary to add writing, speaking, and pronunciation sections. More exercises for these sections such as transforming sentences, writing description, paragraphs and essays, so on should be designed for writing. The same should be done for speaking such as role- playing the dialogue and describing pictures. Especially, adding the guidance or instruction for teachers to these skills is critical. Third, it is better to set appropriate time for each of these sections, so the time for reading section and grammar should be reduced. Fourth, adding a teacher’s manual. Simply, the designers can reproduce the student’s book with a few additional notes for the teacher, indicating objectives of each unit and suggesting ideas for one or two supplementary exercises. Others give detailed instructions to teachers and take them step-to-step through every stage of every unit. Finally, the progress tests and the achievement tests need to be included in the teacher’s book. The progress tests should be given for the mid- term, and the achievement tests will certainly come at the end of each term. These tests will help teachers to assess students’ progress during the whole term. * Deletion Deletion means cutting one or more stages within an activity or omitting a whole activity or even a whole lesson and compensating a more suitable one to meet the objectives of the whole unit. In this material, designers should delete some tasks/ exercises in exercise section and put them into the workbook for students to practice at home, then design some tasks/ exercises to vocabulary, pronunciation, writing, and speaking sections as mentioned above. For example: In unit 1, the students have to learn how to use modal verbs (can, could, be able to) and its theme is “sleep”. Designers could delete some exercises about modal verbs at exercise section in unit 1. Before reading the text about “sleep”, students will be provided with new words about sleep by matching words and definitions about sleep. Then after reading the text, students will be asked to use the modal verbs and words related to sleep to make sentences. Finally, they will ask and answer about “sleep” in pairs. * Replacement After being evaluated, the material may have some parts or exercises, which are ineffective or inappropriate to the objectives of the courses. In this study, this technique is applied to replace some inappropriate topics by the more interesting and updated ones, which should help students become more motivated in learning English. For example: topics “sleep”, “work”, and “food” are available in the material “Basic English I”. The researcher found that students were not interested in these topics as much as in the past, so they should be replaced by the other topics such as: “Singles find a new place to meet: at a supermarket” which will provide students the knowledge about dealing with relationships in social life such as friendship and love, or topic about future trends “Intelligent clothing”, and so on. To sum up, materials, though considered as an indispensable component in language teaching and learning, do not mean that teachers and learners have to depend totally on them. The material is simply a tool. Teachers and learners as the laborers have to learn how to use the tool effectively. In evaluating the materials, teachers need to work out the way to enhance its strengths and overcome its weaknesses so that the materials could be used more effectively in the process of teaching and learning. 3.5. Summary This chapter has presented the results of two kinds of research instruments: document analysis and the questionnaires given to teachers. The reports from the data collection methods were combined for analysis and further discussion regarding the given matters. Also, a summary of major findings and suggestions for the material improvements were given.. PART 3: CONCLUSION 1. Summary of previous parts Part 1 provides a brief introduction to the research including the rationale, the aims, the signific