UM Panabo College

Department of Teacher Education

P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
Week 4-5: Unit Learning Outcomes (ULO): At the end of the unit, you are expected to

a. Analyze the scope of grammar and its components in adapting and evaluating existing grammar
materials;
Big Picture in Focus: ULOa. Analyze the scope of grammar and its components in
adapting and evaluating existing grammar materials;

Metalanguage

For you to demonstrate ULOb, you will need to have an operational understanding of the
following terms below. Please note that you will also be required to refer to the previous definitions found in
ULOa section.

Grammar – a set of rules that explains how words are used in a language
Pedagogy – method and practice of teaching
Linguistics – a scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of morphology, syntax,
phonetics, and semantics include sociolinguistics and dialectology
Corpus Linguistics – Corpus linguistics is one of the fastest-growing methodologies in contemporary
linguistics. In a conversational format, this article answers a few questions that corpus linguists
regularly face from linguists who have not used corpus-based methods so far.

Essential Knowledge

Before we proceed further with the study of curriculum, it is highly important that we pay
tribute to the different foundations of curriculum. As a quality teacher, you should have a commendable
knowledge of these pillars in the study of teaching the literature.

WHAT IS GRAMMAR AND HOW CAN IT BE DESCRIBED?

A Pedagogic Framework For Grammar Description

Pedagogical grammar can be viewed as the version of grammar that seeks to find, frame, and describe
criteria for language education and rules of language use. It helps to identify optimal ways for teaching
and learning L2 language in a classroom (Ellis, 2006, Westney, 1994). L2 pedagogical grammar is an area
of controversy (Ellis 2002) because grammar has footings in the linguistic theory, the learning
psychology and language pedagogy. Entrenched in the complexity of the human mind and language, the
intricacy of the biological, psychological, and socio-cultural subtleties underpinning language acquisition,

1
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
use, and education, many questions pertaining to L2 pedagogical grammar have rather remain issues of
theoretical and philosophical contestations. According to Scott Thornbury (1999, p. 14), “the history of
language teaching is essentially the history of the claims and counterclaims for and against the teaching of
grammar”. Similarly, articulating the difficulty and the flux about grammar and lack of consensus about
its instruction in classroom context, Hudson (1998, p. 4) asks, “is grammar teachable”?
Grammar Pedagogy Controversy
One major contention about grammar pedagogy is a definitional issue that stems from the linguistic
theory. The notion „grammar‟ has been varyingly and controversially defined (Hartwell, 1985).
Francis (1954) distinguished three grammar paradigms: Grammar 1, “the set of formal patterns in which
the words of a language are arranged in order to convey larger meanings”, Grammar 2, “the branch of
linguistic science which is concerned with the description, analysis, and formulization of formal language
patterns”, and Grammar 3, “linguistic etiquette” (p. 299-300). Another controversial issue about grammar
teaching resides in the psychology of learning or the acquisition mechanisms. What theoretical paradigm
may account for the underpinnings of the learning process, and inform an optimal teaching practice? In
the 1960s, Chomsky suggested the Universal Grammar (UG) formal model of language acquisition.
Language for Chomsky is grammar, inborn knowledge in the mind, i.e., an innate, universal faculty.
Thus, Chomsky highlights grammar, but debunks the role of input; hence, the function and teaching of
grammar. Although Chomsky‟s UG is meant to explicate the mechanisms underpinning L1 acquisition,
his model has been widely adopted by second language acquisition (SLA) researchers (Clahsen &
Muysken, 1986; Schachter 1988; Hawkins, 2002), who seem to focus on learning not teaching grammar.
With the advent of the sociolinguistics enterprise in the late 1960s and systemic linguistics (Halliday,
1973), the role of grammar teaching was downplayed (Male, 2011), due to the vogue of the
communicative approach to language under the newly growing fields.
Corpus Linguistics And The Study Of Language Performance
Corpus linguistics is one of the fastest-growing methodologies in contemporary linguistics. In a conversational
format, this article answers a few questions that corpus linguists regularly face from linguists who have not used
corpus-based methods so far. It discusses some of the central assumptions („formal distributional differences reflect
functional differences‟), notions (corpora, representativity and balancedness, markup and annotation), and methods
of corpus linguistics (frequency lists, concordances, collocations), and discusses a few ways in which the discipline
still needs to mature.
Frequency-Based Descriptions Of Grammar Use
(1) Linguistic signs arise from the dynamic interactions of thought and sound – from patterns of usage:
“Everything depends on relations. ... [1] Words as used in discourse, strung together one after another,
enter into relations based on the linear character of languages... Combinations based on sequentiality may
be called syntagmas.... [2] Outside of the context of discourse, words having something [meaningful] in
common are associated together in memory. This kind of connection between words is of quite a different
order. It is not based on linear sequence. It is a connection in the brain. Such connections are part of that
accumulated store which is the form the language takes in an individual‟s brain. We shall call these
associative relations.” (p. 120-121).
The determinants of learning include (1) input frequency (type-token frequency, Zipfian distribution,
recency), (2) form (salience and perception), (3) function (prototypicality of meaning, importance of form
for message comprehension, redundancy), and (4) interactions between these (contingency of form-
function mapping). We will briefly consider each in turn, along with studies demonstrating their
applicability:
(1) Input frequency (construction frequency, type-token frequency, Zipfian distribution, recency)
Construction frequency Frequency of exposure promotes learning. Ellis‟ (2002a) review
illustrates how frequency effects the processing of phonology and phonotactics, reading, spelling,
lexis, morphosyntax, formulaic language, language comprehension, grammaticality, sentence
production, and syntax. That language users are sensitive to the input frequencies of these
patterns entails that they must have registered their occurrence in processing. These frequency

