issn: 2383-0514 (online) © 2016 khate sefid press ......2019/02/01 · vahid golshani shahid...

International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)

Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)

ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)

© 2016 Khate Sefid Press

Pag

e1

Page | 1

Juxtaposing Prospect With Vision:

Focusing On Iranian EFL Teachers’ Perspectives

Mavadat Saidi* (corresponding author) Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran

Email: [email protected]

Vahid Golshani Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran


Hassan Foroutan Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran


Hamed Javadi Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran


Omid Salimi Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran


Abstract

The current study strived to evaluate English textbooks used in Iranian junior high schools

(Prospect series) and high schools (Vision series) from the teachers‘ perspectives. To this end,

an ELT Coursebook Evaluation Checklist consisting of 56 items including 4 subheadings,

Subjects and Contents, Sub-skills and Skills, Layout and Physical Make-up, and Practical

Considerations was administered to 80 experienced EFL teachers. To gain a deeper

understanding of the quantitative results, 10 teachers were also interviewed. The analysis of the

results revealed that the majority of the teachers at junior high schools were satisfied with the

items of the evaluation checklist in Propspect series. The results of t-test revealed that there was

no significant difference among English teachers’ perceptions of the subjects and contents in

Prospect and Vision books. However, there was a significant difference between the teachers’

viewpoints with respect to the sub-skills and skills. In addition, the results revealed that there was

no significant difference between the teachers’ viewpoints in terms of the layout and physical

mailto:[email protected]









Page | 2

make-up of two series of textbooks. With regard to the practical considerations, no significant

difference was found between the teachers’ perceptions. The findings might point to the necessity

of improving the quality of the English textbooks in general and the Vision series in particular.

Keywords: Iranian teachers’ attitudes, Prospect series, Textbook Evaluation, Vision series.

Introduction

Textbooks play an important role in language programs (Richards, 2001). They serve as

effective resources which provide the teachers and students with ample ideas and activities

(Cunningsworth, 1995). As Tomlinson (2003) rightly mentioned, textbooks are the “route map

for both teachers and learners, making it possible for them to look ahead to what will be done in

a lesson as well as to look back on what has been done” (p. 39). Furthermore, the use of a

textbook in a program provides the students in different classes with the same context and

thereby, their evaluation can be done in the same way (Abdelwahab, 2013). This contributes to

the enhancement of standardization in the instructional context (Demir & Ertaş, 2014).

Textbooks are conceived of as the visible heart of any ELT program (Sheldon, 1988).

Due to their determining role in both the teaching and learning processes, material evaluation

seems to be “an educational necessity” (Salehi & Amini, 2016). This seems to be more important

when the books, developed and published in the local levels, are on the spot. The efficiency of

this set of books should be evaluated before and after its use in order to check their

correspondence to the learners’ needs (Ellis, 1997). In this line, Sheldon (1988) stated that the

financial and professional concerns make the textbook evaluation a critical and vital task.

Moreover, it raises educators’ awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of the books in order to

provide their students with supplementary materials when needed.

On the other hand, taking into account the teachers’ key role in designing, implementing,

and evaluating their own professional experiences (Nunan, 1987), they seem to be good sources

to comment on the curriculum changes and textbooks efficiency (Bhanegaonkar & Mahfoodh,

2013). They are the main users of the textbooks and “using and adapting textbook is an important

part of teachers’ professional knowledge” (Ahmadi & Derakhshan, 2016, p. 262). Indeed,

evaluating textbooks is the teachers’ responsibility (Ansari & Babaii, 2002).





Page | 3

Bearing this in mind, the current study aimed to explore the attitude of Iranian junior and senior

high school teachers two series of the newly developed textbooks Prospect (1,2,3) and Vision

(1,2,3) to see to what extent these two series are suitable for the English classroom in junior and

senior high schools in Iran.

