Received in revised form 20 March 2014 paper, we evaluate EFL course book materials by considering their structure and effec-

primary schools (4th and 5th grades) and via in-depth interviews with the book authors.Our research has shown that materials production can be a predominantly topedown

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 357 22892120; fax: 357 2275 0310.E-mail addresses: dinatsa@ucy.ac.cy, tsagari.konstantia@ucy.ac.cy (D. Tsagari), sifakis@eap.gr, nicossif@hol.gr (N.C. Sifakis).

1 Tel.: 30 2610 367x687; fax: 30 2610 367x679.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System

System 45 (2014) 211e2264.1. Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2. Data collection and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.3. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.4. Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. Implications and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Samples of texts from Book D and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. EFL teaching in Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2134. Methodology of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214Keywords:EFL course booksTeachersAuthorsPolicy makersQuestionnaireInterviewsPrimary schools

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.04.0010346-251X/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.process, in which policy makers, materials authors and teachers can draw independentpathways to developing and implementing the nal product, i.e. the course book. Thendings of the study have implications for teaching, teacher training, materials design andpolicy making in contexts where learners use course books for foreign language learning.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212Accepted 14 April 2014Available online 9 May 2014tiveness through survey questionnaires administered to teachers working in Greek stateReview

EFL course book evaluation in Greek primary schools:Views from teachers and authors

Dina Tsagari a,*, Nicos C. Sifakis b,1

aDepartment of English Studies, University of Cyprus, 75 Kallipoleos Street, P.O. Box 20537, 1678 Nicosia, Cyprusb School of Humanities, Hellenic Open University, 18 Parodos Aristotelous Street, 26335 Patras, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 4 December 2013

a b s t r a c t

In foreign language contexts, course books assume a considerable amount of responsibilityfor the structuring of class time, classroom interaction, and language learning. In this

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/system

1. Introduction

This paper looks at how English language learning course materials developed by the Greek state for the primary sector(grades 4 and 5)2 are perceived by EFL teachers and what the intentions of authors of these materials are. Greece was chosenas the context of inquiry for various reasons. First of all, as existing nancial conditions in the country are unlikely to allow the

Research also suggests that teachers perspectives on course books depend heavily on their teaching context (Richards,

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e2262121998; Richards & Mahoney, 1996) and teaching experience (Gray, 2010). Some studies discuss teachers awareness aboutcontext-driven demands, for example, the role of institutional examinations, in shaping their own perceptions about coursebooks. For example, in Malaysia, Chandran (2003) explored junior high school EFL teachers beliefs and practices regardingcourse books that integrated the communicative approach, and found that teachers preferred to use commercially availablematerials that conformed to examination formats. Lee and Bathmaker (2007) also explored teachers beliefs about the use ofEnglish course books in Singaporean vocational schools. The researchers reported that teachers systematically downplayedthese course books and often replaced them with testing worksheets. These actions seemed to be inuenced by teachersperceptions about the pressures of the examination system and by learners cognitive shortcomings.

In addition, research has shown that teachers adopt different perspectives in evaluating courseware, some prioritisingteaching discrete language skills, others stressing the role of the rule system of the language, and yet others focussing on theuse of authentic contextualized discourse (Johnson, 1992). In a study reported in Johnson et al. (2008), three ELT teacherswere asked to evaluate the learner and teacher components of a coursebook using think-aloud protocols. The study drewattention to the different approaches adopted by each teacher portraying their individual priorities and preferences regarding

2 The study reported in this paper forms part of a larger research project that evaluated a suite of eight new EFL course books recently introduced in stateschools in Greece (three books in primary and ve in secondary schools).

3 Expanding Circle contexts are typically dened as contexts (e.g., in Brazil, China, Russia) where English does not have a state-recognized statutory rolein any way but it is taught and learnt as a foreign language (Kachru, 1990).funding of new course books or even the revision of the current ones (introduced in 2009 and still considered relativelyrecently published), teachers are probably going to have to use the existing course books for many years to come. Under thecircumstances, it is likely that the course books will dominate the current EFL primary teaching context and acquire an iconicstatus (Bolitho, 2008), leading teachers to developing xed ways of implementing them.

We were therefore interested in nding out about the strengths and weaknesses of these course books through the view-points of teachers and authors. Our ultimate aimwas to come upwith a number of pointers that can demonstrate good practiceinmaterials design and implementation for policymakers, course book designers and users (e.g., teachers) that ismeaningful forpublic school education in a country like Greece. We understand that these pointers would be sensitive to the idiosyncrasies ofthe context we are focussing on, but are condent that similar teaching and learning contexts around the world can learn fromthem. We hope that such recommendations will add to the existing literature on English language learning course bookdevelopment and evaluation (Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2010a). We also hope that these will contribute to the development ofappropriate courseware that respond to learners needs and meet the demands and concerns of policy makers and educators incountries of the Expanding Circle3 (Graddol, 2006), like Greece, that employ course books for the teaching of English.

2. Literature review

Course books are considered a given in most classroom contexts and are usually perceived by teachers to providestructure and content for learning activities, to organize curriculum, and to frame (more or less questionable) classroomideologies, among many other roles (Guerrettaz & Johnston, 2013, p. 781). There is a lot of information on language learningcourse book development and evaluation in the available literature (see Tomlinson, 2012, 2013). For example, reviews ofmaterials development agree that materials evaluation, which refers to attempts to measure the value of materials(Tomlinson, 2011, p. 3), has taken up most of the attention (McDonough, Shaw, & Masuhara, 2011; Rubdy, 2003; Tomlinson &Masuhara, 2010a). There has been signicant input on developing principled criteria for evaluating, selecting, adapting andenriching language learning course books (for example, Cunningsworth, 1984, 1995; Masuhara, Hann, Yi, & Tomlinson, 2008;Menon, 2009; Mukundan & Ahour, 2010; Tomlinson, 2012; Tomlinson, Dat, Masuhara, & Rubdy, 2001). Interestingly, there isrich information concerning the descriptions of language learning materials evaluation in different teaching and learningcontexts, with an emphasis on Asian contexts (Lee & Bathmaker, 2007; Renandya, 2003) but fewer in the European context(Fenner & Newby, 2000).