2
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
effects are thus compelling evidence for usage-based models of language acquisition which
emphasize the role of input.
(2) Type and token frequency Token frequency counts how often a particular form appears in the
input. Type frequency, on the other hand, refers to the number of distinct lexical items that can be
substituted in a given slot in a construction, whether it is a word-level construction for inflection
or a syntactic construction specifying the relation among words. For example, the “regular”
English past tense -ed has a very high type frequency because it applies to thousands of different
types of verbs, whereas the vowel change exemplified in swam and rang has much lower type
frequency. The productivity of phonological, morphological, and syntactic patterns is a function
of type rather than token frequency (Bybee & Hopper, 2001). This is because: (a) the more lexical
items that are heard in a certain position in a construction, the less likely it is that the construction
is associated with a particular lexical item and the more likely it is that a general category is
formed over the items that occur in that position; (b) the more items the category must cover, the
more general are its criterial features and the more likely it is to extend to new items; and (c) high
type frequency ensures that a construction is used frequently, thus strengthening its
representational schema and making it more accessible for further use with new items (Bybee &
Thompson, 2000). In contrast, high token frequency promotes the entrenchment or conservation
of irregular forms and idioms; the irregular forms only survive because they are high frequency.
These findings support language‟s place at the center of cognitive research into human
categorization, which also emphasizes the importance of type frequency in classification.
(3) Zipfian distribution In the early stages of learning categories from exemplars, acquisition is
optimized by the introduction of an initial, low-variance sample centered upon prototypical
exemplars (Elio & Anderson, 1981, 1984). This low variance sample allows learners to get a fix
on what will account for most of the category members. The bounds of the category are defined
later by experience of the full breadth of exemplar types. Goldberg, Casenhiser and Sethuraman
(2004) demonstrated that in samples of child language acquisition, for a variety of verb-argument
constructions (VACs), there is a strong tendency for one single verb to occur with very high
frequency in comparison to other verbs used, a profile which closely mirrors that of the mothers‟
speech to these children. In natural language, Zipf‟s law (Zipf, 1935) describes how the highest
frequency words account for the most linguistic tokens. Goldberg et al. (2004) show that Zipf‟s
law applies within VACs too, and they argue that this promotes acquisition: tokens of one
particular verb account for the lion‟s share of instances of each particular argument frame;

