Evaluating AQA GCSE Chinese Textbook PDF

Preview

Summary

Evaluate teaching materials _ AQA GCSE Chinese textbook...

Description

Evaluating AQA GCSE Chinese Textbook

1. Introduction The past few years witness the increasing interest in teaching materials for second language teaching since there is a growing consensus among language teachers, researchers and applied linguists that teaching materials exert a profound and extensive influence on language teaching and play a crucial role in assisting language learning. Few researches have reached in terms of evaluating Chinese teaching materials for speakers of other languages,

2. Literature review 2.1 Materials for language learning 2.1.1 Materials for language learning and their roles

In a broad view, materials for language learning (herein after referred to as materials) is defined as anything that can be used by language learners or teachers to facilitate the learning of the target language (Tomlinson, 2012a). According to this definition, there are various kinds of materials ranging from traditional paper-based materials, electronic materials to realia such as newspapers and photographs. Mishan and Timmis (2015) indicate that being used for a pedagogic purpose is an essential characteristic of materials for language learning, which can differentiate it from resources for language learning. This characteristic is interpreted as meeting a pedagogical need by Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018). Thus, a magazine article is only a resource and it is converted into a material for language learning when a pedagogic purpose is added to it or it is used to meet a pedagogical need, such as stimulating a discussion or answering some questions. To sum up, materials for language learning can be defined as any resource that can be deployed to facilitate the target language learning with a pedagogic purpose.

Five key pedagogic purposes of materials are encapsulated by Mishan and Timmis (2015): meeting psychological needs such as motivation, interest, challenge and sense of order; providing exposure to the language in various spoken and written genres and

styles; imparting language and cultural information; stimulating activities to develop language skills and independent learning skills; acting as teacher education. The first four pedagogic purposes are almost the same as the main roles of materials summarised by Rossner (1987). In order to fulfil pedagogic purposes, materials need to play the intended roles. Seen in this light, pedagogic purposes of materials cover very similar contents of the roles of materials. These first four pedagogic purposes focus the roles of materials on learning and teaching; the last pedagogic purpose describe the roles in terms of teacher development. This shows that roles of materials can be viewed from the perspectives of learner and teacher.

2.1.2 Coursebook and roles of coursebook

Coursebook is also termed as textbook (McGrath, 2016). As the name suggests, coursebook is a book developed and used for a course. Coursebook aims to cover the contents of a course systematically and progressively, so “working through the book (usually, but not always, from beginning to end) constitutes ‘doing a course’" (Rossner, 1987, p.143). The definition indicates one role of coursebook: providing structure for teaching and learning. Coursebook can be used to chart the progress of teaching and learning, prepare lessons and guide revision (Mishan and Timmis, 2015; Tomlinson, 2018; Dodgson, 2019; O’Neill, 1982; Hutchinson and Torres, 1994; Menkabu and Harwood, 2014). Consequently, it provides a sense of psychological security to both teachers and learners (Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2018).

Another role of coursebook at an institutional level is derived from the provision of structure. Coursebook provides educational administrators with an instrument of ensuring standardization and continuity of the teaching in their intuitions (Tomlinson, 2018). The provided structure enables administrators to schedule lessons and imposing uniformity of syllabus and approach (Mishan and Timmis, 2015; McGrath, 2016; Tomlinson, 2012a; Tomlinson, and Masuhara, 2018). Due to this role, coursebook is also used to facilitate curricular change (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994). This adds another perspective of the role of coursebook: educational administrators apart from teachers and learners.

As one type of materials for language learning, coursebook also has all five roles of materials mentioned in 2.1.1. Different from other materials, coursebook plays a central role in second language classrooms all over the world (Sheldon, 1988; Hutchinson and Torres, 1994; Riazi, 2003; McGrath, 2006; Menkabu and Harwood, 2014; Mishan and Timmis, 2015; Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2018).Coursebook is considered as essential source of knowledge for learning (Shawer, Gilmore and Banks-Joseph 2008); it is served as the basis for language input and language practice in classrooms (Cook, 1998; Richards, 2001); it is used as a guide to give clarity, direction and progress (Hadley, 2014); it is perceived as a means to control what to teach and how to teach (Sheldon, 1998).

