EVALUATING COURSEBOOK

INTERMEDIATE LEVEL

GROUP MEMBERS: IVY CLARE DANIUS LAU NGIE CHEON

LEANZA WONG MUHD. ISMADY

TIONG WONG ING

CHECKLIST

Does the coursebook claim to be communicative in its aim? Are specific communicative aims or objectives indicated, either

generally or in connection with individual units? Is the syllabus of the coursebook primarily communicative? Is there reference to communicative methodology? Is there evidence that the design of the coursebook is

influenced by communicative considerations? If communicative activities are used as learning materials, are

they real, in terms of the real world, or realistic, ie. Communicative in the classroom situation only?

Do realistic activities promote the learning of communicative skills and strategies which are transferable to real-life communications?

Design and content

What elements of genuine communications are present:a) Unpredictabilityb) Opportunities to express real information, feelings, opinions,

etc c) Opportunities for learners to structure their own discoursed) Need to formulate and use communication strategiese) Emphasis on co-operation between speakers in

communicative interaction At the appropriate level, does the coursebook include material

that reflects the nature of communicative interactions, in respect of:

a) Structure of discourse in interactionsb) Complexity of structurec) Range of appropriate lexisd) Features such as fillers and incomplete sentencese) Roles of speakers in interactions

Interactive Communications

Does the material help learners in the skill of turn-taking in conversations?

Are adjacency pairs included in presentations and practice material? If so, are these examples of framing (insertion sequences)?

Are these examples of preferred sequences? (eliciting an offer rather than making a direct request)

Is any other help given with the organisation and structuring of conversations or other spoken interactions.

Is there material for sensitizing learners to different

levels of formality? If so, are the examples presented sufficiently

contextualized? Is the level of formality related to the setting, social

roles of the participants and their communicative goals? Is practice given in using different levels of formality in

different situations? Are learners led towards an understanding of why some

forms in English are more formal than others? Are any other aspects of style other than

formality/informality included?

Style and Appropriacy

My group evaluated chapters 4 and 6. Each chapters have 4 sections namely A, B, C and D. Each section has 3 to 4 parts/exercises namely part a, b, c and d.

From these 2 chapters, it can be said that, it can be said that the coursebook do not have an obvious “outline” indicating communicative as one of its aim. However, there is a small part of activity requiring students to communicate among themselves by having discussion in a small group or doing pair works. Each chapter was divided into 4 sections namely A, B, C and D. Each section will have 3 to 4 parts of exercise namely part a, b, c and d.

Evaluating Chapters

From our evaluation: The coursebook do not have an obvious “outline”

indicating communicative in its aim? There are certain communicative aims or objectives

indicated, but mostly are general, (communication between peers- talking about hobbies, music, films)

The syllabus of the coursebook is not primarily communicative as different aspects are being taken into considerations too. For instance, there is at least one exercise in each section for the grammar and vocabulary criteria. The communicative part only happens when students are doing pair work/discussion.

Design and content

There is no reference to communicative methodology. The re is also no evidence that the design of the

coursebook is influenced by communicative considerations.

In these chapters we had evaluated, the communicative activities used as learning materials are real, in terms of the real world, or realistic. For instance, it is realistic for students to discuss what films they like or which restaurant they would like to visit.

Realistic activities do promote the learning of communicative skills and strategies which are transferable to real-life communications. Activities that are similar to real-life enable students to communicate more easily/comfortably as they will know “what” to say or how to react in certain situations.

Out of all the 4 parts in a section, there might be

only one exercise that requires the students to tell/express their opinion and view on the current topic they are learning to their respective partner.

As for whether the activities are linked to real-life communications, it is undeniable that there are activities that do. For instance in chapter 4, students are to tell their partner the type of music they like or the movie they like. This is a form of communicative activity. By sharing this information, it is similar to a real-life situation; a casual conversation between two friends.

What elements of genuine communications are present:a) Unpredictability- This element did present most of the times. This

is because it happens when students are doing their discussion and pair work. Often, the exercises required them to share their thoughts with one another.

b) Opportunities to express real information, feelings, opinions- This element did present too especially when the students are to do their work in pairs/group.

c) Opportunities for learners to structure their own discourse- Learners can structure their own discourse when conversing with their peers.

d) Need to formulate and use communication strategies- They have to know what strategy to use when conversing, in order to ensure that their friends are paying attention to them.

e) Emphasis on co-operation between speakers in communicative interaction- Some activities require students to take note on what their friends had just said thus, indirectly “forcing” them to give co-operation in communicating with each other.

INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

At the appropriate level, does the coursebook include

material that reflects the nature of communicative interactions, in respect of:

a) Structure of discourse in interactions- Yes, but only when students are doing their discussion.

b) Complexity of structure- Yes, in terms of grammar. They learn how to construct sentences.

c) Range of appropriate lexis- Yes, in terms of grammar and vocabulary the students will learn (adjectives, -ed,-ing).

d) Features such as fillers and incomplete sentences- Not really as fillers can only occur when students are communicating with each other but are not seen in activities.

e) Roles of speakers in interactions- There are no activities that require the speakers to take on certain roles.

There are material that do help learners in the skill of

turn-taking in conversations. They will “somehow” learn this skill when they are doing their discussions in groups. However, there are no specific activity to enhance this skill.

There are adjacency pairs included in presentations and practice material. For instance, when students are doing pair work. They will ask each other a few questions (Q and A). There are no examples or activities that can be relate to preferred sequences. (eliciting an offer rather than making a direct request)

There are other help given with the organisation and structuring of conversations or other spoken interactions. For instance, in certain activities, students are given a guide on what and how to answer or what to ask their friends.

In general; There are no material for sensitizing learners to

different levels of formality. If so, are the examples presented sufficiently

contextualized? Is the level of formality related to the setting, social

roles of the participants and their communicative goals?

Practice is not given using different levels of formality in different situations.

Learners are not led towards an understanding of why some forms in English are more formal than others.

There are no any other aspects of style other than formality/informality included.

STYLE AND APPROPRIACY

In overall, these two chapters do not have

activities that can help students to differentiate/identify different levels of formalities

They are not exposed to the different types of formality used in different situations as they mainly communicate only among their peers given that there are activities that required them to work in pairs/groups.

The problems we faced:a) The checklist is too limited as we can only

focus on the (CLT) criteria. b) It is hard to determine whether the activity is

communicative or not. The term ‘communicative’ is defined only by our understanding.

PROBLEMS

c) Sometimes, we had our doubts whether that

particular activity should be consider realistic or not. For example, the conversations that students have on choosing which restaurant to go could be considered realistic but also not-realistic at the same time. This is because in real-life, they will not use proper grammar/sentences and there will be fillers or pauses but the situation do reflects a real-life situation, just different in terms of language context.

e) The exercise requires learners to think in the

shoes of the characters but if the context is not relatable to the learners, it does not help the learners at all. Therefore, the exercise is not usable in the terms of style and appropriacy although it shows communicative value.

f) Opportunities to converse do not mean that it is going to be an authentic conversation between the learners

Basically, there is no ‘major’ problem with the

checklist as it is quite specific and straight to the point.

Therefore, we would like to suggest adding ‘another’ checklist for other aspects as the Cunningworth’s checklist only focuses on the CLT. In other words, this checklist should be used together with other checklists when evaluating a coursebook.

SOLUTIONS