Literature Review

Textbooks are designed to meet the learners’ needs and link teaching and learning. A

textbook represents the lesson plan for the teachers based on which they manage their teaching

progress (Tomlinson, 2008). Hence, the teachers’ attitudes towards textbooks are of almost

significance (McGrath, 2002). Moreover, the quality of the textbooks makes an impact on the

teaching and learning process (Torki & Chalak, 2017). Hence, evaluating textbooks allows for

gaining a systematic and accurate conceptualization of the teaching and learning materials

(Cunningsworth, 1995; Ellis, 1997). In this way, the best textbooks will be selected that suit

learners’ needs, the learning and teaching context and the teachers’ demands (Mirzaei &

Tabatabaei, 2017).

As Fredriksson and Olsson (2006, as cited in Salehi & Amini, 2016) asserted, the newly

introduced textbooks should be examined to ensure their appropriacy for the school setting.

Indeed, teachers should evaluate materials in order to check their suitability for the educational

setting (Low, 1987). The textbook evaluation would benefit a large group of stakeholders mainly

the teachers and the learners as well as the sponsors, administrators, policy makers, and

educators.

Numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate textbooks taught in different

educational setting. Ranalli (2002) used Cunningsworth’s model and analyzed upper-

intermediate level of new headway. The findings showed that the book follows presentation-

practice-production approach and includes some controlled exercises. It was shown that the

methodology of the textbook highlights the analytical knowledge and does not provide the

learners with the required linguistic knowledge to act appropriately in unexpected situations.

Dominguez (2003) evaluated new Interchange Intro in terms of gender representation in

dialogue and showed that the book takes heed of multicultural settings and the learners’ needs.

Moreover, the book seems to enjoy a balance in both genders. In general, he concluded that this





Page | 4

book acts as an appropriate source for teachers. Furthermore, Vellenga (2004) tried to explore

how pragmatics was presented in ELT/ESL textbooks. The results indicated that teachers rarely

attempted to expand the existing activities on pragmatics through supplementary materials and

drew this conclusion that pragmatic features cannot be learned by focusing merely on the

textbooks.

A large bulk of studies has been allocated to textbook evaluation in Iran. In this regard,

several researchers have evaluated the previous-generation textbooks in junior and senior high

schools in Iran (See Ahour & Golpour, 2017). In some recent attempts, the textbook taught in

junior high schools (Prospect) was evaluated. Ahour and Golpour (2013) evaluated the new

version of English textbook taught in junior high schools (Prospect 1). They found that the

teachers had positive attitudes toward this book as it addressed the learners’ need and included

communicative pair-and group-work tasks and covered four language skills equally.

In another study, Torki and Chalak (2017) examined the English textbooks taught in

Iranian high schools and found out that both teachers and learners had positive attitudes toward

these books. In this line, Mirzaei and Tabatabaei (2017) compared the new and old versions of

the English textbooks taught in the first grade of high schools in Iran. Their study revealed that

the newly published book improved in terms of the grammar section. However, the two books

were not significantly different with regard to presentation of vocabulary items. Considering

pronunciation and the related exercises, the teachers believed that the two books were nearly the

same.

Method

The participants of the study, materials and instruments, and data analysis procedures are

presented below.

Participants

The participants of the study consisted of 80 experienced English teachers including 48

males and 32 females. They were between 28-45 years old with the experience of teaching both

Prospect and Vision books in junior and senior high schools. They held BA (51 teachers), MA

(24 teachers), and PhD (5 teachers) in Teaching English (26 teachers), English Literature (30





Page | 5

teachers), and Translation Studies (30 teachers). They have been teaching English for 5 to 20

years.

Materials and Instruments

The textbook evaluation checklist developed and adapted by Demir and Ertaş (2014) was

used in the current study. This is an “eclectic checklist by borrowing items from quite different

evaluation instruments available in the literature” (Demir & Ertaş, 2014, p. 243). It comprises 56

items and includes four basic sections eliciting the respondents’ answers on the issues related to

the Subjects and Contents (10 items), Skills and Sub-skills (25 items), Layouts and Physical

Make-up (7 items), and Practical Consideration (14 items). These respondents should give either

Yes or No answers to 56 questions. Furthermore, there is an extra blank at the bottom which

provide the respondents to present additional comments on the textbooks. Two experts in the

field of applied linguistics and two experienced English teachers were asked to review the

checklist for ensuring its validity. Moreover, the internal reliability of items was calculated via

Cronbach Alpha Coefficient which came out to be 0.91. Two series of textbooks taught at Iranian

junior (Prospect) and senior (Vision) high schools were evaluated in the current study. Moreover,

in order to gain a deeper understanding of the quantitative phase of the study, 10 teachers were

also interviewed and their comments were elicited with regard to the strengths and weaknesses of

Prospect and Vision series.

