1

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
TRẦN THỊ CHUNG OANH AN EVALUATION OF THE MATERIAL “LIFELINES”FOR THE FIRST NON-
ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTSAT HAI PHONG UNIVERSITY
ĐÁNH GIÁ GIÁO TRÌNH “LIFELINES” DÀNH CHO SINH VIÊN KHÔNG
CHUYÊN NĂM THỨ NHẤT TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC HẢI PHÒNG

MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS FIELD: METHODOLOGY
CODE: 601410 FIELD: METHODOLOGY
CODE: 601410
SUPERVISOR: DR. HOANG THI XUAN HOA
HANOI – 2010 6
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
T: Teachers
S: Students
HPU: Hai Phong University
Table 2: The teachers and students‟ opinion about proportion of 4 macro skills
Table 3: The teachers and students‟ opinion about allocation time for each unit
Table 4: The teachers and students‟ opinion about content sequenced of this
material
Table 5: The teachers and students‟ opinion about language points in this
material
Table 6: The teachers and students‟ opinion about kinds of exercises need to be
included in this material
Table 7: The teachers and students‟ opinion about using techniques in this
material
Table 8: The teachers and students‟ opinion about using aids in this material

23
24
24

25

25

26

26

27
5. Methodology
6. Scope of the study
7. Organization of the study
PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1 : LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Material
1.1.1 Definition of material
1.1.2.Types of material
1.1.3. Roles of teaching materials in a general English course
1.2. Material evaluation
1.2.1. Definitions of material evaluation
1.2.2. Types of material evaluation
1.2.3. Purposes of material evaluation
1.2.4. Materials evaluators
1.2.5. Models for material evaluation
1.2.6. Methods of evaluation
1.2.7. Criteria for material evaluation
1.3. Material adaptation

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
1
1
2
2
2

2.1.1. The context of the study
2.1.2. The material description
2.2. Research methodology
2.2.1. Participants.
2.2.2. Instruments
2.2.2.1 Questionnaires
2.2.2.2. Informal Interviews
2.2.3. Data collection procedure
2.2.4. Data analysis procedure
CHAPTER 3 : RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Material analysis
3.1.1. The contents of the material
3.1.2. The methodology of the material
3.2. Survey results
3.1.1. The suitability of the content of the textbook with the students‟
requirements from the teachers and students‟ opinions.
3.1.2. The suitability of the methodology of the textbook with the
students‟ requirements from the teachers and students‟ opinions.
3.3. Major findings
3.2.1. The suitability of the content of the textbook with the students‟
requirements from the teachers and students‟ opinions.
3.2.2. The suitability of the methodology of the textbook with the
students‟ requirements from the teachers and students‟ opinions.
3.4.Recommendations for material improvements
3.5.Summary
PART III : CONCLUSION
16
17
17
19

10
1. Summary of previous parts
2. Conclusion
3. Limitations and suggestions for further research
References
APPENDICES:
Appendix 1: Questionnaire for teachers
Appendix 2: Questionnaire for students
Appendix 3: Hutchinson and Water‟s criteria checklist
36
36
37
38
From O‟Neill‟s points, in many cases, teachers and students rely heavily on textbooks and
they determine the components and methods of learning. Students learn what is presented
in the textbook and the way the textbook presents material is the way students learn it.
Thus, according to Minh (2007) “textbook should be carefully evaluated and
selected before being used for a language program. Textbook evaluation helps the
managerial and teaching staff select the most appropriate materials available for a
particular course. It also helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a particular
textbook that is already in use”.
Cunningsworth (1995:45) and Ellis (1997) also suggest that textbook evaluation
helps teachers move beyond impressionistic assessments and it helps them to acquire
useful, accurate, systematic and contextual insights into overall nature of textbook
material.
At Hai Phong University, “Lifelines” has been used as major material for several
years but no evaluation or consultation has been conducted to determine its strengths and
weaknesses and to see how well it suited the desired and attainable goals of the course.
From above reasons, it necessary to conduct an evaluation for the “Lifelines”
textbook, it is also a good opportunity to discover the suitability of the material with the
students‟ level from the students‟ and the teachers‟ perceptions and so that adaptation can
be made to gain better results of teaching and learning. 12

2. Aims of the study:
This study aims to evaluate the “Lifelines” textbook in terms of its content and
methodology from the teachers‟ and the students‟ opinions to determine whether the
material is suitable with the students‟ requirements.

