VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
**************** TRẦN THỊ THU TRANG
AN EVALUATION OF THE MATERIAL “ENGLISH
WRITTEN PROFICIENCY – INTERMEDIATE 1” FOR
FIRST YEAR STUDENTS OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
FACULTY, THAINGUYEN UNIVERSITY

(Đánh giá giáo trình “English Written Proficiency – Intermediate 1”
dùng cho sinh viên năm thứ nhất tại khoa Ngoại Ngữ,
Đại học Thái Nguyên )

M.A Minor Thesis Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60. 14. 10

Hanoi - 2011 VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
**************** TRẦN THỊ THU TRANG

AN EVALUATION OF THE MATERIAL “ENGLISH
WRITTEN PROFICIENCY – INTERMEDIATE 1” FOR
FIRST YEAR STUDENTS OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
FACULTY, THAINGUYEN UNIVERSITY

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Rationale 1
1.2. Aims of the thesis 2
1.3. Significance of the thesis 2
1.4. The research questions 3
1.5. Scope of the thesis 3
1.6. Methods of the thesis 3
1.7. Organization of the thesis 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 Textbook, Course book, and Materials 5
2.1.1 Definitions 5
2.1.2 The roles of teaching materials in a language program 6
2.2 Materials evaluation 7
2.2.1 Definitions of materials evaluation 7
2.2.2 Types of Materials Evaluation 8
2.2.3 Purposes of Materials Evaluation 9
2.2.4 Materials Evaluators 10
2.2.5 Models for Materials Evaluation 11
2.2.6 Criteria for Materials Evaluation 14
2.3 The Writing Skill 14
2.3.1 Components of the Writing Process 14
2.3.2 Approaches to Teaching and Learning Writing 19
CHAPTER 3: THE STUDY 23
3.1. The Current Teaching and Learning Situation at the Faculty of Foreign Languages, TNU.
23
3.2 Research methods 24
3.2.1 The questionnaire 24
3.2.2. The interview 25
v LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: The materials evaluation process (by Tom Hutchinson & Alan Waters (1987:98) 12
Figure 2: Producing a piece of writing by Raime A. (1983:6) 16
Figure 3: Martin’s model of genre 21
Figure 4: The data of organization content 28
Figure 5: The data of content criteria 31
Figure 6: The data of methodology criteria 35

Table 1: Example of holistic scale for writing ability (Harris, M. & McCann, P., 1994: 13) 18
Table 2: Example of analytic scale for writing ability (Hedge, 1988: 55) 19
Table 3: The data of organization criteria 28
Table 4: The data of content criteria 30
Table 5: The data of methodology criteria 35 1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale

English language teaching materials in general and textbooks in particular, together
with students, teachers, teaching methods and evaluation, are the five important
components in language instruction. Although some scholars argue that textbooks limit
teachers and students’ creativeness, few teachers entering a classroom without a textbook
which provides them with contents and learning activities to be conducted in the class.
According to Hutchinson and Torres (1994), a text book is “an important means of
satisfying the range of needs that emerge from the classroom and its wider context.”
Since English was introduced in Vietnam, it has played an undeniably vital role in

researcher can make some decisions on whether to continue using the material for other
generations of students or to make some changes to improve its effectiveness.
1.3. Significance of the thesis

Despite some scholar’s arguments on the usefulness of textbooks to be employed as
instructional material in language learning and teaching, their enormous popularity still
undeniably maintains. The language teachers will then have to assure that “the material
selected closely reflects [the needs of the learners and] the aims, methods, and values of the
teaching program” (Cunningsworth, 1995: 7). However, such a task will not be fulfilled if
there is no thorough evaluation on the material.
Under theoretical significance, this thesis will cater for the methods to evaluate a
teaching material effectively. The researcher will move from subjective assessments to
objective ones. Furthermore, this is the first time a teaching material used in FFL has been
evaluated, so the theoretical background of the thesis will be of some help for other
teaching materials evaluations in the future. Besides, “even though teachers will not
evaluate to adopt materials, they may well be interested in evaluation as a useful process in
its own right, giving insight into the organizational principles of the materials and helping
them to keep up with developments in the field” (Mc Donough and Shaw, 1993: 65).
Under practical significance, the findings of this study will be beneficial to both the
researcher, the teachers who are teaching writing skills for first year students and the
students themselves in FFL. All the strengths and weaknesses of the “English written
proficiency 1” are identified so that optimum use can be made of such strong points, whilst
the weaker areas can be strengthened through adaptation. 3
1.4. The research questions

