ESL TEXTBOOK EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION: ACLOSER LOOK AT “FACE2FACE” (UPPER-INTERMEDIATE LEVEL) {95 Nhu Quynh, Duong Thi Tam’ Abstract: Evaluating materials has never been separated from English language teaching, ‘as a material, once used in any pedagogical context, acts a prerequisite for learners to obtain their target language competence. Many instruments were, consequently, established for ‘materials evaluation, such as Daould & Celce-Murcia ’ (1979) evaluation checklist, Reinders & Lewis s (2006) evaluative checklist on self-access materials and Littlejohn framework for analysing materials (Tomlinson, 1998: 192-201). These checklists or framework allow an evaluator with a number of assessing patterns of successful teaching and learning materials in order to make decision on whether a material is appropriate for a group of learners or not. Regarding this, the present study was designed to evaluate the Face2Face Student’: Book upper-intermediate of Cambridge University Press, which is now the core learning material of the course Social English 34 for sophomores at ULIS, by using Littlejohn’s framework for analysing materials (Tomlinson, 1998:192-201). The findings will report on three aspects of tasks designed in the aforementioned book: a process through which learners and teachers are 10 go, classroom participation concerning with whom the learners are to work, and content that learners are to focus on. Through both theoretical evidence, this study will definitely be of great benefit to the instructors who are still working on optimizing the efficiency of the chosen book. Keywords: Material evaluation, material development, Face2face Upper-intermediate Student's Book. 1. INTRODUCTION Materials development is not to be thought of asa single discipline, but ratheras abroad and vital field of knowledge that constitutes an essential foundation of modem language teaching, In that respect, many studies on materials development have been carried out such as Tomlinson (2011) and Riazi (2002). Along with these attempts, this research is going to evaluate the Face2Face Student's Book upper-intermediate of Cambridge University Press, which is now the main learning material of the course Social English 3A Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, VNU University of Languages and Intemational ‘Studies, Pham Van Dong Street, Cau Giay, Hanoi, Vietnam.ESL TEXTBOOK EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION: A CLOSER LOOK AT“FACEZFACE” (UPPERINTERMEDIATE LEVEL) 235, for sophomores at ULIS, by using Littlejohn’s framework for analysing materials (Tomlinson, 1998:192-201). This study has been done by carrying out an analysis of tasks in Unit 7 extracted from the Face2Face Student's Book upper-intermediate to find out how appropriate they are for the context of use. Three stages are involved: firstly, clarified some terms namely materials, materials development and tasks, secondly stated out the research method, and finally presented the analysis and implications of use. 2. MATERIALS, MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT AND TASKS Materials According to Oxford Leamers’ Dictionary, “materials” means “things that are needed in order to do a particular activity” or “items used in a performance”. When it comes to “materials” in teaching, its meaning, despite the various definitions of many scholars, still keeps the core value as the description above, According to Tomlinson (2012), materials for language learning can be anything that is used to promote the learning of a language, including course books, videos, graded readers flash cards, games, websites and mobile phone interactions. Johnston (2007) shared the same idea with Tomlinson. He defined materials as any artifacts that facilitate the learning and use of language in the language classroom, This deliberately broad definition includes a wide potential range of artifacts which are pictures realia, and virtual artifacts such as Web sites and computer programs. Based on a 2012 research of Tomlinson, materials normally have five main characteristics namely informative, instructional, experiential, eliciting and exploratory. Specifically, informative means informing the leamer about the target language, instructional means guiding the learner in practicing the language, experiential means providing the learner with experience of the language in use, eliciting means encouraging the leamers to use the language and exploratory means helping the learner to make discoveries about the language. Oxford (2002) claimed that the perfect materials should provide all these characteristics of achieving the target language for the leamers to practice and choose from due to the fact that learners have various learning styles. However, the fact is that most current printed materials are mainly devoted to informing the learners about language features and instructing them to learn these features. In previous reviews of currently used EFL textbooks; Masuhara et al. (2008) also concludes that the emphasis, in most course books is on providing explicit teaching and practice. Material development ‘As Riazi (2002) states, textbooks have an important role