Although the significance of coursebook is widely acknowledged, the debate about the desirability of coursebook and its effects on learners and teachers has never stopped. Those who are in favour of coursebook believe the abovementioned roles work as benefits. Those who are suspicious of coursebooks argue that coursebook is inflexible, lack of local relevance and impose constraint on teaching and learning (Menkabu and Harwood, 2014; Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2018). They also indicate coursebook, as a control tool, remove initiatives, power and creativity from teachers by predetermined contents and pre-planned procedures and make teachers de-skilled (Shannon, 1987; Apple and Jungck, 1990; Tomlinson, 2018). Whether coursebook is viewed negatively as an institutional control tool and constraint or positively as guidance or basis for teaching and learning, it is just like two sides of the same coin. Apart from coursebook itself, the value of coursebook also depends on how teachers use it (Riazi, 2003). How to use coursebook is not in the coverage of this article, but in order to understand the varying views, an analysis of advantages and disadvantages of coursebook is dispensable.

2.1.3 Advantages and disadvantages of coursebooks

As a commercial and professional organization, publisher has the financial capability and professional resources to devote considerable expertise in developing and producing coursebooks. Hence coursebooks are developed and designed by experts with great quality in content, organization and design (Rubdy, 2003; Dodgson, 2019). In terms of administrators, coursebooks achieve credibility, authority and face validity for their courses (Sheldon,

1988; Tomlinson, 2012a). In terms of teachers, coursebooks not only save time and labour by offering them all they need in one convenient source (O’Neill, 1982; Sheldon, 1988; Tomlinson, 2012a; Hutchinson and Torres, 1994; Rubdy, 2003; Bell and Gower, 2011; Menkabu and Harwood, 2014; Mishan and Timmis,2015; Tomlinson, and Masuhara, 2018; Dodgson, 2019) but also can be used as guides for inexperienced teachers (Mishan and Timmis, 2015) and even as teacher training tools ( Richards, 2001). In terms of students, coursebooks are a cost-effective way of providing learners with security, system and progress (Tomlinson, 2012a). All these advantages are attributed to the professionalism of coursework.

Professionalism is the major selling point of coursebooks, but buyers of coursebooks are usually administrators, and many teachers may have no chance to select coursebook and instead are obliged to use the one provided by their institutions (Cook, 1998; Menkabu and Harwood, 2014). For the sake of sales, publishers develop coursebooks to cater primarily for the needs of buyers, namely administrators, while the needs and wants of users, namely learners and teachers, are often ignored (Harwood, 2014; Tomlinson, 2012a).The ignorance of learner’s need is manifested in the fact that almost no feedback is collected from learners in publisher’s evaluation which aims at increasing the sales of revised or future coursebooks (Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2018). Since the needs of administrators, teachers and learners are not always the same, this ignorance becomes the disadvantage of coursebooks.

Usually most language courses are related to examinations and examination success is what administrators pursue (Tomlinson, 2013d). Consequently, publishers try to satisfy this need of administrators when developing coursebooks and examinations exerts an impact on coursebooks. Some coursebooks are examination-oriented by being dedicated to a specific examination and focusing on knowledge and skills to be examined, and some become examination-related by making their content, form and level appropriate for examination preparation but not directly linking to the examination (Saville and Hawkey, 2004). This is termed as washback effect on coursebook (Sheldon, 1988). Excessive focus on examination will reduce coursebook’s facilitation of language learning and teaching. Specifically, it will narrow the teaching

contents, limit the freedom in teaching and exclude subjects and skills which do not directly contribute to examination success (Cheng, 2005; Tsagari, 2011).