A Corpus-Informed Revolution In L2 Grammar Teaching? Corpora Used

In order to investigate the frequencies of different syntactic structures in the English language, a total of
eight corpus data sets were used in this paper. These corpora were chosen to represent a variety of genres
of written and spoken language. The syntactic structures in some of these corpora were determined

3
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
through automatic means, while in others, the syntactic structures were hand corrected. These two
methodologies involve a tradeoff between accuracy (highest for hand labeling, but still not perfect) and
the ability to label a large sample of data (100 million words of text can be automatically parsed overnight
using a cluster of 30 desktop PCs, circa 2003 – in contrast with the estimate from Marcus et al. 1993 of
2.5 million words per year for a team of 5 part time annotators working three hours a day at hand
correcting automatic parses).
Grammar as an Interactional Tool
Interestingly, grammar was viewed by the same students as an important tool for meaning. John said, “it
helps us understand what others say… in the same time, we feel like people can understand us”. This
view to grammar advocates a shift from the traditional to the interactional perception of the notion which
Francis (1954) conceptualize as Grammar 1, “the set of formal patterns in which the words of a language
are arranged in order to convey larger meanings” (p. 300). In response to the questions, “why are you
taking the language course?” and “how good you want your English to be?”, the respondents unanimously
confirmed that they were taking the course to “improve their English” and that “they wanted their English
to be “perfect” like a native English speaker”. Apparently, the participants have developed this
communicative notion of grammar in Canada after being exposed to the language in its natural context.
Grammar in this context is a use, a need, and an attempt to adjust to the public life in a native language
context. Young articulated his interest in learning grammar to use the language, “I found it interesting to
learn grammar to be able to speak and write, but not to memorize”. The participants now have debunked
the old notion of the syntactical grammar which they had developed back home. They started to adopt the
interactional aspects of language. This view was also observed from the comparisons the participants
made between their back-home learning experience and the Canadian-based experience with English.
Adam said, “the experience with English [back home] was not helpful”. Cheng also indicated that “the
focus was on grammar”. Rayan expressed dissatisfaction with “some terrible lack of conversation… at
that time we could not communicate, but now, we do…. Grammar helps to speak and write”. Marry
posited, “we did not use English outside classroom”. Such expressions suggest that the participants start
to realize the dichotomy Chomsky (1986) proposed for linguistic knowledge between competence (the
abstract knowledge of grammar) and performance (the actual application of this knowledge in the event
of language use, speaking and writing). The student‟s statement cited above, “it helps us understand what
others say” is suggestive. It indicates that grammar has come to focus on speech inherent in interactional
grammar as people‟s exchanges are operated in the spoken form of the language.
This view of grammar also relates to the definition Francis (1954) referred to as Grammar 3 “linguistic
etiquette” (spoken grammar that does not necessarily conform to written grammar). The findings also
relate to Krashen‟s view of grammar (1981, 1982) that grammar is acquired through exposure and that
formal instruction to the component enhances declarative knowledge, yet not acquisition. The following
quotations support the claim, “some terrible lack of conversation”, “the use of English was terrible” and
“we did not use English outside the classroom”. All these assertions are conducive to a communicative
take to grammar teaching. Although the findings correspond with some related studies (Incecay & Dollar,
2011) in which the respondents were in favor of learning grammar communicatively, Male (2011),
reported that learners preferred formal presentation of grammar structures. The participants in Male‟s
study “viewed knowledge of grammar to play an important role in writing, but has no significant role in
speaking” (Male, 2011)