Procedure

Each participant was asked to complete the textbook evaluation checklist twice, once for

the Prospect series (1,2,3) and once for the Vision series (1,2,3). The frequency and percentage

values were extracted and calculated. The results were compared for the Prospect and Vision

books through running paired-sample t-tests.

Results

In order to explore the English teachers’ attitudes towards the Prospect and Vision books,

paired-sample t-tests were applied for different sections of the textbook evaluation checklist.

Table 1 displays the results of t-tests for different sections of the checklist.





Page | 6

Table 1

Results of t-tests for four sections of the checklist

Variable t-value Sig. Mean Difference

Subjects and Contents -2.022 0.074 -1.240

Skills and Sub-skills -3.343 0.003 -1.000

Layout and Physical Make-up -1.781 0.125 -6.857

Practical Considerations 0.596 0.562 2.615

The results of t-test revealed that there was no significant difference among English

teachers’ perceptions of the subjects and contents in Prospect and Vision books (Sig.= 0.074,

p≤0.05). As Table 2 displays, teachers were more satisfied with the presentation of target

language culture in Prospect books. Furthermore, they believed that Prospect books provide the

learners with more challenging learning opportunities.

On the other hand, English teachers seemed to believe that the subjects and contents

enjoy sufficient variety in Vision books. Teachers had a consensus over the absence of

discrimination and comprehensibility of the contents in both books. The teachers’ perceptions of

the other items in the subjects and contents section revealed that these two series of books need

to be more or less reviewed and revised to fulfill the teachers’ expectations.

Table 2

Frequency and percentage values for the items of “Subjects and Contents”

Prospect Vision

F (%P) F (%P) F (%P) F (%P)

Yes No Yes No

Does the content serve as a window into

learning about the target language culture

(American, British etc.)?

56 (%70) 24 (%30) 11(%13.75) 69(%86.25)

Are the subject and content of the course

book interesting?

32(%40) 48(%60) 20 (%25) 60(%75)

Is the content of the course book

challenging enough to foster new

learning?

56(%70) 24(%30) 27(%33.75) 53(%66.25)

Are the subject and content of the course

book motivating?

38(%47.5) 42(%52.5) 27(%33.75) 53(%66.25)





Page | 7

Is the thematic content understandable for

students?

52(%65) 28(%35) 71(%88.75) 9(%11.25)

Is there sufficient variety in the subject

and content of the course book?

40(%50) 40(%50) 58(%72.5) 22(%27.5)

Is the thematic content culturally

appropriate?

56(%70) 24(%30) 41(%51.25) 39(%48.75)

Are the topics and texts free from any

kind of discrimination (gender, race etc.)?

62(%77.5) 18(%22.5) 53(%66.25) 27(%33.75)

Is there a relationship between the content

of the coursebook and real-life situations

(society)?

38(%47.5) 42(%52.5) 18(%22.5) 62(%77.5)

Do the topics and texts in the coursebook

include elements from both local and

target culture?

32(%40)

48(60)

12(%15)

68(%85)

However, there was a significant difference between the teachers’ viewpoints with respect

to the sub-skills and skills (Sig.= 0.003, p≤0.05) in that teachers were in favor of Prospect books.

Table 3 illustrates the frequency and percentage values for the items of this section of the

checklist.

Table 3

Frequency and percentage values for the items of “Skills and Subskills”

Prospect Vision

F (%P) F (%P) F (%P) F (%P)

Yes No Yes No

Reading

Are there adequate and

appropriate exercises

and tasks for

improving?

40(%50) 40(%50) 40(%50) 40(%50)

Is there a wide range of

different reading texts

with different subject

content?