7. Organization of the thesis
The thesis consists of three parts:
Part I: introduce the rationale, aims, significance, scope and methodology of the study.
Part II: includes three chapters:
Chapter1: Literature review: provides a theoretical basis for issues relating to
Material and Material evaluation such as definition of material, types of material, and
criteria for material evaluation and so on.
Chapter 2: Methodology: Includes an overview of the approach used on conducting
the study. It also provides a thorough description of the data collection procedure as well
as the analytical procedure.
Chapter 3: Results and Discussion: reports the findings of the survey and discusses
the prominent aspects.
Part III: Conclusion: summarizes the study, recommends o the material and
acknowledges the limitations of the study.


published textbooks or in-house materials is what specialists in the field of English
language teaching weigh up for arguments.
Swales (cited in Robinson, 1991: 57) indicates published textbooks are “less self-
sufficient in practice materials and in coverage of skill areas” so these textbooks need more
supplementary materials.
The same story could be seen with arguments for and against the use of in-house
materials. Robinson (1991) suggests there are three advantages of in-house materials: more
specific and appropriate than published materials; more flexible than published textbooks;
and more suitable in terms of methodology for intended learners
It can be said that there are both good points and bad points in the selection of
textbook or in-house material. However, it should be noted that “there is no such a thing as 15
a perfect textbook” (Brown, 1995: 41) so an evaluation of materials is necessary to judge
the appropriateness to the target students.
1.1.3. Roles of teaching materials in general English course
There are five important components involved in English language instruction
namely students, teachers, materials, teaching method and evaluation among which the
most essential constituents are the textbooks and instruction materials. Because
instructional materials provide the foundation for the content of the lesson, the balance of
the skills taught, as well as the kinds of language practice the students engage in during
class activities.
Stressing on the role of materials, Richard (2001) states that materials provide a
basis for the content of the lesson, the appropriate proportion of skills taught, and the type
of language practice students take part in. Furthermore, useful teaching materials provide
great assistance to inexperienced teachers or poorly trained teachers. They can serve as “a

concepts in ELT to “determine the extent to which a programme is worthwhile, and to aid
decision-making through the purposeful gathering information”. In the programme
evaluation, material evaluation is given a great deal of attention.
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) define: “Evaluation is basically a matching process,
matching needs to available solutions”. They also note that evaluation is really a matter of
judging the fitness of something for a particular purpose. “Given a certain need, and in the
light of the resources available, which out of number of possibilities represent the best
solution. There is no absolute good or bad only degree of fitness for the required purpose”.
From above researchers‟ opinions, they all give a general identification that
evaluation is a process of collecting data and giving judgments based on the collected data
and the most importantly, evaluation must include action.
1.2.2. Types of materials evaluation
In terms of types of materials evaluation, Tomlinson (1998) indicates that for each
dimension of evaluation, there are certain types of evaluation. These dimensions include
approach, purpose, focus, scope, the evaluators, the timing, and types of information.
Cunningsworth (1995:76) and McGrath (2002:14-15) point out that there are three
types of material evaluation: pre-use, in-use and post-use evaluation. While Robinson
(1991:59) classifies materials evaluation into three types: Preliminary, summative and
formative. Although types of material evaluation are indicated with different terms, they
are basically similar.
Preliminary or pre-use evaluation is carried out before a course begins to select the
most appropriate materials for the particular group of learners and the aims of the course.
And another purpose of this evaluation is to identify which aspects of the published
material needed adapting to suit the purposes of the evaluators. This can be done by 17