This thesis is to find out the answers to the following questions:
1. Does the material “English written proficiency – intermediate 1” for first year students

1.7. Organization of the thesis

The thesis comprises five chapters:
Chapter one gives general introduction about reasons for choosing the topic of
study, aims, significance, research questions, scopes, methodology and organization of the
thesis.
Chapter two is devoted to the literature review on materials evaluation. Firstly, a
clear distinction among textbook, course book and materials are made. Then, it discusses
the role of teaching materials in language programs. In the next part, some major issues in
the evaluation of teaching materials, including definitions of materials evaluation,
approaches to materials evaluation, types of materials evaluation and the roles of
evaluation in materials development are presented. The chapter also mentions methods to
evaluate materials and some criteria to be applied in materials evaluation. In addition, as
the book is mainly used to develop students’ writing skills, aspects such as components of
the writing process and approaches to teaching and learning writing are also discussed.
Chapter three presents an overview of the current teaching and learning at FFL,
Thainguyen University and describes the methodology employed in this study, research
methods, data collection procedure, participants, setting as well as data analysis.
Chapter four expounds the collected data, analyzes them and discusses the findings
of the study.
Chapter five offers conclusions on the results obtained and highlights some
recommendations for developing the material.
the learners necessarily use during a course. Such a book includes work on grammar,
vocabulary, pronunciation, functions and the skills of reading, writing, listening and
speaking.
(Tomlison, 1998: ix) 6
There are different viewpoints about teaching materials. According to Dudley-
Evans and Maggie Jo St John (1998: 170), materials can be used as a source of language, a
learning support, for motivation and stimulation, and for reference.
In Tomlinson’s opinion (1982: 2), language teaching materials are anything which is used
by teachers or learners to facilitate the learning of a language. “It can be in the form of a
textbook, a workbook, a cassette, a CD-Rom, a video, a photocopied handout, a newspaper,
a paragraph written on a white board; anything that presents or informs about the language
being learned”. Among these, in the local setting, textbooks are the most widely used
materials in language teaching.
Encyclopedia explains teaching materials as follows: 1) a system of knowledge and
skill which is compiled and organized according to the task of a certain subject, and which
has a certain extension and depth; 2) all the materials that are used by teachers to supervise
the students’ study.
Hutchinson (1987:37) asserts that materials are not simply the everyday tools of the
language teacher; they are an embodiment of the aims, values and methods of a particular
teaching/learning situation. As such the selection of materials probably represents the
single most important decision that the language teacher has to make.
In this thesis, the terms “textbook”, “course book” and “materials” are used
interchangeably for the convenience of analysis and explanation.
2.1.2 The roles of teaching materials in a language program

Teaching materials have a significant role in a training program as well as in the
professional lives of teachers. According to Richards, there are several reasons why

2.2.1 Definitions of materials evaluation

Microsoft Encarta defines “evaluation” as “an assessment of value; the act of
considering or examining something in order to judge its value, quality, importance, extent,
or condition”. Linguistic researchers also have their ways of defining this term without
changing the purposes of judging program’s accountability, and bettering curriculum when
carrying out an evaluation.
According to Tomlinson (1998), evaluation is “the systematic appraisal of the value
of materials in relation to their objectives and to the objectives of the learners using them”.
This definition is well aligned with the learner-centered approach, in which learners’ needs
and goals are carefully put into consideration to see to what extent the learning points are
useful to them. Evaluation is also defined as assessment by some linguists; however, 8
Nunan, D (Anthology Series 27, 1991: 46), differentiates the two terms. In his opinion,
“evaluation” is a wider term than “assessment”. In “evaluation”, not only information on
what learners can do with the target language is gathered, additional processes designed to
help us in analyzing and acting on the result of our assessment are also involved.
Additionally, he shares the idea with Hutchinson & Waters, A. that “evaluation is not
simply a process of obtaining information; it is also a decision-making process”. Besides,
from their point of view, Rea-Dickens and Germaine (1992) states that “evaluation is the
means by which we can gain a better understanding of what is effective, what is less
effective, and what appears to be of no use at all”, (Rea-Dickens, P. & Germaine, K.
1992:4). Other researchers who hold similar opinions to the ones mentioned above are
Dudley – Evans & St. John. According to them, evaluation is a complete process “which
begins with determining what information to gather and ends with bringing about change
in current activities or influencing future ones”, (Dudley – Evans & St. John, 1998:128).
In general, we can conclude that evaluation is a process through which the
usefulness and effectiveness of a language course, a teaching curriculum and a collection