48(%60) 32(%40) 22(%27.5) 58(%72.5)

Are the reading

selections authentic

pieces of language?

40(%50) 40(%50) 11(%13.75) 69(%86.25)

Listening Does the coursebook 44(%55) 36(%45) 11(%13.75) 69(%86.25)





Page | 8

have appropriate

listening tasks with

well-defined goals?

Is the listening material

well recorded, as

authentic as possible?

40(%50) 40(%50) 21(%26.25) 59(%73.75)

Is the listening material

accompanied by

background

information, questions

and activities which

help comprehension?

52(%65) 28(%35) 39(%48.75) 41(%51.25)

Speaking

Does the coursebook

include speech

situations relevant to

students’ background?

40(%50) 40(%50) 38(%47.5) 42(%52.5)

Are the activities

developed to initiate

meaningful

communication?

66(%82.5) 14(%17.5) 22(%27.5) 58(%72.5)

Does the coursebook

include adequate

individual and group

speaking activities?

38(%47.5) 42(%52.5) 38(%47.5) 42(%52.5)

Writing

Are models provided

for different genres?

40(%50) 40(%50) 27(%33.75) 53(%66.25)

Do the tasks have

achievable goals and

take into consideration

learner capabilities?

54(%67.5) 26(%32.5) 40(%50) 40(%50)

Is practice provided in

controlled and guided

composition in early

stages?

38(%47.5) 42(%52.5) 42(%52.5) 38(%47.5)

Vocabulary

Does the vocabulary

load (i.e. the number of

new words introduced a

lesson) seem to be

reasonable for the

students of that level

58(%72.5) 22(%27.5) 54(%67.5) 26(%32.5)

Is there a good

distribution (simple to

complex) of vocabulary

50(%62.5) 30(%37.5) 56(%70) 34(%30)





Page | 9

load across chapters

and whole book?

Do the vocabulary

exercises promote

internalization of

previously and newly

introduced items?

52(%65) 28(%35) 40(%50) 40(%50)

Are the new vocabulary

words repeated in

subsequent lessons to

reinforce their meaning

and use?

72(%90) 8(%10) 40(%50) 40(%50)

Is the new vocabulary

integrated in varying

contexts and situations?

38(%47.5) 46(%52.5) 50(%70) 30(%30)

Grammar

Are the grammar points

presented with brief

and easy examples and

explanations?

54(%67.5) 26(%32.5) 60(%75) 20(%25)

Is the primary function

of new structures for

interaction and

communication?

42(%52.5) 38(%47.5) 52(%65) 28(%35)

Do the structures

gradually increase in

complexity to suite the

growing reading ability

of students?

52(%65) 28(%35) 53(%66.25) 27(%33.75)

Are the new structures

presented

systematically and in a

meaningful context?

60(%70) 20(%30) 52(%65) 28(%35)

Are the grammar points

recycled in the

following units?

60(%70) 20(%30) 47(%58.75) 33(%41.25)

Pronunciation

Is there sufficient work

on recognition and

production of stress

patterns, intonation and

individual sounds?

42(%52.5) 38(%47.5) 35(%43.75) 45(%56.25)

Are the pronunciation

points repeated and

reinforced in

40(%50) 40(%50) 30(%37.5) 50(%62.5)





Page | 10

subsequent lessons?

Does the coursebook cover the sub-skills

like note-taking, skimming, scanning,

inferring meaning, listening for gist, etc.?

46(%57.5)

34(%42.5) 45(%56.25) 35(%43.75)

As it can be seen, with regard to the reading and listening skills, teachers believed that the

variety and authenticity of the texts and tasks should be improved particularly in Vision books.

Considering the speaking and writing skills, teachers seemed to be more satisfied with the

activities in Prospect books. However, they held that a wider range of controlled and guided

tasks should be included in both series of textbooks in order to improve the learners’ productive

skills. With regard to the vocabulary and grammar, the English teachers considered the Prospect

books better. Nevertheless, their perceptions revealed the need for contextualization of the lexical

and grammatical resources. The teachers evaluated the Prospect and Vision books not so efficient

with regard to the pronunciation. They mostly believed that the pronunciation points should be

more contextualized, recycled, and repeated. Furthermore, they mostly held that more attention

should be paid to cover the subskills such as note-taking, inferring meaning, etc. in both series of

books.