L1 Influence on L2 Grammar Learning

Thinking back of English teaching in their home countries, all the participants indicated that they had
negative attitudes towards the methods and practices through which they were introduced to English in
general and to grammar in particular. As quoted above, Ali explained that English was taught “like any
other subject” such as history or geography” using L1. Salem also commented, “they [teachers] explained
the rules in Arabic”. Moreover, Young regretted that they did not use English”. The students were

4
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
disappointed with these strategies as they “used to memorize the rules [which were, basically, explained
in the L1], for the exam”. These practices, according to one student, made the grammar class “boring”.
Added to this, the teachers were like the students “non-natives of English”. Apparently, these attitudes
highlight a negative affect about L1 use in the L2 classroom and is related to the ongoing debate about L1
use in L2 context within the frame of SLA acquisition. The use of L1 in the L2 classroom has long been
debated and pedagogical grammar endured more heated controversy enriched in the exposure to language
and the instruction of grammar dualism; hence the pro-L1-use and anti-L1- use in the L2 class.
Identifying And Describing Formulaic Sequences
The use of formulaic sequences is an important skill for oral language development. David Wood defines
formulaic sequences as “fixed strings or chunks of words that have a range of functions and uses in
speech production and communication and seem to be cognitively stored and retrieved by speakers as if
they were single words” (14). Alison Wray defines formulaic sequences as “a sequence, continuous or
discontinuous, of words or other meaning elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated: that is,
stored and retrieved whole from memory at the time of use, rather than being subject to generation or
analysis by the language grammar” (“Formulaic Sequences” 465). Istvan Kecskes defines formulaic
sequences as “multi-word collocations which are stored and retrieved holistically rather than being
generated do novo with each use” and are “either more than the sum of the individual parts, or else
diverge significantly from a literal, or work-for-word meaning and operate as a single semantic unit” (3).
Formulaic sequences include, but are not limited to, language such as idioms, proverbs, multiword
metaphors, phrasal verbs and chain based formulas.
Wray offers an easily understandable view of what formulaic sequences are and how they can be used as
indivisible phrases. She gives the examples of “laissez-faire, au fait, sine qua non and et cetera” as being
French and Latin phrases that English speakers use but do not understand the individual linguistic
components of (Wray, “Formulaic Language” 116). These non-English phrases have only one holistic
meaning in their use by native English speakers, but are surely divisible into individual word units by
anyone with an understanding of either French or Latin. These non-English phrases are used in the same
way as other English derived formulaic sequences, making the point that regardless of the language of
origin, word phrases can have one indivisible meaning. An example of this holistic meaning in English is
put down. These two words could have their individual meanings in the sentence “Put down that cookie”
to literally mean “do not hold on to that cookie any longer.” Put down could also have the holistic
meaning of “to criticize,” like in the sentence “He was tired of their constant put downs.” This borrowing
of phrases from other languages in conjunction with the examples from English demonstrates the
language speaker‟s active use of formulaic sequences as indivisible units of meaning.

The Many Names for Formulaic Sequences

Amalgams Formulas/formulae Lexicalized sentence Recurring utterances
Automatic Fossilized forms Stems Rote
Chunks Frozen metaphors Multiword units Routine formulae
Clichés Frozen phrases Non-compositional Schemata
Co-ordinate Gambits Non-computational Semi-preconstructed
constructions phrases that constitute
single choices
Collocations Gestalt Non-productive Sentence builders
Composites Holistic Non-propositional Stable and familiar
expressions with
specialized subsenses
Conventionalized Holophrases Petrifications Stereotyped phrases
forms
F[ixed] E[xpressions] Idiomatic Praxons Stereotypes
including I[dioms]