The literature has also identied various stakeholders perspectives of course book evaluation. Of those, while there issome interesting insight on teachers viewpoints, there is general consensus that those viewpoints and needs are not suf-ciently attested, at least from an empirical point of view (Masuhara, 2011; McGrath, 2002; Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2010b).For instance, McGrath (2006) found that Hong Kong secondary school teachers and learners differed in their perceptionsabout the importance of course books and that, while teachers located positive and negative features of these materials,learners were particularly attached to their course books. Tomlinson and Masuhara (2010b) found that teachers in L2countries around the world specied their main want as interesting texts and their main need as not having to spend a lot oftime preparing lessons (p. 2).

types of tasks, learning outcomes, teaching experience and other language-related issues. Teachers personal beliefs were alsostudied in Smith (1996) who found signicant correlations between the instructional decisions of ESL teachers in post-secondary classes in Canada and their expressed theoretical beliefs.

With regard to teaching foreign languages to young learners (aged 7e12), in particular, recent research has promptedimplications for language learning policy-making (Nikolov, 2009), curriculum design (Harwood, 2010), implementation and

Overall, the materials designed can be characterized as being local, i.e. produced to cater to the local curriculum (see

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226 213Barrios, de Debat, & Tavella, 2008). In this paper, we focus on the evaluation of two course books targeted at young learners(9e11 years old) attending levels D and E (at grades 4 and 5 respectively) of primary schools. These two course books wereselected on the basis of a broad consensus among teachers concerning the widely different impact the course books have hadon teaching and learning (Tsagari & Sifakis, 2012). For example, teachers complained that the book used at level E is too dense(e.g. overloadedwithmaterials) and difcult for students. In the study, wewere interested to pursue this further and look intothe reasons behind these reactions, too.

According to the intention of the PI and the authors, the two course bookswere designed to target learners at two prociencylevels. The course book for the 4th grade, henceforth Book D, was designed to target learners at A1 level5 (Council of Europe,2001). The course book for level E, henceforth Book E, targeted students at level A2.6 Both course books comprise a Studentsbook, Teachers book, Workbook and CD material with oral recordings. These contained ten units each that are thematically-based. Units are divided into three lessons covering receptive and productive skills as well as grammar and vocabulary. Onthe cover page of each unit learners are exposed to the aims and objectives of the unit. The rst two lessons focus on variousaspects of the same thematic unit and present the new language. Each unit follows a similar format. Some of the features areregular (e.g. strategy corner, warm-up section, presentation of new language) and others may alternate within the book units.

4 Pedagogical Institute (2003) Cross-Thematic Curriculum Framework for Compulsory EducationdDEPPS (ofcial English translation available). Retrieved on15.4.2013, from http://www.pi-schools.gr/download/programs/depps/english/14th.pdf.

5 See Teachers book for 4th grade: http://www.pi-schools.gr/books/dimotiko/english_d/dask/dask.pdf.6 See Teachers book for 5th grade: http://www.pi-schools.gr/books/dimotiko/english_e/kath/s_1_142.pdf.evaluation (Enever, Moon, & Raman, 2009), and second language acquisition (Nikolov & Mihaljevic Djigunovic, 2006). AsEnglish is introduced at an increasingly early age in educational contexts of the Expanding Circle, scholars have looked at theexistence, or lack thereof, of relevant feasibility studies (Garca Mayo & Garca Lecumberri, 2003; Muoz, 2006), teachertraining, and the impact of curricula and language learning materials on young learners learning (Edelenbos & Kubanek,2009; Ghosn, 2010; Nikolov, Mihaljevic Djigunovic, Mattheoudakis, Lundberg, & Flanagan, 2007). However, there is stillrelatively little research of teachers perceptions about course books used in primary school settings. Nevertheless, the criteriafor successful course books for younger learners are clear. These should incorporate topics that are relevant to the holisticdevelopment of young learners who are still developing, not only linguistically but also cognitively and psychosocially(Ghosn, 2012, p. 65). Primary school learners respond best to purposeful activities (Hughes, 2012, p. 184) that are fun to carryout and primarily focus on listening and speaking (Arnold & Rixon, 2008). Skills integration should be gradual andmeaningful(Ghosn, 2012) while more attention needs to be paid to how reading skills might best be launched (Rixon, 2007, p. 6). Thatsaid, in school settings where course books play a particularly important role, as is the case in the present research, it isimportant to study stakeholders reactions to how course books designed for young learners impact language teaching and,by extension, learning.

3. EFL teaching in Greece

Greece is an interesting educational context in that it combines a rather lethargic state sector that is responsible forproviding a basic education. Nowadays, EFL is taught fromyear 3 up to year 12. The weekly contact hours allocated for foreignlanguage tuition vary between 2 and 3 (at primary and secondary level respectively). The state sector is also responsible forimplementing the countrys obligations that stem from EU policies concerning plurilingualism and the crosscurricular/crosscultural approach to language teaching and learning as stipulated in the Foreign Language Curricula of 2003,4 thephilosophy of which was taken into account in the new EFL course books of the present study.