Publisher’s desire for profit inevitably bring another disadvantage of coursebooks, which is termed as “one size fits all” by Pulverness and Tomlinson (2013). As a commercial product, coursebook is designed to be used by all learners at a specified level in all situations (Sheldon, 1988). This enables publisher to maximize the return on the investment in coursebook development (Tomlinson, 2018). In fact, it is impossible for a coursebook to cater for all needs and wants of their users, as research shows there are so many variables involved in language learning and teaching (Allwright, 1981; Bell and Gower,2011; Tomlinson, 2012a; Tomlinson, 2013c; Tomlinson, and Masuhara, 2018). Tomlinson, and Masuhara (2018) concur coursebook is usually developed for idealized groups of users and cannot satisfy the real needs and wants of actual users across diverse institutions. This is reinforced by the criticisms of coursebook being insufficiently humanistic (Mishan 2012; Tomlinson, 2012a). Tomlinson (2013b) explains humanistic books should respect their users as human beings and help them to exploit their learning capacity through personalised, localised and meaningful experience and these books are also affectively engaging and cater for all learning styles. His research shows that in order to cater for all learners, coursebook have bland texts and stereotypical activities which can hardly elicit any affective response. Maley (2011) adds since coursebooks are predetermined they are unlikely to be adapted to various learning styles. Since coursebook is a commercial product, the advantages and disadvantages discussed above becomes its inherent features. The ultimate objective of publisher is selling coursebooks to gain profit instead of facilitating learning and teaching (Jones, 1990). Therefore, coursebooks are the compromise between pursuit of profit and desirability of education (Sheldon, 1988; Gray, 2010). This compromise shows the reconciliation of conflicting interests of publishers and educators. In other words, coursebook is a professionally developed academic product mediated by commercialism. This explains the varying views of coursebooks mentioned in 2.1.2. Due to inevitable disadvantages and varying views of coursebook and its central role in language learning and teaching, it is significant to evaluate a coursebook to understand its value in facilitating language acquisition in a specific context.

Hence, how to evaluate materials will be elaborated in the next section.

2.2 Materials evaluation 2.2.1 Evaluation and its importance Materials evaluation is defined as “a procedure that involves attempting to predict or measure the value of the effects of language-learning materials on their users.” (Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2018, p.52). The evaluation mentioned here refers to principled evaluation as it is driven by a set of principles based on theories of learning, teaching and SLA (Tomlinson, 2013c). Principled evaluation is a systematic informed process which differentiates it from “flick test” which is an informal and intuitive process by just browsing through materials quickly (Mishan and Timmis, 2015).

In order to have a better understanding of material evaluation, the differences between evaluation and analysis will be discussed. Firstly, what to be evaluated is materials’ effect on their users, such as whether the material content interests learners; what to be analysed is materials themselves, such as what is the material content (Tomlinson, 2013a). Users in different contexts have different background, needs, objectives, so effect of the same material differs from context to context (Tomlinson, 2013c). As evaluation focuses on material users, materials need to be evaluated against the context where they are used or will be used. In contrast, analysis focuses on material itself (McGrath, 2016) and materials remain unchanged no matter what context they are in. In sum, since material evaluation and analysis work on different objects, context is crucial to evaluation but irrelevant to analysis.

Secondly, evaluation is subjective judgement, while analysis is objective factual description. Tomlinson and Masuhara (2018, p.54) explain the inevitable subjectivity of evaluation as “No two evaluation can be the same.” Many variables are involved in evaluation, and context is one of them. Rubby (2003) asserts evaluation is a judgement about suitability of material for a particular purpose. If the evaluation purpose is different, the evaluation of the same material within the same context will change accordingly. Judgement in evaluation reveals methodological

references and beliefs of the evaluator (Mishan and Timmis, 2015). Sheldon claims evaluation is a rule-of-thumb activity without a definitive yardstick. Hence, different evaluators will have different evaluation results of the same evaluation. Additionally, different principles can be applied for the evaluation of the same material. Contrarily, analysis provides an objective description of material based on facts (Littlejohn, p.181), which means different people will give the same answer to an analysis question.

In sum, evaluation takes into account three key elements: evaluation purpose, context where the material is used and the principles which evaluation based on. In terms of practice, a purpose needs to be established first, and then principles for evaluation are chosen with consideration of context.