5
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
Fixed expressions Idioms Preassembled speech Stock utterances
prefabricated routines
and patterns
Formulaic language Irregular Ready-made Synthetic unanalyzed
expressions chunks of speech
Formulaic speech Lexical(ized) phrases Ready-made
utterances
Categorizations of Formulaic Sequences
Becker’s Six Classes
In a 1975
paper entitled
“The Phrasal
Lexicon,”
Joseph D.
Becker
defines six
classes, or
categories, for
formulaic
sequences (see
table 2).
Class I
contains polywords. Polywords are phrases that contain two or more words that are used and understood
as single words. This class can include phrasal verbs and euphemisms. Class II is phrasal constraints.
These are phrases that have some variability which affect the meaning of the phrase. For example,
something can happen “by coincidence,” “by pure coincidence” or “by sheer coincidence” (Becker 61).
The addition of pure and sheer in to the formulaic sequences by coincidence changes the intensity and
specificity of the meaning of the phrase. The third class is deictic locutions. Class III phrases work “as
clauses or whole utterances whose purpose is to direct the course of conversation, i.e. the flow of
expectations, emotions, attitudes, etc.” (Becker 61). Examples of deictic locutions are in fact… meaning
“I believe this to be true” and don‟t get me wrong… meaning “Allow me to explain myself.”

Wray and Perkins’ Functions of Formulaic Sequences

6
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
Alison Wray and Michael Perkins, in the 2000 article “The functions of formulaic language: an integrated
model,” identify three categories where formulaic sequences act as devices for social interaction. First,
the manipulation of others focuses on commands (“Keep off the grass”), requests (“Could you repeat that
please?”), politeness markers (“I wonder if you don‟t mind…”) and bargains (“I‟ll give you ___ for it.”).
This manipulation of others is for “satisfying physical, emotional and cognitive needs” of the speaker
(Wray and Perkins 14). Second, asserting separate identity involves storytelling (“You‟re never going to
believe this, but…”), turn claimers and holders (“Yes, but the thing is…”) and personal turns of phrase
(“You know what I mean?”). These formulaic sequences offer speakers the opportunity to be “taken
seriously” and to separate themselves from the others around them (Wray and Perkins 14). Third,
asserting group identity includes overall membership in a group (singing Happy Birthday or unison
recitation in a church or athletic setting) and affirming or adjusting one‟s place in hierarchy. Affirming or
adjusting one‟s place in hierarchy could include threats (“I wouldn‟t do that if I were you.”), quotation
(quoting others in speech), forms of address (“Your Highness”) and hedges (“Well I‟m not sure”). The
function of these formulaic sequences is for overall group inclusion and the subtle placement and
movement of individuals in the hierarchal structure of a group (Wray and Perkins 14). The above
formulaic sequences are categorized for the understanding of social interaction, but Wray and Perkins
identify others that can be used as fillers to replace awkward pauses and nonnative-sounding runs of
words which have been previously identified as markers of nonfluency.
Kecskes’ Formulaic
Continuum
Kecskes uses a formulaic
continuum to categorize
formulaic sequences. In this
formulaic continuum (as seen
in table 4), the more
grammatically bound
formulaic sequences are on
the left and the more
semantically bound
sequences are on the right
(Kecskes 3). The
grammatically bound
sequences on the left are often
described or explained with
“that‟s just how we say it”
without having a
particular reason why these
specific words are used in this
specific order. As the formulaic sequences progress to the right of the continuum, they begin to take on
situational or metaphorical meaning. This formulaic continuum can assist L2 learners by offering an
explanation by way of categorization for why the more grammatical formulaic sequences are the way they
are and by showing the difference between speech formulas, situation-bound utterances and idioms.
Summary of Becker’s Six Classes and Wray and Perkins’ Functions of Formulaic Sequences
The above three samples from Becker, Wray and Perkins and Kecskes are excellent examples of the many
ways formulaic sequences are categorized. Becker‟s six classes divide formulaic sequences into
individual classes without explaining connections between the classes or diversity within the classes.
Wray and Perkins get very specific in categorizing the functions, effects and types of formulaic
sequences. Their categories are very specific but lack the freedom of overlap and connection between
groups. And Kecskes explains the grammatical and semantic differences between formulaic sequences,
but lacks the specificity of the larger family of formulaic sequences. The combination of these three types

