Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/349485391
CITATIONS READS
0 7,382
3 authors, including:
Farangis Shahidzade
Yazd University
103 PUBLICATIONS 42 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The role of narrative designs in language teaching /learning research View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Farangis Shahidzade on 21 February 2021.
a) External
b) Internal
When is the evaluation carried out?
a) Pre-use
b) Whilst-use
c) Post-use
a) Teachers
b) Publishers
c) Learners
d) Specialists/practitioners
the reliability of the materials (i.e. Would they have the same
effect with different groups of target learners?).
the ability of the materials to interest the learners and the
teachers,
Therefore, the main point is that it is not the materials which are
being evaluated but their effects on the people who are using
them (including the evaluators, too).
Evaluation vs. Analysis
An evaluation can include an analysis or follow from one, but the
objectives and procedures of it are different (Tomlinson, 2003c).
2) Materials analysis,
4) Action.
Principles in Materials Evaluation
In this way greater validity and reliability can be achieved and fewer
mistakes are likely to be made.
All teachers develop theories of learning and teaching which they apply in
their classrooms.
Many researchers (e.g. Schon, 1983) argue that it is useful for teachers to
try to achieve an articulation of their theories by reflecting on their
practice.
Edge and Wharton (1998, p. 297) argue that reflective practice cannot
only lead to “perceived improvements in practice but, more importantly,
to deeper understandings of the area investigated.”
In a similar way, Tomlinson (2003b) argues that the starting point of any
evaluation should be reflection on the evaluator’s practice leading to
articulation of the evaluator’s theories of learning and teaching.
c) be careful not to let them weight the evaluation too much towards
their own bias and
d) learn a lot about themselves and about the learning and teaching
process.
WHAT IS BEING EVALUATED?
According to Mishan and Timmis (2015), the assumption in
materials evaluation is that evaluation is applied to
coursebooks.
3) to select a textbook,
1) a learner,
2) a teacher,
3) an editor,
4) a researcher,
• Clarity of instructions
• Clarity of layout
• Comprehensibility of texts
• Credibility of tasks
• Achievability of tasks
It can measure:
• What do the learners know which they did not know before
starting to use the materials?
• What can the learners still not do despite using the materials?
examinations,
interviews,
questionnaires,
post-course diaries,
a) checklists,
c) computer software.
7) The seventh framework has been proposed by McDonough,
Shaw and Masuhara (2013), who focus on developing criteria
evaluating the suitability of materials in relation to usability,
generalizability, adaptability and flexibility.
a) usability,
b) generalizability,
c) adaptability and
d) flexibility.
8) The eighth framework is that of McGrath (2002), who suggests
a procedure involving materials analysis followed by first glance
evaluation, user feedback and evaluation using context-specific
checklists.
a) Materials analysis,
For example, the famous checklist by Demir & Ertas (2014), which
consists of these four main sections:
If not, then we can “exit” at this stage and start evaluating other
materials if we wish so.
1) Macro-evaluation 2) Inappropriate/appropriate 3) Micro-evaluation 4) Inappropriate/appropriate 5) Adopt/select
(External) (Internal)
exit exit
An overview of the materials evaluation process (McDonough, Shaw & Masuhara, 2013, p. 58).
The Internal Evaluation
Now we can continue to the next stage of our evaluation
procedure by performing an in-depth investigation into the
materials.
1) usability,
2) generalizability,
3) adaptability and
4) flexibility.
1) Usability Factor
• There may be some very good qualities in the materials but, for
example, we may judge the listening material or the reading
passages to be unsuitable and in need of modification.
a) teachers,
b) learners and
c) publishers.
Teachers as Evaluators
• Masuhara (2011) says meetings could be held where new
materials are presented to the teachers, leading to discussions
of which activities the teachers preferred and why they
preferred these activities to others.
a) learner diaries,
b) rating of tasks,
d) metaphor study.
Publishers as Evaluators
Amrani (2011) notes that publishers can use either (a) piloting or
(b) reviewing of materials to determine their suitability.
• succinct? (quantity)
• sufficient? (quantity)
• self-standing? (independence)
• standardized? (quality)
• separated? (quality)
• Staged? (systemtaticity)
3) Monitor and revise the list of universal
criteria:
If the question is an analysis question then you can only give the
answer a 1 or a 5 on the 5-point scale which is recommended
later in this suggested procedure.
For example: (To what extent are the tests likely to provide
useful learning experiences?)
For example, “Do you think that students should have more
classes about history and culture?” contains two different issues;
one is about history and the other concerns culture.
Is each question answerable?
• Are the activities in each unit linked to each other in ways which
help the learners?
4) Categorize the list:
• Are there short, varied activities which are likely to match the
attention span of the learners?
• class size,
• teacher-specific,
• administrator-specific,
• gender-specific,
• culture-specific,
1) Brainstorm beliefs,
Demir, Y., & Ertas, A. (2014). A Suggested Eclectic Checklist for ELT
Coursebook Evaluation. The Reading Matrix, 14(2), 243-252.
Tanner, R., & Green, C. (1998). Tasks for Teacher Education. UK:
Longman.