in language teaching classrooms, however, choosing a textbook that matches with the learners’ needs and competence has never been an easy task, not to mention that teachers do not have the freeKV YEU HOITHAO KHOA HQC QUOCTE DAY VA HOC NGOAI NGU GAN VOI CHUYEN NGANH 236 TRONG B61 CANH HOI NHAP QUOCTE: LILUAN VATHUCTIEN choice upon textbook selection, Therefor develop their legitimated materials, it posed the need for teachers to evaluate and “Materials development” is considered to be all the processes made by professionals who design and/or use materials for language learning, including materials evaluation, adaptation, design, production, exploitation and research (Tomlinson, 2012), Tomlinson, in his 20112 research, claimed that the procedures of materials development include any activity which is done by writers, teachers or learners to provide sources of language input, and to exploit those sources to facilitate language learning. In order to optimize the use of any materials, measuring their value is significantly important. Regarding material evaluation, many checklists have been established by worldwide scholars, such as Daoud and Celee-Murcia’s checklist (1979) and Littejohn’s framework (Tomlinson, 1998:192-201). The checklist of Daoud and Celce-Murcia (1979) is frequently used for the evaluation of general English textbooks consisting of five major sections including: (1) subject matter, (2) vocabulary and structures, (3) exercises, (4) illustrations and (5) physical make-up. In Littlejohn’s framework, materials are analysed in every single task based on process, classroom participation and content, inst .d of the whole material as a set. ‘Though it is concluded that no single set of criteria for second language materials evaluation is universally appropriate for all classroom contexts, Littlejohn’ framework still proves to have certain strengths compared to the others. Thus, this current study is, going to apply Littlejohn’s framework for analyzing material as it allows practitioners to make decision on whether the materials used are appropriate or not and then make necessary adaptations Tasks By adopting the Littlejohn’s framework of task analysis, the researchers come to the next mission of finding a working definition of “task”. Task is usually defined as any classroom work which involves the learners in the process of negotiating the language meaning to help them acquire the language in a comprehensible and suitable way. In the task-based language teaching (TBLT) method, “task” is seen as meaning-centered work, such as projects, problem-solving and simulations. These works often share similarities with real life language used outside the classroom (Nunan, 2006). However, regarding a larger picture when analysing any set of materials, these definitions are considered to be limited, therefore it might be inappropriate when it is applied to other materials which are not meaning-focused. In 2003, Johnson gave another broader meaning which is most likely used by language practitioners. He defined “task” as “what we give students to do in the classroom” which contains a wide range of activities,ESL TEXTBOOK EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION: A CLOSER LOOK AT“FACEZFACE”(UPPERINTERMEDIATE LEVEL) 237, including both task-based work, and more traditional form-focused work. Littlejohn (Tomlinson, 1998) also shares the same viewpoint which gives a specific task definition on three key aspects: - How: a process through which learners and teachers are to go. - With whom: classroom participation concerning with whom (if anyone) the learners are to work, - About what: content that leamers are to focus on. This research is going to adopt task definition from Littlejohn’s point of view. 3. RESEARCH METHOD In this research, the authors adapted a framework from A preliminary framework for materials analysis, evaluation and action of Dr. Andrew Littlejohn (1998, pg.204) which is commonly used and much cited in analyzing and evaluating textbooks. Materials analysis 4 Whats their explicit nature? 2. What i required of users? | Implication of use & Evaluation Evaluate the materials based on ts implications of use ‘Adaptation ‘Adapt the materials Supplement the ma Figure 1. Adapted framework for materials analysis, evaluation and adaptation (Littlejohn, 1998:204) As can be interpreted from the Figure 1, the research went through three main stages (1) analyzing the material itself, (2) interpreting the use of material based on (1) and (3) proposing some actions regarding materials’ adaptation. In stage (1), materials may be analyzed and described so as to expose their internal nature, and at the same time, make the analyst's subjective interpretations more easily visible. In this stage, we focus on identifying two key levels of tasks: Level 1: What is their explicit nature? Or what is physically there in the materials? Level 2: What is required of users? Or about the demands likely to be made of teachers and learners?KV YEU HOITHAO KHOA HQC QUOCTE DAY VA HOC NGOAI NGU GAN VOI CHUYEN NGANH 238 TRONG B61 CANH HOI NHAP QUOCTE: LILUAN VATHUCTIEN In stage (2), after the first stage becomes explicit, evaluation can then follow in which an evaluator would need to set out precisely which aspects of the materials are appropriate and inappropriate and why. The final stage ~ “Adaptation” involves the evaluators in making decisions over what to do next in the light of evaluation. By clearly dividing the various stages involved in this way, careful account can be taken of each element in materials evaluation, This analytical framework may be seen as potentially empowering educational administrators, teachers and learners and others to voice their needs and to take more control over the materials with which they are involved. 