- Post-use evaluation: this kind of evaluation seems to be the most valuable as it can
measure the actual effects of the materials on the users. The actual outcomes and the data
gathered in order to make reliable decisions are measurable.
The kind of evaluation in this thesis is post-use evaluation in alignment with
qualitative approach. It aims at validating the merits of the in-house writing material being
used for freshmen at FLF and suggesting positive changes for future use.
2.2.3 Purposes of Materials Evaluation

Basing on what purposes evaluation serves, Rea-Dickins, P and Germaine, K (1992)
subdivide the process into different types with different characteristics.
Firstly, evaluation may be undertaken for accountability. “Accountability” simply
means evaluating something to see whether something is intrinsically a “good thing” or not.
The information interpreted from evaluation for purposes of accountability is not used for
improving the curriculum. Rather, it informs decisions as to whether something is to
continue or be discontinued. It is believed that any evaluation having such characteristics is
known as summative evaluation. Another purpose of evaluation is to develop curriculum.
In this process, information from teachers and other relevant English language teaching
professionals will be collected over a period of time. The teachers are the ones who know
most clearly about their classroom contexts, they, therefore, have great contributions to 10
make in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of all aspects of learning and teaching.
Such strengths and weaknesses are useful information and can be used as the basis for
future planning and action. For this reason, evaluation for purposes of curriculum
development is called formative evaluation. The last general purpose of evaluation is for
teacher self-development. Rea-Dickins and Germaine (1992) state that “evaluation of this
kind is definitely not concerned with measurement”. Through awareness-raising activities,
teachers are involved in describing and better understanding their own contexts with a
view to improving the teaching and learning process.” This type of evaluation is referred to

understand the learning and teaching situations better than them as they are a crucial part of
the program. As Alderson (1992) addresses, “What is indisputable is that insiders have an
experience and a knowledge of a program that can be invaluable to an evaluation”.
Richards (2002) also shares the same point of view “as a sequence, they (insiders) will
have a greater degree of commitment to acting on its results” (p.296). He further suggests
insiders, especially teachers, can “monitor” when the materials are being used. They,
therefore, can determine if and to what extent the materials “work” for their purposes and
thus they can make modifications to improve the effectiveness of the materials. However,
insiders may suffer from disadvantage when they can be “too closed and involved, or lack
expertise” (Dudley-Evans and St. John, 1998: 131). This, in turn, can cause subjectivity in
their judgments.
Alderson and Scott (1992) believe that “both insiders and outsiders should be
involved collaboratively in conducting evaluations at all stages in the process”.
2.2.5 Models for Materials Evaluation

Tom Hutchinson and Waters (1987) recommend four main steps in an evaluation
process:
- Defining criteria
- Subjective analysis
- Objective analysis
- Matching
The following diagram reveals details on the above mentioned steps: 12

Figure 1: The materials evaluation process (by Tom Hutchinson & Alan Waters (1987:98)
The model of these two authors is a macro evaluation which aims at assessing the
workability of an entire set of materials. As can be seen from the figure, this model
presents a logical procedure in the materials evaluation process. In order to test how

