VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
NGUYỄN THỊ NGUYỆT ÁNH
TEACHER’S EVALUATION ON “LET’S GO 1A SECOND EDITION” FOR
GRADE 3 AT PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN NORTH VIETNAM

(ĐÁNH GIÁ CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VỀ GIÁO TRÌNH “LET’S GO 1A SECOND
EDITION” DÙNG CHO HỌC SINH LỚP 3 CÁC TRƯỜNG TIỂU HỌC
MIỀN BẮC VIỆT NAM)

M.A. Minor Programme Thesis

Field
: English Methodology
Code
: 60 14 10



M.A. Minor Programme Thesis Field
: English Methodology
Code
: 60 14 10
Supervisor
: Vũ Thu Thủy, M.A Hanoi, 2010 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EFP English for primary

Table 5: Teacher Survey Results on balance of skills offered in the book
Table 6: Teacher Survey Results on reading and writing skills offered in the book
Table 7: Teacher Survey Results on speaking and listening skills offered in the book
Table 8: Teacher Survey Results on suitability of the Language Points offered in the book
Table 9: Teacher Opinions on Vocabulary offered in the book.
Table 10: Teacher Survey Results on Pronunciation provided by the material
Table 11: Teachers’ opinions on the suitability of culture elements in the material
Table 12: Teachers’ opinions on the values hint by the material.
Table 13: Teachers’ opinions on the supplementary materials of the book
Table 14: Teachers’ opinions on the general look of the material
Table 15: Teachers’ opinions on the accessibility of the book’s price
Table 16: Teachers’ opinions on the methodology applied in the material

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Certificate of originality of the thesis

Acknowledgements’

Abstract

List of Abbreviations

List of Tables

Table of Content


7
1.2.1. Why is evaluation
7
1.2.2. Definitions of Materials Evaluation
7
1.2.3. Types of Materials Evaluation
8
1.2.4. Materials Evaluators
9
1.2.5. Principles of Materials Evaluation
10
1.2.5.1. Approach to Materials Evaluation
10
1.2.5.2. Models for Materials Evaluation
10
1.2.5.3. Criteria for Materials Evaluation
10
1.3. Summary
13
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
15
2.1. Primary school English education in the North Vietnam: Policy and Practice
15
2.2. Research Design
16
2.3. Research Method
17
2.3.1. Document Analysis
17
2.3.2. Survey Questionnaire

3.3.1. The Suitability of the Material to the Objectives of the Course
30
3.3.2. The Suitability of the Textbook to the Content required by the Course
30
3.3.3. The Appropriateness of the Material to the Teaching Methods applied
37
3.4. Discussion
PART 3: CONCLUSION
37
1. Summary of Previous Parts
2. Recommendations
38
3. Limitation of the study
39
4. Conclusion
39
REFERENCES


level 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B. After every two units there is one review unit. Each unit is organized
by a set pattern of components including Let’s Talk, Let’s Sing, Learn, Let’s Move, Let’s
Listen, Let’s Review and Let’s Learn Some More. The first component, Let’s Talk,
introduces functional dialogues. In Let’s Sing, an interactive song based on the dialogue is
offered. Let’s Listen gives test and unit review. In Let’s Move, there are classroom
2

commands and action verbs. Let’s Learn instructs new grammar; Let’s Review offers further
review after every units and Let’s Learn Some More revises related grammatical structures.
1.1.3. Statement of problem
Let’s Go 2
nd
series are written and published by the British. The series have been introduced
into Vietnam primary as a course book used for grade 3, grade 4 and grade 5. However, the
series have never been carefully evaluated on their appropriateness in terms of content,
methodology and physical properties and matter of cost are also exclusive. This fact
motivates me to do this survey research. In the scope of this study, the evaluation is carried
out with Let’s Go 1A student book used for grade 3 in the Northern provinces of Vietnam.
1.2. Aims of the study
The study aims to evaluate Let’s Go Second Edition (Oxford University Press, 2000) to
determine whether the employment of this material is appropriate in the context of teaching
at primary schools in the North of Vietnam. Hopefully, the findings of the study will provide
the English teaching staff at primary schools with data about what changes to be made to
improve the effectiveness of the material for future use.
1.3. Research question
The study aims to answer to the following question:
To what extent does Let’s Go 1A Second Edition (Oxford University Press, 2000) satisfy the
course requirements in terms of the audience, aims, content and methodology for grade 3 at
primary schools in the North of Vietnam?
1.4. Theoretical bases of the study

materials evaluation, principles for materials evaluation, materials evaluation procedure as
well as criteria for materials evaluation. The next part is about materials adaptation. The
chapter also mentions some previous studies. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology
adopted in the study, the data collection instruments, the subjects, as well as the data
collection procedures. Chapter 4 discusses the findings of the study, pointing out the
strengths and weaknesses of the material. Chapter 5 suggests solutions to improve the
material as well as directions for further research and concludes the study.
4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter two aims to establish a theoretical framework for the evaluation of Let’s Go 1A
Second Edition series (Oxford University Press, 2000). In the first part, the chapter deals
with teaching materials which focuses on the role of materials in language teaching and
types of materials. The second part addresses issues in materials evaluation which involve
reasons for materials evaluation, definition of materials evaluation, teacher’s role in material
evaluation, models for materials evaluation, and criteria for evaluation.
2.1. Materials in Language Teaching and Learning
2.1.1. Role of materials:
There is no doubt about the role of materials in English Second Language class (ESL). There
have been many authors spending times and efforts to seek the answer to the role of teaching
materials. There is a general view to see that materials play a positive part in teaching and
learning second language. According to Jack C. Richard (2001) ―Teaching materials are a
key component in most language programs. Whether the teacher uses textbooks,