4, MATERIALS ANALYSIS Level 1: Whatis their explicit nature? The observation for recording the explicit nature of the materials consisted of two parts including the physical aspects of the materials and the main sequence of activity taken from students’ materials. “Face2face Upper Intermediate Student's Book” published by Cambridge University Press in 2007 is written by Chris Redston and Gillie Cunningham. The materials aim to help with teaching/ learning of “general English”, particularly for leamers at tertiary education whose ages range from 18 to 20 and for the second year of study. The precise target age range is decided by the nature of students’ age when they start their higher education. In Vietnam, students usually begin their tertiary level at the age of 18 after they finish high school. The materials come as a set which consists of monolingual Teacher’s Book (TB), Student’s Book (SB), Student’s Workbook (SW), class CDs, and Supplementary Materials (SM), ‘The materials are intended to be used in approximately 14 weeks which is equivalent to one semester. Six hours per week is dominated to complete one unit; therefore, there are total 84 teaching hours. The layouts of TB, SB and WB have a dominating purple colour while SM’s written by ULIS’s lecturers has a white and yellow colour, The number of pages for SB, TB, SW and SM is consecutively 160, 224, 63, 206. Materials such as answer keys, methodology guidance and tests are provided exclusively for teachers while the others like audio, audio script, guidance on use of the material and extra practices are given to teachers only, Whereas, the access to syllabus overview and wordlists are distributed to both teachers and learners. The route through the material is specified for teacher. The materials are divided into 10 units with main theme on each and each unit has 5 subsections. Every subsection in the unit is specified by the topics and followed by the activities which use integrated skills approach, In the last part of the unit, the subsection named “Review” contains the summary of the unit, The sequence of main activity types reveal that units often consistESL TEXTBOOK EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION: A CLOSER LOOK AT“FACEZFACE"(UPPERINTERMEDIATE LEVEL) 239) of different tasks and no fixed order through 10 units. For example, the extract from the students’ book begins with vocabulary task then grammar content. Most of tasks allow eamers to work to acquire language rather than listen to the explanation of teacher. Level 2: What is required of users? While Level | mainly dealt with the explicit nature of the materials, the next level would draw the teacher-analyst to a deeper level of analysis by identifying three key aspects of tasks: ~ a process through which learners and teachers are to go. classroom participation concerning with whom (if anyone) the learners are to work ~ content that the learners are to focus on The three aspects of process, participation and content above would be reflected in the according “questions” that we can put to each task as below: I, What is the learner expected to do? A.Tum-take B. Focus CC. Mental operation IL. Who with? IIL. With what content? A. Input to learners, * form * source nature B. Output from leamers + form nature jure 2. Questions for the analysis of tasks (Littlejohn, 1998:199) The first question concerning process, contains three sub-sections which allow us to focus in details on what precisely learners are expected to do, “Turn-take” relates to the role in classroom discourse that the leamers are expected to take. “Focus” refers, for example, to whether the learners are asked to focus on the meaning of the language, its form or both. “Operation” refers to the mental process required — for example, repetition, deducing language rules, and so on. The second question asks about classroom. participation: “With whom?” — are the learners to work alone, in pairs/groups, or with the whole class? Finally, the third question asks about the content of the task. Is it written or spoken? Where does it come from? And what is its nature?KV YEU HOI THAO KHOA HOC QUOCTE DAY VA HOC NGOAI NGO GAN VOI CHUYEN NGANH 240 TRONG B61 ANH HOI NHAP QUOCTE:LILUAN VA THUCTIEN Each of these questions can be applied to each task in an extract from the materials, and help to build up a detailed picture of the classroom work that the materials propose. Three aspects of a task were then further investigated based on the following detailed schedule ‘Task Analysis Sheot Task rumber [||| LI |. What is the learner expected to do? ‘A. TURN-TAKE Iniate Scripted