On the other hand, the fact that the teaching and learning of English in the state sector is not openly linked to preparationfor a particular high-stakes examination implies, for the vast majority of learners and their families, that state-based EFLteaching and learning is perceived as essentially purposeless (Abbot, 1981). As a result, the private sector absorbs virtually allthe interest from parents, teachers, school owners, examining bodies, materials designers etc., in preparing learners for high-stakes prociency examinations that are perceived to be linked to a successful professional career (Sifakis, 2012). Conse-quently, an enormous exam-oriented industry has been operating in terms of courses and materials production that has hadan impact on language teaching and learning (Tsagari, 2009, 2012).

To implement the EU policies in language teaching and learning, new EFL course books were introduced in the state schoolsystem in 2009. The course books were designed under the aegis of the Pedagogical Institute (PI). The authors of the materialswere practising EFL teachers with extensive experience in state-school teaching (partly in primary schools) and at least apostgraduate degree in the teaching of English language. Just as in the case of authors, the PI also hired a number of course bookevaluators who, in their majority, were senior EFL teachers, teacher trainers and academics with specialization in EFL teaching.

Teachers book, D-level English, p. 13).

data, and the twomethods are integrated during the interpretation phase of the study (p. 215). Our primary quantitative data

postgraduate degree in teaching English.

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e2262144.4. Interviews

Open-ended in-depth interviews were conducted with two of the authors of the course books. It was not possible tointerview all four authors (two authors per course book), but we ensured that at least one author from each course bookwriting team was interviewed. The two interviews were conducted over the phone, as authors resided in various regionsacross the country. Each interview lasted between 40 and 50 min. The interviews followed guidelines discussed in theliterature (Drnyei, 2007; Litosseliti, 2010) and were based on an interview guide informed by the structure of the ques-tionnaire. Whenever needed, the researchers probed deeper in issues of interest and relevance to the study. The interviewswere recorded with the agreement of the participants.were generated via a questionnaire (aiming at evaluating the two Students books), and the supporting qualitative data camefrom follow-up interviews (with the authors of the books).

4.3. Questionnaire

We forwarded a survey questionnaire (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QLK8C29) to in-service EFL teachers of grades 4and 5. The questionnaire comprised eight parts, namely, teacher biodata, overall appraisal of the two Students books, andevaluation of the texts and tasks of language skills and other features included in the books, e.g., vocabulary and grammarteaching, self-assessment, unit structure and presentation. The questions were based on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1: highlysatised to 5: not satised at all. The questionnaire was informed by the 2003 curriculum, the international literature oncourse book evaluation and the actual course books. It was piloted for comprehensibility, coverage and user-friendliness witha small group of EFL teachers rst and then administered electronically to teachers between February and May 2010. Overall,thirty three D-level teachers and thirty nine E-level teachers answered the questionnaire (N 72). The majority of the re-spondents were female teachers with long experience in teaching EFL in state schools (70% of the teachers taught between 5and 11 years). Other than the minimum requirement of BA in English Language and Literature, many teachers (45%) had a4. Methodology of the study

4.1. Research questions

The purpose of this studywas twofold. On amicro-level, wewanted to explore the extent towhich teachers evaluations ofthe two course books could provide information on the role of EFL course books in the state sector. We also looked for reasonsthat could help us better understand these reactions and the reasons related to specic features of the course books. On amacro-level, we were interested in nding out how teachers perceptions could be related to authors experiences ofdesigning these materials, their perspective, and possible constraints and details of the process of materials design as well asthe role of policy makers (in this case the PI) in the process.

Therefore the research questions the present study addressed were:

What do teachers perceptions about the strengths and weaknesses of the EFL courseware materials for levels 4 and 5 ofprimary education in Greece show about their needs and wants from a good course book?

How are teachers perceptions related to those of the course book authors?

4.2. Data collection and analysis

To answer the research questions the study involved a mixed-methods approach (Bryman, 2008; Tashakkori & Teddlie,2003). Creswell (2003) refers to it as a sequential explanatory strategy, characterized by the collection and analysis ofquantitative data followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data. The priority typically is given to the quantitativeThe tasks are said to encourage repetition, substitution, note-taking, summarizing, transfer, inferencing, etc., and require stu-dents to transfer spoken or written information into tables or grids or carry out information-gap activities.

On completing each unit the students are requested to monitor their progress through a self-assessment test. There arealso revision tests every two or three units, included in the Teachers Books. In addition each book offers students oppor-tunities to work on a mini portfolio, songs and games (Book D) or a project and, occasionally, poetry and drama activities(Book E). The books also emphasize a differentiated instruction (DI) approach to teaching. At the end of both books there aredifferentiated materials and tasks of two types, e.g.: tiered tasks, which are easier versions of some of the tasks in the coursebook units for less advanced learners as well as extra work for early-nishers or students of a more advanced level. Finally,Teachers books explain the rationale and provide support and guidance on how teachers can implement the DI materials (e.g.

Interview data were transcribed and analysed for recurrent themes based on the answers to the questions raised. The

matiofeatur

It is too loaded with activities to do... I am speaking as a mother here. I was surprised to see that my son had only

Table 1Teachers evaluation of relevance to learners language needs per skill.

Skill Course book Meana SD df t-Valueb

Reading Book D 2.22 0.89 61 6.39Book E 3.72 0.94

Writing Book D 2.63 1.01 52 4.75Book E 3.80 0.81

Listening Book D 2.63 1.06 52 4.45Book E 3.80 0.89

Speaking Book D 2.35 0.88 51 4.90Book E 3.50 0.82

a 1: highly satised, 2: satised, 3: somewhat satised, 4: not satised and 5: not satised at all.b p < .01.