7
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
of systems would make the ideal system. The problem with this is that there are too many subtleties and
grades of formulaic sequences to produce an effective, all inclusive model. As an initial and broad survey
of attempts at the categorization of formulaic sequences, these three systems cover the general categorical
scope of formulaic sequences. Therefore in this paper, with the above terminology and previously
discussed descriptions in mind, the term formulaic sequence will be used to refer to two or more words
used as a phrase or as a ready-made grammatical construction that is understood with one holistic
meaning or purpose.
Frequency, Formulae, And Phraseology In Second Language Acquisition
Frequency and usefulness
Although frequency in the input is not the only predictor of the usefulness of a word, the literature shows
that frequency and usefulness are strongly related to each other. There are some criteria to determine the
usefulness of a word. These include frequency, range, availability, coverage, learnability, and
opportunism (White, 1988). According to Nation and Waring (1997, p. 17), frequency information
ensures that “learners get the best return for their vocabulary learning effort.” Thus, frequency seems to
be the most appropriate measure to decide on the usefulness of a word.
EVALUATING AND ADAPTING EXISTING MATERIALS
Evaluating The Quality Of Textbook And Website Of Explanations
Textbooks provide novice teachers with guidance in course and activity design; it assures a measure of
structure, consistency, and logical progression in a class. This paper reports on a study that investigated
one of the textbooks (Top Notch) which is used in some of the Iranian English language institutions. The
purpose of this research project was to determine the overall pedagogical value and suitability of the book
towards students‟ needs. For this purpose, 105 students and 32 teachers were selected and data were
gathered by two questionnaires which were prepared by Litz (2001). The teacher questionnaire consisted
of 40 items and the student version consisted of 25 items. An additional component of the study consisted
of a student “needs analysis” that was conducted at the same time as the textbook evaluation survey. After
analyzing data, it was shown that although the textbook had some shortcomings, it had met students‟
needs and it could be a good book in the hand of a good teacher.
Crawford cited in Richards & Renandya (2002) discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the use of
commercial textbooks in teaching. Among the principal advantages are the following:
 They provide structure and a syllabus for a program
 They help standardize instruction
 They maintain quality
 They provide a variety of learning resources
 They are efficient ‚ They can provide effective language model and input
 They can train teachers
 They are visually appealing
However, there are also potential negative effects of commercial textbooks, such as the following:
 They may contain inauthentic language
 They may distort content
 They may not meet students‟ needs
 They can deskill teachers
 They are expensive
Evaluating The Quality Of Textbook And Website Practice Activities
Cunningsworth (1995) and Ellis (1997) have suggested that there are three different types of material
evaluation. They argue that the most common form is probably the 'predictive' or 'pre-use' evaluation that
is designed to examine the future or potential performance of a textbook. The other types of textbook
evaluation are the 'in-use' evaluation designed to examine material that is currently being used and the
'retrospective' or 'post-use' (reflective) evaluation of a textbook that has been used in any respective
institution.