response Not required 5B. FOCUS Language system (ules o form) Meaning Meaning/systemform relationship (MENTAL OPERATION [detailed according to what s found inthe matonais] 1 WHO WITH? [detailed according to what {s found inthe materals [WITH WHAT CONTENT? ‘A. INPUT TO LEARNERS Form Sou Nature. B. OUTPUT FROM LEARNERS Form Source Nawre Figure 3. Task Analysis Sheet The authors used the Task Analysis Sheet above in their research, and obtained the following results: 1. WHAT IS THE LEARNER Number of [Toi amber] os saion EXPECTED TO DO? tasks required | _ of tasks ‘A. TURN TAKE Initiate U1 6 16.67% Scripted response 18 66 21.27% Not required 36 6 S455% B. FOCUS ON Language system (rules or form) 12 66 18.18% Meaning 35 66 53.05% “Meaning/system/form relationship 9 6 28.79%ESL TEXTBOOK EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION: A CLOSER LOOK AT“FACEZFACE”(UPPER-INTERMEDIATE LEVEL) 241 C. MENTAL OPERATION Decode semantic meaning im 66 16.67% Select information 16 66 24.24% Hypothesize 2 66 3.03% Retrieve from LTM, 6 66 9.09% Repeat identically 15 66 22.73% ‘Apply general knowledge n 66 16.67% Research 1 66 1.52% SUM: Express own ideas/information 30. 66 45.45% | 139.39% Figure 4. A process through which learners and teachers are to go Turn-take As can be seen from Figure 4, more than half of the overall tasks do not require “turn-take”, at nearly $5%., Students, in these tasks, are not asked to take any direct role at all (e.g. tick the ones you have done to pass the time at the airport or fill in the gaps with the correct form of the verbs). In opposite, initiate has the lowest mean of percentage, with 16.67%, The activities required for scripted responses where learners repeat the language supplied by the materials are 27.27%. Focus The second subsection indicates the learners’ main focus attention during tasks. In regard to where leamers need to focus their attention, this textbook is predominantly toward meaning as meaning has the highest mean of percentage among others. It is 53.03% of the whole tasks designed to lead the leamers to the negotiation of meaning, Following meaning, tasks that blended meaning and form account for 28.79%, Focusing on form seems to be considered of less importance in this textbook, at 18.18%. Mental operation The third subsection concems the mental processes required during the tasks. The features under this subsection have the difference in portion because in one task, it may involve more than one mental operation, Therefore, the total of all features will not be exactly 100%, It is 139,39%, All mental processes listed above are helpful for language acquisition. Express all ideas/information attracts the highest mean of percentage in this subsection with 45.45%, then followed by select information at a quite far distance (at merely 24%). In the third place, there is feature of repeat identically (22.73%). Decode semantic meaning and apply general knowledge have the same figure, at 16.67%. The rest features are having, the mean of percentage less than 10%, in which the proportion of tasks requiring retrieving information from long term memory (LTM) is amounted to marginally 9.09%. In only | or 2 tasks we could see the involvement of hypothesize and research elements,KV YEU HOITHAO KHOA HQC QUOCTE DAY VA HOC NGOAI NGU GAN VOI CHUYEN NGANH 242 TRONG B61 CANH HOI NHAP QUOCTE: LILUAN VATHUCTIEN 1, WHO WITH? Number of task Overall tasks [Percentage Learners individually simultaneously 41 66 62.12% Leamer to whole class 25 66 37.88% [Learner individually outside the class 0 66 0% Figure 5. Classroom pa icipation concerning with whom (if anyone) the learners are to work As can be seen from Figure 5, individual work accounts for the major distribution compared to group work. The finding shows that 62.12% of tasks in textbooks involves learners individually simultaneously, and 37.88% for leaners to whole class (pair work/ group work). No task was recorded with the learners working outside the classroom. AIL WITH WHAT CONTENT? ‘Number of task | Overall tasks] Percentage A. INPUT TO LEARNERS a. Form Extended discourse: written 2 66 18.18% Extended discourse: aural 8 66 12.12% Words/phrases/sentences: written al 66 62.12% Wordsiphrases/sentences: aural 3 66 4.55% _|sum: Graphic 4 66 6.06% _|103.03% b. Source Materials SI 66 712% Leamers 15 66 22.73% Outside the course/lesson oc. Nature Fiction 53 66 Non-fiction 0 66 Personal information or opinion 13 66 [B. EXPECTED OUTPUT FROM LEARNERS| a. Form Words/phrases/sentences: oral 25 66 37.88% Extended discourse: oral 8 66 12.12% Wordsiphrases/sentences: written 33 66 50% b. Source Materials 40 66 Leamers 26 66 ¢. Nature Fiction 54 66 Nonefiction 12 66 Personal information or opinion 0 66 Figure 6. Content that the learners are to focus onESL TEXTBOOK EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION: A CLOSER LOOK AT“FACEZFACE” (UPPERINTERMEDIATE LEVEL) 243 The part “With what content” refers to the results regarding the contents of the tasks that are assigned to the learners. The total of the form of the input provided to learner cannot be exactly 100%. It is 103.03% as the form can have more than one feature. The written content may be provided together