Material evaluation is important for teachers, administrators, publishers and researchers in practice, academy and business. It can help teachers learn about materials, teaching, learning and themselves and then becomes a part of teacher training and development (Brumfit and Rossner,1982; Canniveng and Martinez, 2003). The principled evaluation is indispensable for material selection which is a significant professional, financial and political investment (Sheldon, 1988). This is particular the case for the selection of coursebook due to its central position in educational institutions (Mishan and Timmis, 2015). Evaluation is also an efficient tool for publishers identifying buyer expectations or piloting materials during development to design well-sold materials (Amrani, 2011). Besides its importance as a practical undertaking, material evaluation is considered as a theoretical study which informs and is informed by practice (Tomlinson, 2018). This is corroborated by Riazi (2003) as he states evaluation contributes field knowledge to SLA study by unfolding the underlying structure and methodology used in materials together with their efficiency and effectiveness. Furthermore, material evaluation is an integral part of material development which also include material adaptation, design, production, exploitation and research (Tomlinson, 2012a). In detail, evaluation is not only considered as the benchmark for other processes of material development (Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2018), but also can provide a principled rationale for adaptation (Mishan and Timmis, 2015).

2.2.2 Types of evaluation Material evaluation is different with regards to purpose, personnel, scale, methods and timing. In terms of when evaluation takes place, evaluation is categorized into pre-use, in-use and post-use evaluation (Cunningsworth, 1995). These three types of evaluation have distinctive functions and limitations.

Pre-use evaluation is used to predict potential value of materials for their users with the main purpose of making the decision of material selection (McGrath, 2016). It is considered not as reliable or informative as in-use and post-use evaluation (Tomlinson and Masuhra, 2018). Pre-use evaluation primarily depends on the informed judgement of evaluator while in-use and post-use evaluation can be measured by classroom observation and test results respectively. However, these measurements also make these two types of evaluation more difficult to carry out (Mishan and Timms, 2015).

In-use evaluation can assess effectiveness of material in facilitating short-term learning and teaching but not long-term impact on users owing to delayed effect of instructions (Tomlinson, 2013c). However, this effectiveness is mixed with the effects of materials on users and personal contributions of users in the classroom, and it is difficult to distinguish them (Rubdy, 2003). Tomlinson (2013c) adds another limitation as in-use evaluation can only measure observable behaviour but not thinking and feeling behind behaviour. Therefore, in-use evaluation is useful but maybe misleading (ibid.)

Post-use evaluation is usually made with objectives of retaining, updating or replacing materials (Riazi, 2003). It can measure not only short-term and long-term effects of materials on users but also actual outcomes of material use (Tomlinson, 2013c). Regarding limitations, apart from the implementation difficulty due to high demand in time and expertise, it is hard to isolate the effects of materials from intervening variables such as teacher effectiveness, support and language exposure outside classroom, individual motivation (ibid.).

2.2.3 Evaluation tools As material evaluation is principled evaluation, the principles working as a fundamental basis of evaluation are converted into evaluation criteria in practice. Criterion-referenced evaluation was first introduced by Tomlinson, Dat, Masuhara and Rubdy (2001). Universal and local criteria and criteria framework are two core elements for this evaluation tool.

Tomlinson (2013c) defines universal criteria as general features that can be used to evaluate any material in any context and local criteria as the features that are particular to the context where the material is used. They are also termed as general criteria and specific criteria (McGrath, 2016). Specific criteria are unique to the specific evaluation as they are generated according to the target context (Tomlinson, 2013c). As material evaluation is contextrelated, specific criteria are vital to evaluation and ultimately responsible for most of the decisions of adopting, revising or adapting materials (ibid.). Although general criteria are derived from theories, they still need to be revised for every evaluation. Firstly, theories of learning, teaching and SLA, the base of general criteria, are so far inconclusive and the related research has stimulated many debates (Tomlinson, 2013c). General criteria are generated based on evaluator’s individual beliefs of language acquisition (ibid). Secondly, priorities of the importance of different general criteria vary with evaluation purposes. A material evaluation to assess the efficiency of communicative competence development will prioritize general criteria differently from the one to evaluate the efficiency of language skills developmen...