8
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
Despite the fact that textbooks are an important element in most of EFL classes, there has been little
investigation done in terms of how and why materials are selected by teachers. The reason for this may lie
in the fact that in the age of communicative teaching, experts who advise on the use of textbooks may
seem out of step with current language teaching methodology. Yet, regardless of how great an emphasis is
placed on the use of authentic materials, teachers frequently do not have the time and the administrative
support to collect and adapt all the necessary materials for their classes. Therefore, it is disappointing that
researchers have not provided more guidance to enable teachers and administrators to make wiser
decisions. (Soori, et al., 2011)
To Prabhu (1987) Textbooks are fully specified and pre-constructed materials that provide a certain
amount of uniformity in what occurs in many different classes with different teachers and students, which
serves the interests of accountability.
Yasemin (2009) discusses an evaluation of the three English textbooks which have been prescribed for
use in grade 4 classes by the Turkish Ministry of National Education in state primary schools. Teachers
and students responded to a 37-item textbook evaluation scheme (Smiley Questionnaire) to express their
perceptions concerning various aspects of the textbooks. Both groups of participants were also
interviewed to gain further insights into the use of the textbooks. Findings revealed the extent of
appropriateness of the three textbooks used by young learners of English. Suggestions are offered for the
future revision and/or designing the textbooks for young learners of English.
Sheldon (1988) has offered several reasons for textbook evaluation. He suggests that the selection of an
ELT textbook often signals an important administrative and educational decision in which there is
considerable professional, financial, or even political investment. A thorough evaluation, therefore, would
enable the managerial and teaching staff of a specific institution or organization to discriminate between
all of the available textbooks on the market (David, 2001).
According to Ansary and Babaii (2002) as teachers, many of us have had the responsibility of evaluating
textbooks. Often, we have not been confident about what to base our judgments on, how to qualify our
decisions, and how to report the results of our assessment. It seems to us that to date textbook selection
has been made in haste and with a lack of systematically applied criteria. They say that Teachers,
students, and administers are all consumers of textbooks. All these groups, of course, may have
conflicting views about what a good/standard textbook is. However, the question is where they can turn to
for reliable advice on how to make an informed decision and select a suitable textbook. The literature on
textbook selection and/or textbook evaluation procedure is vast. Various scholars have suggested different
ways to help teachers become more systematic and objective in their approach (Chastain, 1971; Tucker,
1975; Candlin & Breen, 1979; Daoud & Celce-Murcia, 1979; Williams, 1983; Hutchinson and Waters,
1987; Sheldon, 1988; Skierso, 1991; Ur, 1996; Littlejohn, 1996; to name but a few). They have often
offered checklists based on supposedly generalizable criteria. These sometimes detailed check-sheets use
a variety of methods to assess how well a particular textbook under scrutiny measures up.
It can be said that this textbook can be recommended in this particular teaching and learning situation and
it can be an effective textbook in the hand of good teachers if it is accompanied by some adaptations.
Through this textbook analysis, it is hoped that language professionals will gain some knowledge on how
to perform this procedure for themselves. Implications suggest that textbook developers, by using
appropriate checklists and questionnaire can include more universal characteristics in their EFL/ESL
textbooks which, at the same time, are tailored and adapted to the needs of the learners. Textbooks that
appear sound on the surface often lack many of the criteria of a truly superior book. Therefore, it is
necessary for individuals who are making these choices to carefully examine all aspects of the text and
compare it against an assessment tool. An evaluation checklist or questionnaire, whether adopted from
another author or created by the researcher, serves to focus this examination and ensures that significant
factors will not be missed. (Soori, et al., 2011).

9
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437

Self-Help: You can also refer to the sources below to help you further understand the
lesson:

Online references:
*Gries, Stefan. (2009). What is Corpus Linguistics?. Language and Linguistics Compass. 3. 1225-1241.
10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00149.x.
*Mohammadi, Mohammad & Abdi, Heidar. (2014). Textbook Evaluation: A Case Study. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences. 98. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.528.
*Retrieved from: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ncellis/NickEllis/Publications_ files/EllisFrequency
_RevisedFinal.pdf
*Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1149420.pdf
*Retrieved from: https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/65364/KristopherOberg.pdf?
sequence=1&isAllowed=y
*Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722756/
*Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328479781_Pedagogical_
Grammar_Learners'_Beliefs_Do_Matter
*Retrieved from: https://www.tacoma.uw.edu/sites/default/files/sections/Teachingand
LearningCenter/What%20is%20GRAMMAR.pdf
*Retrieved from: https://www.unm.edu/~jbybee/downloads/Bybee2008UBGandSLA.pdf

10