with graphic or the oral content might be in associated with the graphic. In term of the input provided to learners, written words/ phrases/sentences predominate with 62.12%, The second and the third place belong to written and aural extended discourse, at 18.18% and 12.12% respectively. With less than 7% of the total tasks, graphic and aural words/phrases/sentences are hardly used as the language input for learners. On the other hand, the content for expected output from learners gly equal for both oral and written format (50/50%). In oral form, words/phrases/sentences dominate extended discourse with the threefold proportion. interes In terms of the source of the content as the input fo learner is 77.27% come from the materials and 22.73% coming from the learners. No tasks are recorded to take the input from outside sources (course/lesson). The source of the content for expected output from learners is 60.61% coming from materials while 39.39% coming from learners. Last but not least, the nature of the content for input and output is approximately both 80% in form of fiction, 20% of personal opinion for the former and 20% of non-fiction for the latter. 5. IMPLICATIONS OF USE AND EVALUATION 5.1. What is learner expected to do? Turn take From the analysis above, it is shown that the most noticeable point to emerge from the analysis of tasks is the very low degree to which the book attempts the activeness in Jeaming among their learners. Itis quite clear to see that the initiate language just accounts, for approximately 16% of the whole tasks, In order to facilitate language learning, learners need to be given activities requiring production of output, in which initiating language can be one way as it allows leamers to be more independent and creative. Therefore, regarding turn-take, we could see some limitations in the design of this book. On the other hand, nearly 55% of total tasks are not required to either initiate or response through script, followed by approximately 28% tasks of scripted response. In scripted response, setting out the precise words which teachers and learners are to say to each other should be needed for learners, especially beginner learners like students at junior high school or high school to draw leaners to the target language. However, when it comes to sophomores at ULIS (level B1+), repetition according to script seems not to be challenging enough. Moreover, this also means that the tasks in this textbook still put emphasis on teacher-centered in teaching process.KV YEU HOITHAO KHOA HQC QUOCTE DAY VA HOC NGOAI NGU GAN VOI CHUYEN NGANH 244 TRONG B61 CANH HOI NHAP QUOCTE: LILUAN VATHUCTIEN Focus on Despite the low figure in turn-take, the majority of tasks, interestingly, focus on meaning or meaning and form, both of which accumulate to nearly 82% of the total. The rest 18% focus on form only with the dominant tasks in vocabulary and grammar sections. As the theory of communicative language teaching believes that delivering meaning is more important than focusing on form in order to develop leamers’ communicative competence (Richard and Rodger, 2001), this figure above means that learners are given the choice to build their language production capability since they can communicate more in target language without being concemed with the accuracy as long as the meaning conveyed. Mental operation wre wr Tekno BK TRRGHSHK 671K BLEAKHHXHGS SGORDK IH ‘wea cPBuTON Desde ean enig 1 A707 KTP he : Seecinenatin ky ehh are 1 pote fevevefotM 1k 1 1 1 Aeetieily 1 zal Tk ran a A geeliole 14 nae 1 nan cn) pres elfraton makehl LI kel Lak yan katt el bk ion observed in Unit 7a and 7b Figure 7. Mental oper The first observation that we can take from the Figure 7 is that all the tasks mainly require just | or 2 mental processes. There are some tasks engaging more than 2 cognitive elements, however, the number is limited, only 7 out of 66 tasks in total. It is believed that the more mental operations accumulated in a task would generate more benefits to the language learners in obtaining knowledge and understanding. Therefore, regarding this domain, the analyzed tasks failed to construct a comprehensive thinking ability among leamers. On the second observation, the authors look into that mental operation under the platform of Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). When placing, seven mental processes (decode semantic meaning, select information, hypothesize, retrieve from LTM, repeat identically, apply general knowledge, research and express own ideas/opinions) into six levels of cognitive domain in Bloom’s taxonomy, we interestingly find out that all of them belong to the initial 3 lower level skills containing remembering, understanding and applying as illustrated in Figure 8 below:ESL TEXTBOOK EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION: A CLOSER LOOK AT“FACEZFACE” (UPPERINTERMEDIATE LEVEL) 245, hx Scomeuysenernerne ‘Apply general knowledge eres Us etna gnedinnee Express own ideas/information ‘Decode semantis| meaning Select information pecan raevetarowtndes rom Hypothesize Sseaiiara Retrieve from UTM Repeat identically Figure 8. Bloom’s Taxonomy by E. Robyn, 2014, ExpertBeacon, Inc. In other words, these mental processes above all help learners to recall knowledge, check their comprehension and put knowledge into application. These cognitive domains can totally fit for a young learner in secondary school or high school, however, a higher level of mental operation should be demanded when it comes to college students. 