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226 215completed four units by the end of the school year.

If the teacher followed the book, hardly 10% or 12% of the material would be covered.

Analysis of the two textbooks in terms of texts and tasks conrmed teachers negative reactions towards Book E. Thevolume of texts and tasks included in it justied teachers reactions as can be seen in Table 2.

However, the analysis of the interviews revealed a mismatch between the teachers and authors perspective. Even thoughthe author of Book E agreed that there was a great number of tasks, she claimed that this was done on purpose. As the author5. Findings

The questionnaire data conrmed initial reactions towards the two books, in that Book E attracted more negative eval-uations than Book D. As reected in teachers overall evaluation, only 2.5% of teachers liked Book E, while themajority found itdifcult for their students (74%) and said that it needed improvement (66%).

With regard to the way the books tended to learners needs, overall teachers were satised with Book D (see Table 1).However, this was not the case with Book E, which seemed to have displeased teachers.

The volume of materials vis--vis the number of texts and tasks across language skills in the two course books was one ofthe aspects that created unfavourable reactions among teachers of Book E. According to t-test results, this was statisticallysignicant for reading texts (Book D:M 2.33, SD 0.78 and Book E:M 3.03, SD 0.81, df 61, t-value 3.41, p < .01),reading tasks (Book D: M 2.67, SD 1.074 and Book E: M 3.26, SD 0.82, df 60, t-value 2.46, p < .01) and writingtasks (Book D: M 2.67, SD 0.87 and Book E: M 3.17, SD 0.87, df 52, t-value 2.10, p < .01).

In their comments, Book E teachers also complained strongly about the volume of the material, e.g.:n from the interviews and relevant quotations from Teachers books too, to present the authors point of view ones of the books that are highlighted by the teachers.authors responses were analysed through an inductive approach in which themes and patterns emerged from the data(Paltridge & Phakiti, 2010).

In the next sectionwe present teachers perspectives as the starting point, as they bring in their hands-on experience withthe course books. For reasons of space, we made a selection of the most salient ndings expressed through teachers re-sponses to the questionnaires and focus on results that were statistically signicant (based on t-tests). We integrate infor-Table 2Total number of texts and tasks across language skills.

Skill Course book Total

Reading texts Book D 24Book E 34

Reading tasks Book D 21Book E 24

Writing tasks Book D 27Book E 34

Listening texts Book D 25Book E 72

Listening tasks Book D 19Book E 26

Speaking tasks Book D 15Book E 34

factorOn

For in

the

Inpresena fewconceneed

Writi

Listen

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226216Commenting on the relevance of tasks, the authors also argued in favour of the importance of differentiation. As theauthor of Book D claimed, different classes have different needs and different teachers may have different priorities in their

mindsor speBookentiatmater

Whteacheteachetheir comments, teachers of Book E complained that tasks were demanding for their learners level, e.g., the bookts some kind of haphazard character and the tasks are impossible to carry out in the present school situation and onlystudents can perform these tasks, those attending advanced classes in foreign language schools. Interestingly, similarrns were voiced by the authors, too. For instance, the author of Book E stressed that certain reading or listening tasksso much explanation or dealing with, that a whole teaching period is needed to discuss a single task.Writing is not the most important skill, not at this level, anyway. So I suppose teachers are free to decide which writingtasks they will deal with or which ones they will simplify or omit

The authors of the books also had interestingly different perspectives of the function of task types in their materials. Forexample, the author of Book D claimed that the games, the songs and the stories make the book more interesting, accessibleand fun for children, whereas the author of Book E contended that [Game-playing is] not a core part, as far as I am concerned.Students are 10 or 11 years old, playing seems to be more appropriate for 7 or 8-year-olds.

With regard to the relevance of tasks to students overall level, teachers were more favourably disposed towards Book Dthan towards Book E (see Table 3).small texts

author of Book E seems to downplay the importance of writing and reiterates the importance of teacher autonomy:I believe that writing is more accessible because they begin by writing small sentences.. then, they are asked to writeily and therefore does not promote their autonomy.the other hand, authors expressed contradictory views about the importance of focus on skills and the quality of tasks.stance, while the author of Book D was pleased with the writing tasks stressing that:explained, this aimed at equipping teachers with a corpus of tasks fromwhich teachers were to choose those that were morerelevant to their class. This was also made explicit in the Introduction of the Teachers book, e.g.:

There are quite a lot of tasks in each lesson and not all them need to be carried out. The teacher can decide to omitcertain tasks, depending on the time available, the level and the needs of the learners or other factors affecting his/herspecic teaching situation.

Teachers book, D-level English, p. 9

Teachers did not respond favourably to the task types used in Book E. This was statistically signicant for the tasks ofreading (Book D:M 2.67, SD 1 and Book E:M 3.31, SD 0.89, df 61, t-value 2.68, p < .01) and listening (Book D:M 2.63, SD 0.92 and Book E:M 3.50, SD 1.042, df 52, t-value3.22, p< .01). In their comments, teachers said thatthe tasks lacked variety (Every time the same technique is used for reading, i.e., scanning) and did not specify a particularway of engaging different types of group-work (e.g., pairs, threes, etc). Teachers also commented negatively on the function ofthe Workbook with regard to promoting course book tasks, claiming that the Workbook failed to guide the learners satis-

Book E 4.31 0.97Speaking Book D 2.30 0.88 51 6.75

Book E 3.93 0.86

a p < .01.Book E 4.25 0.87ng Book D 2.68 0.84 50 6.33

Book E 4.17 0.83ing Book D 2.58 1.06 51 6.20Table 3Relevance to students overall level.