In addition, the results revealed that there was no significant difference between the

teachers’ viewpoints in terms of the layout and physical make-up of two series of textbooks

(Sig.= 0.125, p≤0.05). Table 4 presents the frequency and percentage values for the items of this

section of the checklist.

Table 4

Frequency and percentage values for the items of “Layout and Physical Make-up”

Prospect Vision

F (%P) F (%P) F (%P) F (%P)

Yes No Yes No

Is the printing quality high? 62(%77.5) 18(%22.5) 60(%75) 20(%25)

Does the coursebook look interesting and

fun?

38(%47.5) 42(%52.5) 25(%31.25) 55(68.75)





Page | 11

Does the coursebook include detailed

overview of the functions and the

structures that will be taught in each unit?

50(%62.5) 30(%37.5) 25(%31.25) 55(%68.75)

Does the coursebook reflect learners’

preferences in the terms of layout, design,

and organization?

34(%42.5) 46(%57.5) 24(%30) 56(%70)

Does the coursebook contain enough

pictures, diagrams, tables etc. helping

students understand the printed text?

60(%75) 20(%25) 55(%68.75) 25(%31.25)

Are the illustrations informative and

functional?

56(%70) 24(%30) 58(%72.5) 22(%27.5)

Do the size and weight of the coursebook

seem convenient for students to handle?

60(%75)

20(%25)

65(%81.25)

15(%18.75)

As Table 4 shows, the teachers of both Prospect and Vision books were content with the

printing quality, pictures and graphic resources, informative and functional illustrations and size

and weight of the books. The teachers also referred to the detailed overview of each unit as a

positive point in Prospect books. However, it seemed that the two series of books need some

modifications with respect to attending to learners’ preferences and including interesting and fun

illustrations from the teachers’ perspectives.

With regard to the practical considerations, no significant difference was found between

the teachers’ perceptions (Sig.= 0.562, p≤0.05). Table 5 displays the frequency and percentage

values for the items of this section of the checklist.





Page | 12

Table 5

Frequency and percentage values for the items of “Practical Considerations”

Prospect Vision

F (%P) F (%P) F (%P) F (%P)

Yes No Yes No

Is the coursebook up-to date (e.g.

published within the past 10 years)?

48(%60) 32(%40) 80(%100) 0(%0)

Is the coursebook easily accessible? 58(%72.5) 22(%27.5) 74(%92.5) 6(%7.5)

Is the coursebook affordable? 60(%75) 20(%25) 80(%100) 0(%0)

Does the coursebook have supplementary

materials (tapes, visuals etc.)?

54(%67.5) 26(%32.5) 72(%90) 8(%10)

Does the coursebook have supporting

online materials/test and e-format?

52(%65) 28(%35) 39(%48.75) 41(%51.25)

Does the book address different learning

styles and strategies?

34(%42.5) 46(%57.5) 38(%47.5) 42(%52.5)

Do the activities and exercises introduced

the main principles of CLT?

30(%37.5) 50(%62.5) 25(%25) 55(%75)

Does the coursebook include self-

assessment parts?

46(%57.5) 34(%42.5) 28(%35) 52(%65)

Can the activities be exploited fully and

embrace various methodologies in ELT?

40(%50) 40(%50) 26(%32.5) 54(%67.5)

Is / are the type/s of syllabus design use in

the book appropriate for learners?

28(%35) 52(%65) 40(%50) 40(%50)

Can the coursebook easily be integrated

into technology, thereby allowing for

individual study outside the school?

52(%65) 28(%35) 48(%60) 32(%40)

Does the coursebook fit curriculum/goals? 54(%67.5) 26(%32.5) 54(%67.5) 26(%32.5)

Are the objectives specified explicitly in 62(%77.5) 18(%22.5) 48(%60) 32(%40)





Page | 13

the coursebook?