5.2. With whom? In the aspect of participation, it is clear that the majority of tasks require leamers to work individually (at approximately 62%) while the numbers of group/pair’s tasks provided from the material are quite low, at 38%. This figure is in a very close interrelationship with the turn take session, as most tasks that do not require turn-take are individual works, and the task that initiate learners’ use of language is a pair work and group work (see the Figure 9 below). As a result, if ‘we want to change the proportion in the distribution of turn-take components, we need to work on the participation of leamers in classroom, leery sean fee eerearas ET hbk eee ent Te lame aaa cs Figure 9. The inter-relationship between turn take and participationKV YEU HOITHAO KHOA HQC QUOCTE DAY VA HOC NGOAI NGU GAN VOI CHUYEN NGANH 246 TRONG B61 CANH HOI NHAP QUOCTE: LILUAN VATHUCTIEN More noticeably, no tasks are recorded to ask leamers work outside the classroom, which means that the pre-class and post-class sessions have not been fully exploited. Students are often expected to be in class without any preparation related to the tasks nor are they required to further apply or create any “learning products”, i. a project, after class. 53. what content Input/output forms From the analysis of the content of the materials, it shows that there is a huge gap between the proportion of written words/phrases/sentences and extended written/aural discourse (62% and around 15% respectively). This imbalance is disadvantageous to learners for the fact that, according to Krashen (1985) and Long (1983a, 1983b), extended discourse acts as a “driving force behind the acquisition process”. Ifa language-leaming material were only designed with fragmentary items, leamers could not see the beautiful nature of this not understand the significance, or the motivation, for leaming. As a result, this imbalance, to some extent, impedes the language acquisition of leamers. inguage as well as could Besides, graphics, which has been argued to be the most naturally eliciting input that allows students to use alternative system of logic, or “certain physiological strengths of leamers... can be exploited” (Winn 1987, p. 160), is used with less than 7% in total. Moreover, the images are all for decorative purposes rather than a prompt for language production. Regarding form of output, the distribution is perfectly equal for oral and written form, however, the main focus of output here is just in form of words, phrases and sentences, with the faint appearance of extended discourse (at 12.12%). These two factors would leave a huge space of adaptation for the researchers in the next section of this research. Input/output source The figures 77.27% for materials, 22.73% for learners and 0% for outside classroom mean that learners are not allowed to be active to contribute in providing the input to other learners. Similarly, the output sources of contents are overwhelmingly from materials (at 60.61%), leaving 39.39% for the learners. This shows that leamers are limited to the output provided by materials that will not increase their autonomy in the learning process. Input/output nature Mostly, the nature of contents of both the input and output are largely fiction, accounting on average for 80%. Fiction input is really necessary for the low-level leamers in recognizing linguistic components and produce simple utterances. Nonetheless, when it comes to BI+ level sophomores, authentic tasks should be a must as it helps learners apply knowledge and skills, perform the task in a new situation and rehearse for the complex ambiguities of adult and professional life.ESL TEXTBOOK EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION: A CLOSER LOOK AT“FACEZFACE"(UPPERINTERMEDIATE LEVEL) 247 6. MATERIALS ADAPTATION Based on what have been analyzed above, this textbook can be used as teaching and learning materials but it needs a few modifications as stated below. 1. According to the prior explanation of the inter-relationship between low initiate in turn take and low frequency of group work, teachers instructing this course should include more activities requiring students to work in group or pair, since it helps them to build their collaborative learning environment, The nature of working in group is about sharing opinions and negotiating meanings for every single utterance, therefore, it would be conducive to leamers’ expressions of what he/she wishes to say without the script of any kind. Moreover, this kind of classroom activity would increase learners’ autonomy and activeness in their acquisition of language. 