Skill Course book Mean SD df t-Valuea

Reading Book D 2.41 1.01 61 7.75about what to teach (it is possible that a colleague might need more grammar tasks, another colleague more writing,aking, depending on the case. I am not in a position to know the needs of their classroom contexts.). For that reason,D, according to its author, had a variety of different activities that the teacher may choose from; the part of differ-ed instruction may help some teachers. The author of Book E also commented on the need for a DI approach toials use:

All the tasks were on the right level but this doesnt mean that all the cases are the same. For some students it might beeasier and for others more difcult. This is normal when a new course book is introduced so it is not possible for thelevel to be applicable to all students.

at was implied here from the authors comments was that the course book indeed offered a basis for DI but it was thers responsibility to integrate such an approach in their daily instruction. This, however, was not the case, judging fromrs responses.

Rubrics to tasks, and especially reading tasks, were another feature that displeased the teachers of Book E. The differencesbetween the two books with regard to task rubrics were also statistically signicant across the range of the four skills(Table 4).

deal wmater

Table 4Rubrics to tasks.

Skill Course book Mean SD df t-Valuea

Reading Book D 2.48 0.98 61 6.66Book E 4.06 0.89

Writing Book D 2.54 0.88 52 5.70Book E 3.87 0.82

Listening Book D 2.63 0.92 51 4.40Book E 3.79 0.98

Speaking Book D 2.43 0.90 51 4.36Book E 3.47 0.82

a p < .01.

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226 217Reading texts may appear difcult, but we incorporate them to increase post-reading activity. We have placed themthere more as a reference, so that learners can see how they function in a context. Therefore, even if they are somehowdifcult, learners do not have to work on them.

Teachers were on average somewhat satised by the variety of text sources and authenticity of reading and listeningtexts. While the differences in evaluation between the two course books persisted (Book D received more favourable re-sponses), teachers reaction towards listening was more negative than that for reading (see Table 6).

The analysis of the interviews showed that both authors converged in that they sought out to nd authentic readingmaterials. As the author of Book D claimed: it was very hard to nd authentic materials and so I didnt use a lot of them inmytextbook. The author of Book E also conrmed this by highlighting the restrictions imposed by mixed-ability students whensaying that the level of students would not enable them to deal effectivelywith authentic texts; in Greecewe havemulti-levelclasses.

Further analysis of teachers questionnaire responses revealed their dissatisfaction towards the text speed (Book D:M 2.83,SD 1.09 and Book E: M 4.07, SD 0.94, df 50, t-value 4.40, p < .01) and quality of English accent speed (Book D:M 3.21, SD 1.28 and Book E:M 4.07, SD 1.03, df 43.87, t-value 2.65, p < .01) of the listening recordings in Book E.

Table 5Features of reading/listening texts.Cours

Lengt

Level

Vocab

a p

Th

the seThese

Ho

structlearnithe au

and b

Authe

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226218evaluation criteria were common for all books. Instructions were not always consistent. Evaluators did not give us theimpression that they were always in contact with each other, as their comments sometimes contradicted each other.AnPI coo

Ovto beifrequethan eto commateretween external evaluators:

Meetings were not always arranged in advance so not all parties could attend. Generally you didnt get the feeling thatI studied the CEFR levels at the planning stage but this was not enough. Therefore, I tried to nd as many books at thatlevel as I could from different stores, to get a general idea. I hope we managed to develop a course book that addressesthe needs of A1, which is their level.

Both authors also agreed on the importance of coordination and collaboration and converged in acknowledging that thiswas not always successful, as the PI wanted to be in full control of the evaluation conducted by the external evaluators andthematerials design. This was stressed by the authors, e.g.: The PI insisted on the presence and exploitation of all four skills inevery lesson (Book E author).

The following interview extract also added to the general feeling of exclusion of the course book authors from thedecision-making process of materials design:

I personally made it clear to the PI that the book was too much at certain points. I was concerned with difculties thatmight intimidate students, rather than encourage learning, but they, that is the PI, chose otherwise. (Book E author)

Overall, the role of the PI in monitoring the design of the materials was not adequate according to the course book authors.As the author of Book E stressed, the PI failed in creating effective channels of communication across the course book authorsural framework to be followed themselves. Unfortunately, the PI did not communicate the principles of languageng or the structural framework used for the design of the materials (or the criteria for the evaluation of the materials) tothors. In absence of these, the author of Book D explains what she did:listening and speaking sections. When the author of Book E was asked the reasons for this, she said: All I can say about this isthat we simply followed instructions from the Pedagogical Institute. The PI is responsible for these choices.

Several other important themes were identied in the analysis of the interviews with regard tomaterials design. The mostsalient one was the issue of coordination and collaboration among the parties involved, e.g. the course book authors, eval-uators and administrators of the PI. For example, at the planning stage, it seems that the authors must have been providedwith broad guidelines by the PI and were made responsible for laying down the principles of language learning and thelf-assessment practices of Book D received a mean of 1.95 (SD 0.79) when Book E received a mean of 3.32 (SD 1.19).differences were statistically signicant (df 46.78, t-value 4.88, p < .01).wever, analysis of the revision tests and the self-assessment tests of the books showed that these did not includenot American English, it is not Greek English, it sounds strange, funny, silly, if I may say so.