suitable ones to use for a particular situation. Secondly, there can be a need for materials
evaluation to determine whether the material, which has been chosen, works for that 18
situation after it has been used for a period of time. This may help in deciding whether to
use the material again or replace it with a better one.
Robinson (1991:112) adds evaluation can be used as part of quality control.
Through evaluation, we can know about the advantages and disadvantages as well as the
effectiveness of the being used materials. Then we can decide whether the material can be
reused or whether it needs to be adapted to meet the need of the particular teaching
situation or we need to change it absolutely.
Apart form its contribution to the evaluation of effectiveness of the materials,
observation of the materials in use has an additional benefits: it can, for instance, afford
general insights into how teachers use materials, and therefore suggest directions both for
materials development and professional development activities.
Alderson (1992:79) set out a list of purposes of material evaluation as follows:
- to decide whether materials have had the intended effect
- to identify what effect materials have had
- to vindicate a decision
- to justify future courses of action
- to compare approaches/methodologies
- to identify areas for improvement in future use
- to show the positive achievements of teachers and students
- to motivate teachers
- to allay suspicions among parents or sponsors.
1.2.4. Materials Evaluators

sequenced as follows: 20 Figure 1: Materials evaluation model of Littlejohn(1998:192-202)
From the above diagram, it can be seen that basing on analyzing target situation of
use and materials spontaneously and independently, the author conducted matching and
evaluating appropriateness of design and the aspects of publication to the target situation of
uses. From the result of these analyses, decision on materials is reached in the last stage.
On studying this issue, Hutchinson and Waters (1987:97) also identify four steps of Figure 2: Materials evaluation model of Hutchinson and Waters (1987:97)
In the authors‟ ideas advise present the criteria for objective and subjective
analyses in a checklist and the evaluators should supplement other criteria they think
important to them in the process of evaluating. Then identifying the evaluator‟s
requirements; analyzing the material and comparing findings those two aspects by
awarding points. However, the authors also note that highest number of points does not
necessarily indicate the most suitable material as the points may be concentrated in one
area.
Ellis (1997) suggests a model (micro-evaluation) in a clearer and more detailed way:
1. Choosing a task to follow;
2. Describing the task with specification of input, procedures, language activities and
outcome;
3. Planning the evaluation with reference to the dimensions above;
4. Collecting information before, while and after the task was used, and what and how
the task was performed;
5. Analysis of the information collected;
Define criteria
On what bases will you judge
materials? Which criteria will
be more important?
Subjective analysis
What realizations of the
criteria do you want in your
course?
of learners or not. The evaluator must then base on the purposes of the evaluation, time
available, facilities as well as constraints of the context in which the evaluation takes place
to decide which model to follow. In this thesis the author decided to use the model of
Hutchinson and Waters (1993)
1.2.6. Methods of material evaluation
There are three methods of evaluation according to McGrath (2002): the
impressionistic method, the checklist method and the in-depth method.
The impressionistic method is concerned to obtain a general impression of the
material. This is wide-ranging but relative superficial (Cunningworth, 1995:76). The
method involves glancing at the publisher‟s description on the back cover, the content
page, book layout and visuals.
The checklist method is the use of a list of items which is referred to for
comparison, identification or verification. It is considered systematic, cost effective,
convenient and explicit.
The in-depth method looks at the kind of language description, underlying
assumptions about learning or values on which the materials are based (McGrath,
2002:69). It focuses on specific feature (Cunningworth, 1995:111), close analysis of one or
more extracts (Hutchinson, 1987:98). 23
1.2.7. Criteria for material evaluation
As can be seen that criteria for material evaluation are not constant, the elements
making up each criterion do not always coincide. Various writers have presented their
evaluation checklists. As illustrated by Cunningsworth (1995: 7-15), course books should
correspond to learners‟ needs, help to equip learners to use language effectively for their
own purposes, facilitate students‟ learning process, have a clear role in mediating the target

- Cultural background?
+Suitable for teachers
- Required resources (e.g. cassette recorder) available? Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No

Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No

Yes/No 24
- Evidence of suitability( piloted in local context)

Yes/No
4. Likely appeal to learners:
+Layout?
+Visuals?
+Topics?
+Suitable over medium term (unlikely to date)?