Is the coursebook designed by taking into

account the learners’ socially and

historically English-free status?

40(%50) 40(%50) 33(%41.25) 47(%58.25)

As Table 5 presents, the teachers were satisfied with the accessibility and affordability of

the books. They were quite satisfied with the supplementary materials and the correspondence

between the course book and the curriculum and goals in both series of books. The teachers

mostly agreed that Vision books were up-to-date while they pointed their positive attitudes

towards the availability of the online materials and tests, and the explicitly specified objectives in

Prospect books. Moreover, they mostly believed that Prospect books allow for individual study

outside the school via using technological tools. However, it seemed that two book series needed

some major modifications in terms of addressing different styles and strategies, including

communicative-oriented activities and self-assessment sections and covering a wider range of

methodologies in English language teaching.

The results of the interviews with the teachers also demonstrated that they mostly feel the

necessity of revising the Prospect and Vision books in order to accommodate real-life situations

with which the learners may encounter. Moreover, they stated that their satisfaction with the

currently used textbooks might arise from the comparison they make between previously used,

old books and the current ones. In this sense, these two new series made dramatic improvements.

However, both series still need to be modified and tailored to the students’ needs.

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings of the study demonstrated that English high school teachers found both

Prospect and Vision series quite satisfactory in terms of contents and subjects, layout and

physical make-up, and practical considerations while they mostly believed that Vision series

needed some modifications with respect to the skills and sub-skills. In this regard, the results

were in line with those of other studies in which the teachers were in favor of these newly





Page | 14

published books in terms of the layout and physical appearance and content (Salehi & Amini,

2016; Torki & Chalak, 2017).

However, the results contrasted those of Jahangard (2007) and Kheirabadi and

Alavimighaddam (2016) in which the teachers evaluated the general shape of the books, their

size, illustrations, photos and printing quality poor. Considering the skills and sub-skills, the

results confirmed those of other studies (Jahangard, 2007; Moghtadi, 2014) which pinpointed

neglecting oral skills and the communicative role of the language. This section mainly needs

revision in Vision books as the teachers were more satisfied with the existing activities for

reinforcing the speaking and writing skills in Prospect series. These findings supported those of

Takeda, Choi, Mochizuki, and Watanabe (2006) and Torki and Chalak (2017) which referred to

the insufficient attention paid to speaking and writing tasks in English textbooks.

Furthermore, in line with the findings of Kheirabadi and Alavimoghaddam (2016), the

results of the study pointed to the teachers’ high extent of satisfaction with the practical

considerations such as the accessibility of the books, their price, and teaching aids. However, the

teachers complained about the poor distribution of the teachers’ guide and audio CD.

In general, the findings showed that Prospect series was evaluated more successful than

the Vision series in many aspects. The English teachers pointed to some advantages of the

Prospect series as follows: presenting different local and international aspects of the culture,

providing challenging and new learning opportunities, including speaking and writing tasks, and

taking into account communicative language teaching (CLT) principles. Moreover, they thought

that Vision series had the following advantages: variety of subjects and contents, being up-to-date

books, accessibility of online materials and tests, and sufficient attention to the grammatical

structures.

Besides, the participants referred to the following points as the high grounds of both

series of books: the absence of discrimination (e.g. in terms of gender, ethnicity, etc.), the

printing quality, graphical resources, their size and weight, their accessibility and affordability.

However, the books seemed to suffer from some pitfalls. They should be improved with regard to

the variety and authenticity of the reading and listening texts and tasks. Two series of books

should include a wider range of controlled and guided tasks to meet the learners’ needs for





Page | 15

speaking and writing well. The vocabulary and grammar sections should be revised and the

lexical and grammatical resources should be more contextualized. More heed should be taken of

getting the students familiar with the sub-skills such as inferring the meaning, note-taking,

listening for the gist, etc. furthermore, learners’ preferences, styles and strategies should be

considered. It is also recommended to include self-assessment sections in both series of books.