Teachers evaluations of other course book features, such as assessment, course book structure, and vocabulary/grammarteaching, also provided a more positive appreciation of Book D over Book E. With particular regard to assessment methods,e teachers comments also corroborated the questionnaire results. As one of the teachers of Book E explained:

The accent in the listening texts is incomprehensibly strange. Kids sometimes laugh at it. It is not British English, it isBook E 3.75 1.076nticity of texts Reading Book D 2.72 0.779Book E 2.96 0.898

Listening Book D 3.46 1.062Table 6Text sources and authenticity of reading/listening texts.

Course book features Course book Mean SD

Variety of text sources Reading Book D 2.59 0.844Book E 2.75 0.770

Listening Book D 3.00 1.063Book E 3.37 1.033other issue that both authors highlightedwas the lack of progress from one grade to the next, which added to the lack ofrdination among the authors. As the author of Book D contends:

Therewas no collaboration between thewriting teams of the different course books. So therewas no smooth transitionfrom one level to another.

erall, it took authors four years to complete the books. As the authors explained, the materials werewrittenwith a viewng in use for a number of years, but there was no planning for an online version of the course book that would bently updated by the authors. As a result, it can be argued that these materials give the impression of being static rathervolving, whichmakes things worsewhenwe consider the increased probability of their implementation for many yearse (due to the nancial crisis). During her interview, the author of Book E welcomed the idea of the revision of theials pointing out that any revision should be based on a collaboration between authors and teachers.

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226 2196. Discussion

What the quantitative and qualitative data of the study show is that neither of the two course books received fully positiveevaluations from the teachers who use them. That said, Book D received more positive evaluations than Book E, both overalland with regard to specic issues, ranging from structural matters to pedagogical concerns. Across the board, Book E ischaracterized as incorporating material that is more demanding for learners while lacking in variety and purpose. This showsthat appropriacy in the selection of texts and the design of tasks in language learningmaterials is central in prompting learnermotivation, empathy and emotional involvement (Mishan, 2005, pp. 41e42).

Although there has been a lot of skepticism regarding the complications and role of appropriacy and relevance of texts andtasks in foreign language learning (e.g., see Day, 2003), the element of personal involvement of each individual learner in boththe texts and the tasks remains uncontested. For example, Arnold and Rixon (2008) claim that materials targeted at younglearners need to be child-friendly and teachers need to be specially prepared to implement them in useful ways. Our studyunderlined (a) different perspectives of course book authors and teachers regarding child-friendliness and (b) teachersacknowledging that they did not have the training necessary for the teaching of these course books. Furthermore, teachersreactions to the two course books can further be linked to the intrinsic cognitive and affective needs and wants of the (young)learners they are addressing. The emphasis on large numbers of tasks and their lack of variety, especially as concerns Book Eshows that Ghosns point that .. young-learner courses are still by and large structure- and skills-based (2010, p. 21) holdssway here.

Our research also showed amismatch between the perceptions of teachers and course book authors, which is rooted in thelack of clear perspective and strategic planning reected both at the top and at the bottom of the national educational policyscale. On the one hand, local policy makers, in this case the PI, tried to handle the design, linking and monitoring of thedecisions and actions of courseware developers with the CEFR levels and the then current foreign languages curricula. Clearly,the PI is found wanting in its institutional role of ensuring curriculum coherence throughout the levels of courseware pro-duction and implementation. For example, there was no sense of authors involvement in the decision-making process thatwould focus on producing a commonly agreed series of principles (Jolly & Bolitho, 2011; Mares, 2003). Rather, it was a giventhat the curriculum and CEFR descriptors were already there and that course book authors would be able to design theirmaterials in perfect alignment to those.

On the other hand, there was a sense of developing materials that would give teachers a lot of space to make their owndecisions, that teachers would be based on and develop further these materials in a creative manner that would be benecialto their learners (similar to Edge & Wharton, 1998). Such processes would imply a comprehensive understanding of theeducational priorities for the particular level of learners, which would then inform the internal structure of courseware, and aconcomitant training of all teachers whowould be using these course books along these lines. As the data show, none of theseelements were incorporated in the materials designing process.

These shortcomings are further exacerbated by the fact that course book authors, themselves experienced teachers, bringto the course book writing task their own personal philosophies and theories about what is appropriate. This is by no meansundesirable, but, when these intentions are not shared or understood by teachers who are asked to implement these coursebooks, problemswill occur, especially in an educational system that is primarily course book-led. In this way, while the authorof Book E would claim that the course book promotes teacher autonomy, teachers who fully rely on this book, especially ifthey have been used to following course books on a page-by-page basis, are bound to be overwhelmed by it. This is reected,for example, in some teachers suggestions about the need for clearer task instructions, or about the lack of different types ofgroup-work in the course books. A genuinely autonomous teacher would be expected to bypass these shortcomings (Edge &Wharton, 1998). Another example of the lack of mutual understanding between the stakeholders involved is the orientationof course books as reference books. This was a major decision taken by the authors of Book E that was neither based on aspecic philosophy about the layout of the book (in the pre-production stage) nor supported by sufcient teacher preparation(in the post-production stage).

In a similar vein, these course books were designed for teaching contexts that favour differentiated instruction, butthe vast majority of teachers in Greece lack training in this eld. On the other hand, it could be argued that the coursebook authors themselves also lacked comprehensive training in designing courseware suitable for the differentiatedclassroom. Another byproduct of the lack of clear orientation offered by the PI is that, as the data show, the two coursebooks do not portray a progress from one grade to the next, they lack continuity or, if they do, that progress is far fromsmooth.