and outcomes.
3. planning the evaluation
4. collecting the information: the information required to evaluate a task can be
collected before, during or after the teaching of the task.
5. analyzing the information: the data can be analyzed either in quantitative or in
qualitative way.
6. reaching conclusions and making recommendations
7. writing the report
This model of evaluation is more manageable than a macro-evaluation.
Nevertheless, in order to conduct a macro-evaluation, a series of micro-evaluations need to
be carried out, which consumes a lot of time and efforts.
Another model of evaluation, which is a combination of macro-and micro-
evaluation, is also suggested by McDonough and Shaw (1993). In their points of view,
there are three stages in the evaluation models: external evaluation, internal evaluation, and
overall evaluation. The external stage (macro-evaluation) is the examination of the claims
made for the whole materials by the author. The internal stage (micro-evaluation) requires
an in-depth look at two or more units to find out the claims made by the author. This
second stage only happens if, in the first stage, the materials are proven potentially
appropriate. If not, there will be no second or third stage. In the last stage, an overall
assessment as to the suitability of the materials by considering whether they are usable
(how far the materials could be integrated into a particular syllabus as “core” or
supplementary), adaptable (can parts be added, extracted, used in another context for local
circumstances?), flexible (can the materials be entered at different points or used in
different ways?), McDonough & Shaw (1993).
In brief, all of the above models serve to evaluate the appropriateness of a set of
materials to a certain situation or group of learners despite the various processes and
purposes in each model. Evaluators must then base on the purposes of the evaluation, time
available, facilities as well as the constraints of the context where the evaluation occurs to
15
Writing in general and writing in a foreign language in particular is always one of
the most challenging tasks a student has to cope with. Even native speakers at university
level often experience serious difficulties in showing a good command of writing. This
leads to the inclusion of teaching writing skills in a foreign language syllabus as these
skills are considered essential for students’ academic success. There are two sides of the
learning and teaching written English: writing as a channel and writing as a goal of foreign
language learning.
In the first side, writing is widely used within foreign language courses as a
convenient means for engaging with aspects of language other than the writing itself. For
example: writing exercises are given to consolidate what students have learnt and orally
practice in terms of vocabulary, grammatical structures. Apart from being used as a means
of getting the students to attend to and practice a particular language point, writing can be a
convenient method of testing the language point. The latter side indicates that students
learn a language in order to communicate, both in spoken and written form. For this reason,
writing tasks should have whole pieces of information as their outcome, rather than
isolated sentences in order to help them develop the skills of communicating in writing. In
other words, students should have practice writing at both micro-level and macro-level.
They may have to write reports, letters; give written instructions; fill out forms in their
future jobs, so the writing skill is very necessary for them.
The question one should ask here is “What do writers need to actually produce a
piece of writing (clear, fluent and effective communication of ideas?”. Raimes, A. (1983)
suggests a set of considerations in order to have an effective piece of writing shown in
Figure 2.
Why do learners need a purpose to write? Traditionally, narrative, descriptive,
argumentative, and expository are the main types of writing. Recently, some authors
discuss other forms of written discourse, such as expressive, persuasive, literary, and

support, cohesion and unity

WORD CHOICE
vocabulary, idiom, tone
PURPOSE
the reasons for writing
AUDIENCE
the reader/s
MECHANICS
handwriting, spelling,
punctuation
GRAMMAR
rules for verbs, agreement,
articles, pronouns, etc.
SYNTAX
sentence structure, sentence
boundaries, stylistic choice, etc CONTENT
relevance, clarity,
originality, logic, etc
THE WRITER’S PROCESS
getting ideas, getting started,
writing drafts, revising

clear, fluent, and effective
communication of ideas.
audience’s interpretation, using pre-writing device, writing with fluency in the
first drafts, using paraphrases and synonyms, soliciting peer and instructor
feedback, and using feedback for revising and editing.
So far, we have looked at components and skills included in producing a piece of
writing. What the author wants to focus in the next section is how the piece of writing
should be evaluated. Harris and McCann (1994) develop a set of criteria which are
arranged in holistic scales: 18

Table 1: Example of holistic scale for writing ability (Harris, M. & McCann, P., 1994: 13)
The criteria should also be of analytic scale as the one suggested by Hedge (1988): Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
A) General development
1. Content
2. Organization
3. A sense of audience B) Specific components

of organization. Poor spelling. Message irrelevant. 19

1. Organization of content (clarity, coherence, paragraphs) 20%
2. Range (grammatical structures, vocabulary)
15%
3. Complexity of sentence structures

15%

4. Accuracy of grammar, sentence structure, spelling and punctuation

30%

5. Fluency (feel for the language, appropriateness, use of idioms, etc.)

20%

100%
Table 2: Example of analytic scale for writing ability (Hedge, 1988: 55)
2.3.2 Approaches to Teaching and Learning Writing

It is said that there is no one answer to the question of how to teach writing in
foreign language classes. There are many answers as there are teachers and teaching styles
as well as learners and learning styles. In the history of writing instruction, researchers and

grammar and text structure.
Tribble (1996) proposes a cyclical process in which writers may, for example,
return to pre-writing activities after doing some editing or revising : prewriting, composing,
revising (reorganizing/shifting emphasis/focusing information and style for your readership)
and editing (checking grammar/ lexis/ surface features such as punctuation, spelling, layout,
quotation, references).
Another model of the stages in writing is suggested by Tomlinson (1991) as
follows:

The disadvantages of the process approach are that they often regard all writing as
being produced by the same set of processes; that they give insufficient importance to the
kind of texts writers produce and why such text are produced; and that they offer learners
insufficient input, particularly in terms of linguistic knowledge, to write successfully. The
main advantages are that the importance of skills involved in writing is understood and the
approach values what learners bring to the writing classroom as contributions to the
development of writing ability.
Writing task

Draft 1

Feedback

Revision


Input

Draft 2

Feedback