The findings of the current study can benefit the designers and authors of both series to

align the newly published English textbooks to the learners’ needs. Moreover, it is recommended

to hold relevant and professional development and pre-service and in-service courses for the

teachers in order to provide them with the required resources and teaching aids, teaching methods

and training. As a result, they would be enabled to move in line with the underlying purposes of

the development of the new series of textbooks. Moreover, their comments can be elicited in

various workshops and seminars in order to revise and improve the quality of educational

resources such as books. Teachers’ experiences are valuable sources of ideas that would bridge

the gap between the ideal world in the publishers’ minds and the realities occurring in the

teachers’ classrooms. Further studies may focus on textbook evaluation from the perspective of

teachers at different regions with different cultural backgrounds.

References

Abdelwahab, M. M. (2013). Developing an English language textbook evaluative checklist.

IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education, 1(3), 55-70.

Ahmadi, A., & Derakhshan, A. (2016). EFL teachers’ perceptions towards textbook evaluation.

Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(2), 260-267.

Ahour, T., & Golpour, F. (2016). Iranian new junior high school book (Prospect 1) weighted

against material evaluation checklist from teachers’ perspective. The Journal of Applied

Linguistics, 6(13), 16-35.

Ansari, H., & Babaii, E. (2002). Universal characteristics of EFL/ESL textbook: a step towards

systematic textbook evaluation. The Internet TESL Journal, 2, 1-8.





Page | 16

Bhanegaonkar, M., & Mahdoofh, M. (2013). New approach for evaluating EFLM: An eclectic

developed checklist. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(10),

1-8.

Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook: choosing your coursebook. Oxford:

Heinemann.

Demir, Y., & Ertaş, A. (2014). A suggested eclectic checklist for ELT coursebook evaluation.

Reading, 14(2), 243-252.

Dominguez, L. M. (2004). Gender textbook evaluation. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University

of Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 51(1),

36-42.

Jahangard, A. (2007). Evaluation of EFL materials taught at Iranian public high schools. ELT

Journal, 9(2), 130-150.

Kheirabadi, R., & Alavimoghaddam, S. B. (2016). Evaluation of Prospect series: a paradigm

shift from GTM to CLT in Iran. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(3), 619-

624.

Low, G. (1987). The need for a multi-perspective approach to the evaluation of foreign language

teaching materials. Evaluation and Research in Education, 1(1), 19-29.

McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburg: Edinburg

University Press.

Mirzaei, N., & Tabatabaei, O. (2017). Textbook analysis: comparing the recent and the old first

grade high school English textbooks, teachers and learners’ perspectives in focus.

Research in English Language Pedagogy, 5(2), 167-180.

Moghtadi, L. (2014). Iranian high school EFL textbooks. Why they should be modified.

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(2), 53-69.

Nunan, D. (1987). The learner-centered curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ranalli, J. C. (2002). An evaluation of New Headway upper-intermediate. Retrieved September

10, 2018 from http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/Ranalli3.pdf.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Ernst Klett Sprachen.





Page | 17

Salehi, H., & Amini, M. (2016a). Critical analysis of a new English textbook used in Iranian

junior high schools. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(3), 42-54.

Salehi, H., & Amini, M. (2016b). Teachers’ perceptions of the new English textbook named

Prospect 1 used in Iranian junior high schools. Modern Journal of Language Teaching

Methods, 6(6), 407-416.

Sheldon, L. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(2), 21-37.

Takeda, A., Choi, E. S., Mochizuki, N., & Watanabe, Y. (2006). Analysis and comparison of the

junior and senior high school level. Retrieved August 14, 2018 from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.504.2194.

Tomlinson, B. (2003). Developing materials for language teaching. London: Continuum.

Tomlinson, B. (2008). English language learning materials: a critical review. London:

Continuum.

Torki, F., & Chalak, A. (2017). An evaluation of English textbooks used in Iranian high schools:

teachers’ and learners’ attitudes. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 5(1), 52-60.

Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics for ESL and EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL EJ,

8(2). Retrieved August 10, 2018 from

http://www.teslej.org/wordpress/pastissues/volume8/ej30/ej30a3/.

issn: 2383-0514 (online) © 2016 khate sefid press ......2019/02/01 · vahid golshani shahid...

Documents