7. Implications and conclusions

The results presented above help us draw several implications for various stakeholders (e.g. policy makers, course bookdesigners and teachers) that would be meaningful for public education in a country like Greece. We propose a two-tiered re-orientation of strategic policy making and planning. The rst tier would deal with (a) the design of a comprehensive cur-riculum that draws clear specications for different grades and (b) the orientation of essential criteria for the design of suchcourseware that would bind all courseware authors. The second tier would target the preparation, training and monitoring of(a) courseware authors and (b) teachers implementing the courseware. Inwhat follows, we draw attention to both tiers whilefocussing on courseware authors and teachers.

The production of ELTmaterials for primary levels D and E should aim tomeet the demands of the curriculumwhile, at thesame time, being based on sound theorizing and published research in the domain of teaching young learners (e.g., Muoz,2006; Nikolov, 2009). It is important that these concerns are shared by policy makers, courseware authors and critical readersof the materials alike, so that the materials are properly aligned and any possible untested theories held (as was the case withthe author of Book E concerning the exclusion of games) minimized. To that end, it is useful to involve course book authors ina process of continuous reection as they produce the materials (e.g., following the example of verbal protocols in Johnson,2003). Provided the aim of the materials is to assist in a particular framework for teaching, e.g., differentiated instruction, it iscrucial that, in the pre-production stage, extensive research is carried out of teachers awareness of and needs regarding thisframework, so that specic guidelines are incorporated into the materials (Masuhara, 2011).

Teachers need to be empowered to take their share of responsibility in the implementation of language learningmaterials.This is especially important for a context like the Greek public school system, where, for reasons related to the currenteconomic crisis, the same course books are probably going to be used in the future (despite ongoing curricular changes).Therefore, teacher preparation programmes should take into consideration not only curricular and courseware concerns butteachers wants and needs as well (Karavas-Doukas, 1996). On that basis, such programmes should tangibly inform teachersabout appropriately adapting (for a review, see Tomlinson, 2012, p. 151f.) and supplementing their coursebooks (Islam &Mares, 2003; Rubdy, 2003) and involving their learners in this (Saraceni, 2003) as a means of rendering them morelearner-centred.

It is also important for teacher preparation to incorporate an awareness of learners response to courseware. Exploring indepth learners opinions and reactions towards their course book materials (Wolf, 2013) and understanding their growingengagement with the foreign language outside the classroom would be a worthwhile venture as it can create mutual un-derstanding between materials producers and users and help establish a culture in which materials are not producer- butconsumer-centred (Bruthiaux, 2010). It is our belief that the more courseware development integrates learners language andlearning needs, teachers readiness to integrate the course books orientation, as well as current research onwhat constitutesadequate language learning, the more they will succeed in contributing to genuine language learning.

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226220

Book D (Bratsoli, A. & Diamantidou, A., English 4th Grade: Pupils Book): pp. 58 & 62. Book E (Kolovou, E.-K. & Kraniotou, A.,

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226 221English 4th Grade: Pupil's Book): pp. 78 & 106. 2014 The Institute of Educational Policy, Greece.Appendix A. Samples of texts from Book D and E

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226222

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226 223

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226224References

Abbot, G. (1981). Encouraging communication in English: a paradox. ELT Journal, 35, 228e230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/XXXV.3.228.Arnold, W., & Rixon, S. (2008). Materials for teaching English to young learners. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning materials: A critical review

(pp. 38e58). London: Continuum.Barrios, M. L., de Debat, E. V., & Tavella, G. (2008). Materials in use in Argentina and the Southern Cone. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning

materials e A critical review (pp. 300e316). London: Continuum.Bolitho, R. (2008). Materials used in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language teaching materials:

A critical review (pp. 213e222). London: Continuum.Bruthiaux, P. (2010). World Englishes and the classroom: an EFL perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 365e369. http://dx.doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.222223.Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Chandran, S. (2003). Where are the ELT textbooks? In W. A. Renandya (Ed.), Methodology and material design in language teaching: Current perceptions and

practice and their implications (pp. 161e169). RELC Anthology Series, 44. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226 225Cunningsworth, A. (1984). Evaluating and selecting EFL teaching materials. London: Heinemann.Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.Day, R. (2003). Authenticity in the design and development of materials. In W. A. Renandya (Ed.), Methodology and materials design in language teaching:

Current perceptions and practises and their implications (pp. 1e11). Singapore: RELC.Drnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Edelenbos, P., & Kubanek, A. (2009). Early foreign language learning: published research, good practice and main principles. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), The age

factor and early language learning (pp. 39e58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Edge, J., & Wharton, S. (1998). Autonomy and development: living in the materials world. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching

(pp. 295e310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Enever, J., Moon, J., & Raman, U. (Eds.). (2009). Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives. Reading: Garnet Ed-

ucation/IATEFL.Fenner, A., & Newby, D. (2000). Approaches to materials design in European course books: Implementing principles of authenticity, learner autonomy, cultural

awareness. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.Garca Mayo, M. P., & Garca Lecumberri, M. L. (Eds.). (2003). Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Ghosn, I.-K. (2010). Five-year outcomes from childrens literature-based programmes vs. programmes using a skills-based ESL course e the Matthew and

Peter effects at work? In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Research for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice (pp. 21e36) London: Continuum.

Ghosn, I.-K. (2012). Language learning for young learners. In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Applied linguistics for materials development (pp. 93e110).London: Continuum.

Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council.Gray, J. (2010). The construction of English: Culture, consumerism and promotion in the ELT Coursebook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Guerrettaz, A. M., & Johnston, B. (2013). Materials in the classroom ecology. Modern Language Journal, 97, 779e796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.