2. In terms of low-level cognitive taxonomy, the authors propose a use of project design for this course (Project-based learning). The goal should be one mini project for cach unit, For example, in unit 7B, there is a reading text named “Changing China” which talks about the development of a city. Based on this topic, teachers can assign a mini project called “Your hometown now and then”. Students need to collect some images from the past and present, or draw some pictures about the changes, search for the genuine information deseribing these historical periods, then present what they have acquired to their classmate. This activity would motivate leamers thinking at higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy by making judgements on which images would be suitable for the presentation (evaluating) and putting information together in an innovative way (creating) Moreover, this project-based approach also helps to solve problems with the lack of graphics (students bring their collection of graphics to class), lack of output extended discourse (students need to present their mini project), lack of output source from the students (students self-make their product), and lack of non-fiction input/output nature (images are authentic), 7. CONCLUSION This research, when coming to an end, has fulfilled the initial intention of investigating Face2Face English Student Book among the two researchers, As real practitioners of this book, ‘we always have an urge to dig deep into the material that we experience hands-on teaching in order to see its strengths and weaknesses. This research has truly saved us from the intuitive evaluation by figuring out the explicit nature of this book as well as the requirements for users through the analysis on process through which leamers and teachers are to go, classroom participation conceming, with whom the leamers are to work, and content that leamers are to focus on, Based on analyzed data, we can see “inside” the book and take more control over their design and use, resulting in more successful classroom practice in the long run.KV YEU HOITHAO KHOA HQC QUOCTE DAY VA HOC NGOAI NGU GAN VOI CHUYEN NGANH 248 TRONG B61 CANH HOI NHAP QUOCTE: LILUAN VATHUCTIEN REFERENCE 1. Anderson, L. W, and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds.) (2001) 4 Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group). 2. Daoud, A., & Celce-Murcia, M, (1979). Selecting and evaluating a textbook. InM. Celee-Murcia and L. McIntosh (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 302- 307), Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers. 3. Harwood, N. (ed.) (2010a). Materials in University T: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge 4, Johnston, B., & Janus, L. (2007). Developing classroom materials for less commonly taught languages. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. London: Continuum. 5. Long, M. H, (1983-13). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141, 6. Long, M. H. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-194. 7. Masuhara, H., M. Haan, Y. Yi & B. Tomlinson (2008). Adult EFL courses. ELT Journal 62(3), 294-312, Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching. Emst Klett Sprachen, 9. Oxford, R. L. (2002). Sources of variation in language learning. In R. B. Kaplan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (3rd ed). New York: Oxford University Press, 245-252, 10. Reinders, H. & Lewis, M. (2006). An evaluative checklist for selfaccess materials. ELT Journal, 60(3). Oxford University Press. 11, Reinders, H., & Lewis, M. (2006). An evaluative checklist for self-access materials. ELT Journal, 60(3), 272-278. 12. Riazi, A. (2002). What do textbook evaluation schemes tell us? A study of, textbook evaluation schemes of three decades. In W. Renandya (Ed.), Methodology and materials design in Language teaching, (pp: 52 - 68). Singapore: SEAMEO. 13. Robyn, E, (2014). Bloom's taxonomy. Denver, CO: ExpertBeacon. Retrieved from http:// expertbeacon.com/blooms-taxonomy/#. VZG£G0alUOw. 14, Tomlinson, B. (1998). Materials development in Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press, 15. Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (2007a). Language acquisition and development: Studies of first and other language learners. Continuum Publishing House, 16. Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (201la). Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed). Cambridge Universi ress. 17. Tomlinson, B, (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), pp.143-179. Cambridge University Press. 18, Winn, W. D. (1987). Charts, graphs and diagrams in educational materials. In D. M. Willows, & H. A Houghton (Fs): The psychology of illustration. New York: Springer-Verlag, 152 - 198.ESL TEXTBOOK EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION: A CLOSER LOOK AT“FACEZFACE” (UPPERINTERMEDIATE LEVEL) 249) LIST OF FIGURES: Figure 1. Adapted framework for materials analysis, adaptation and evaluation. Figure 2. Questions for the analysis of tasks Figure 3. Task Analysis Sheet Figure 4. A process through which leamers and teachers are to go Figure 5, Classroom participation concerning with whom (if anyone) the leamers are to work Figure 6. Content that the leamers are to focus on. Figure 7. Mental operation observed in Unit 7a and 7b Figure 8, Bloom’s Taxonomy by E. Robyn, 2014, ExpertBeacon, Inc. Figure 9. The inter-relationship between turn take and participation.