25
Reading criteria: provide guidance on the initial presentation of passages for
reading comprehension
Writing criteria: demonstrate the various devices for controlling and guiding
content and expression in composition exercises
Technical criteria: contain appropriate pictures, diagrams, tables, etc…
From above criteria and the fact of this study, the criteria of Hutchinson and Waters
(1987) seem to be the most appropriate. There are four main criteria for materials
evaluation and evaluator should concern: the audience, the aims, the content and the
methodology:
The audience of the materials requires evaluator should obtain information about
and from learners to find out whether the materials are suitable to the students‟ age, sex,
knowledge of English, interest, educational background and so on.
The aims of the materials require the evaluator has to check if the materials match
the aims and objectives of the course.
The content of the materials is one of the important elements require evaluator need
to measure if the content of the material is suitable to the content prescribed in terms of
language description, language points, macro/micro-skills and their proportion. It is
necessary to find out if the text-types of the materials are suitable to the requirements of
the course. Finally, the evaluator need to find out the way the content is organized and
sequenced within a unit and throughout the course is appropriate.
The methodology firstly needs to be indicated whether the theories of learning on
which the course is based are in line with the ones of the material under evaluation.
Secondly, evaluators need to measure whether learners expectations about learning are the
ones the materials intended for. Thirdly, it necessary to determine whether the kinds of
exercises/tasks includes in the materials are suited to the course requirements. Another

Hence they can improve it so that it is suitable for the particular situation. (Apple and
Jungck, 1990; Shannon, 1987).
1.3.2. Areas for adaptation
McDonough and Shaw (1993) identify the possible areas to adapt as follows:
* Lack of grammar coverage in general;
* Lack of practice of grammar points of particular difficulty;
* Reading passages contain too much unknown vocabulary;
* Comprehension questions are too easy;
* Subject matters are inappropriate for learners;
* Photographs and other illustrative materials are not culturally acceptable;
* Amount of material is too much/ too little to cover;
* Lack of guidance of teachers on group work and role play; 27
* There are no vocabulary lists or a key to exercises.
However, they also note that more areas could be added to this list, depending on the
actual contexts.
1.3.3. Techniques for adaptation
According to McDonough and Shaw (1993: 63), there are a number of points to bear in
mind regarding the techniques that can be applied a bring about change. Firstly, techniques
are selected according to the aspect of the materials that needs alteration. Secondly, content
can be different content areas. Thirdly, adaptation can have both quantitative an
qualitative effects. Finally, techniques can be used individually or combination with
others,so the scale of possibilities clearly ranges from straightforward to rather complex
Also according to McGrath (2002:1-17), the textbooks may adapt teaching material
by selecting, rejecting, adding and changing. The author suggests the following

Deleting or omitting: deletion means cutting one or more stages within an activity
or omitting a while activity or even a whole lesson. Therefore, addition and deletion often
work together. The tasks in the material may be deleted and compensated by a more
suitable one to meet the objectives of the whole unit. However, when the techniques for
adaptation are applied, it is necessary to take into account the balance of the lesson as well
as the time allocation.
Modifying: modification can be divided into two specific ways: re-writing and re-
structuring. Re-writing refers to the modification of the linguistic contents whereas the re-
structuring applies to the classroom management, especially the structuring of the class. In
short, teachers may occasionally decide to rewrite material, especially exercise material, to
make it more appropriate, more “communicative”, more demanding and more motivating
to their students.
Simplifying: simplification is a type of modification namely re-writing activity.
Many elements of the material can be simplified such as the instructions, explanations or
even the visual layout of materials but the texts or most often reading passages are applied
to this technique. Teachers can simplify the texts with sentence structures, the grammar
structures and the lexical content
Re-ordering: teachers may decide that the order in which the material is presented
is not suitable for their students. They can use the technique of re-ordering to put parts of a
course book in a different order, adjusting the sequence of presentation within a unit, or to
arrange of different units on a course book.
In short, material adaptation plays an important part in the process of
language teaching and learning. It makes the teaching materials more relevant to the needs
of students and to the objectives of the course and therefore, would stimulate the
effectiveness of teaching and learning