2013.12027.x.Harwood, N. (2010). Issues in materials development and design. In N. Harwood (Ed.), Materials in ELT: Theory and practice (pp. 3e32). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Hughes, A. (2012). The teaching of reading in English for young learners: some considerations and next steps. In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Applied

linguistics for materials development (pp. 93e110). London: Continuum.Islam, C., & Mares, C. (2003). Adapting classroom materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 86e103). London:

Continuum.Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of

Literacy Research, 24, 83e108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10862969209547763.Johnson, K. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Johnson, K., Kim, M., Liu, Y.-F., Nava, A., Perkins, D., Smith, A.-M., et al. (2008). A step forward: investigating expertise in materials evaluation. ELT Journal, 62,

157e163.Jolly, D., & Bolitho, R. (2011). A framework for materials writing. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed.) (pp. 107e134).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kachru, B. B. (1990). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native Englishes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Evaluating the implementation of an EFL innovation in Greek public secondary schools. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 7, 49e71.Lee, R., & Bathmaker, A. (2007). The use of English course books for teaching English to vocational students in Singapore secondary schools: a survey of

teachers beliefs. RELC Journal, 38, 350e374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0033688207085852.Litosseliti, L. (Ed.). (2010). Research methods in linguistics. London: Continuum.Mares, C. (2003). Writing a coursebook. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 130e140). London: Continuum.Masuhara, H. (2011). What do teachers really want from coursebooks? In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed.)

(pp. 236e266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Masuhara, H., Hann, N., Yi, Y., & Tomlinson, B. (2008). Adult EFL courses. ELT Journal, 62, 294e312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn028.McDonough, J., Shaw, C., & Masuhara, H. (2011). Materials and methods in ELT: A teachers guide (3rd ed.). Malden: Blackwells.McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.McGrath, I. (2006). Teachers and learners images for coursebooks. ELT Journal, 60, 171e180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci104.Menon, S. (2009). Corpus analysis of prescribed Science and English language course books: potentials for language teaching and EST materials design. In J.

Mukundan (Ed.), Readings on ELT materials III (p. 213). Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia.Mishan, F. (2005). Designing authenticity into language learning materials. Bristol: Intellect.Mukundan, J., & Ahour, T. (2010). A review of course book evaluation checklists across four decades (1970e2008). In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.),

Research for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice (pp. 336e352). London & New York: Continuum.Muoz, C. (Ed.). (2006). Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Nikolov, M. (Ed.). (2009). Early learning of modern foreign languages: Processes and outcomes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Nikolov, M., & Mihaljevic Djigunovic, J. (2006). Recent research on age, second language acquisition, and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, 26, 234e260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190506000122.Nikolov, M., Mihaljevic Djigunovic, J., Mattheoudakis, M., Lundberg, G., & Flanagan, T. (Eds.). (2007). Teaching modern languages to young learners: Teachers,

curricula and materials. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A. (Eds.). (2010). Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics. London: Continuum.Renandya, W. A. (Ed.). (2003). Methodology and materials design in language teaching: Current perceptions and practices and their implications. Singapore:

RELC.Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Richards, J., & Mahoney, D. (1996). Teachers and textbooks: a survey of beliefs and practices. In Perspectives: Working papers (City University of Hong Kong,

Department of English) (Vol. 8/1); (pp. 40e61).Rixon, S. (2007). EYL teachers background, beliefs and practices in the teaching of initial reading. In A. Hughes, & N. Taylor (Eds.), Teaching English to young

learners: Fourth international TEYL research seminar 2007 papers (pp. 6e14). York: The University of York.Rubdy, R. (2003). Selection of materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 37e57). London: Continuum.Saraceni, M. (2003). Adapting courses: a critical view. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 72e85). London: Continuum.Sifakis, N. C. (2012). The English language and globalisation: Aspects of present day reality in Greece, Europe and the rest of the world. Athens: Herodotus (in

Greek).Smith, D. B. (1996). Teacher decision-making in the adult ESL classroom. In D. Freeman, & J. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 197e

216). New York: Cambridge University Press.Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Tomlinson, B. (2011). Introduction. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed.) (pp. 1e31). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Tomlinson, B. (2012). State-of-the-art article: materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45, 143e179. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1017/S0261444811000528.Tomlinson, B. (2013). Applied linguistics and materials development. London & New York: Bloomsbury.

Tomlinson, B., Dat, B., Masuhara, H., & Rubdy, D. (2001). ELT courses for adults. ELT Journal, 55, 80e101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.1.80.Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (Eds.). (2010a). Research for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice. London & New York:

Continuum.Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2010b). Published research on materials development for language learning. In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Research

for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice (pp. 1e18). London & New York: Continuum.Tsagari, D. (2009). The complexity of test washback: An empirical study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH.Tsagari, D. (2012). The inuence of the Examination for the Certicate of Prociency in English (ECPE) on test preparation materials. Internal report sponsored by

the SPAAN Fellowship for Studies in Second or Foreign Language Assessment. Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA: Cambridge Michigan Language Assessments(CaMLA).

Tsagari, D., & Sifakis, N. C. (2012). Course-book evaluation in Greek primary state EFL schooling: Lessons learned. Paper presented at the 11th conference for theEuropean Society for the Study of English (ESSE). Istanbul, Turkey: Bogazici University.

Wolf, J. P. (2013). Exploring and contrasting EFL learners perceptions of textbook-assigned and self-selected discussion topics. Language Teaching Research,17, 49e66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457535.

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226226

EFL course book evaluation in Greek primary schools: Views from teachers and authors1 Introduction2 Literature review3 EFL teaching in Greece4 Methodology of the study4.1 Research questions4.2 Data collection and analysis4.3 Questionnaire4.4 Interviews

5 Findings6 Discussion7 Implications and conclusionsAppendix A Samples of texts from Book D and EReferences