not necessarily to accept this trend. They try to prove against viewpoint by saying that in-
house materials have more strong points than published materials. Robinson (1991) suggests
three advantages of in-house materials in terms of specification and appropriateness, validity,
flexibility and suitability of methodology. However, Robinson (1991) agrees that in-house
materials making is costly and time-consuming. There is also a worry that the authors of in-
house materials sometimes try to take published materials for their ideas that have been
rejected as Swales cited in (Robinson, 1991: 58).
To balance the benefits of using published materials as well as in-house materials, once
either that kind of materials is used for teaching and learning, they should both be careful
judged by either the insiders or outsides so that its appropriateness to the intended teachers
and students is proved.
2.1.2. Types of Materials
There are different types of materials designed in terms of forms and purposes. "The teacher
can use textbook, institutionally prepared materials or his/her own prepared materials."
(Richards, 2001: 251). The former is referred to as published textbooks and the latter, in-
house materials (Robinson, 1991). As a rule, there is an argument about the advantages and
disadvantages of these two main types of materials. Some believe that authentic materials are
preferred over created materials because of authentic and real-world language input in
comparison to the contrived content of much created materials. Richard cited in Phillips and
6

Shettlesworth 1978; Clarke 1989; Peacock 1997 as follows: ―They have a positive effect on
learner motivation; they provide authentic cultural information about the target culture; they
provide exposure to real language; they relate more closely to learner’s needs; they support
a more creative approach to teaching”
On the other hand, there are arguments against authentic materials. Swales (cited in
Robinson, (1991: 57) indicated that textbooks are: ―less self-insufficient in practice materials
and in coverage of skill areas‖. As a consequence of that, Swales believes that textbooks
alone are not enough, and more supplementary materials are needed. As for created
materials, there are some disadvantages, too. The most critics about it may fall into its

textbook: those representing the interests of author, and those representing the interest of the
publisher (Byrd 1995, et al.1995). Due to those factors, a textbook should be more carefully
assessed by either its users or any outsiders who are not resulted from the subjective
autonomy. The second reason for materials evaluation is that there can be a need for
materials evaluation to determine whether the materials which have been chosen works for
that situation after it has been used for a period of time (Ellis, 1997). Robinson (1991)
concludes that evaluation is used as a part of quality control. The results obtained from the
evaluation of the material will also lead to important decisions on the use of the material in
the future time: should it be used again or not? Or what should be changed to the material to
make it more effective and efficient for the students and the learning context?
2.2.2. Definitions of materials evaluation
There are many definitions of material evaluation by the authors. Most of them agree that
evaluation of materials plays a key role in ELT curriculum development. ―Whether materials
are found in publisher’s catalogs, ―Books Received‖ sections of journal, or teacher’s selves,
firsthand examination will eventually be necessary to determine the suitability of materials
for a particular program. This process might safely be called materials evaluation.‖ Brown
(1995: 159).
Tom Huthcinson & Alan Waters (1987: 97) defines that evaluation is basically a matching
process: matching needs to available solutions. If this matching is to be done objectively as
possible, it is best to look at the needs and solutions separately. In the final analysis, any
choice will be made on subjective ground.‖ And materials evaluation is the process with
―attempts to measure the value of materials‖. Giving a short but significant definition of
materials evaluation, Tomlimson (1983: 3) explains it as ―systematic appraisal of the value of
materials in relation to their objectives and the objectives of the learners using them‖.
8

In general, materials evaluation helps to show how well the materials are actually fulfilling
the need. It is a process of judging the fitness of materials for particular objectives in a
particular context. Materials evaluation is beneficial for anyone who may directly and
passively uses it for different purposes. By evaluation of materials, teachers, learners or even

It is common to assume that two types of participants are typically involved in evaluation –
insiders and outsiders (Richard, 2001). Insiders refer to teachers, students, and anyone else
closely involved in the development and implementation of the program. It is believed that
formative evaluation is appropriate with teachers who are directly involved in teaching,
monitoring the materials as it is in use and giving the right judgments to what difficulties or
effectiveness that occur during their operation with it. Students, on the other hand is one of
the key participants in the summative evaluation of the program because of ― providing
evidence of their gains in language proficiency and completing evaluations on the way the
program was taught and the relevance of what they have learned to their needs‖( Richard
2001: 295).
The insiders are regarded as the key factors of evaluation process in ―designing and carrying
out the evaluation, because as a consequence, they will have a greater degree of commitment
to acting on its results.‖ (Richard 2001: 295).
The other type of evaluator – outsiders is those who do not involve in teaching and learning.
They are said to be quite ―fresh‖ and ―objective‖ in evaluation. However, there are still
drawbacks while evaluation is made by the outsiders. They do not dealt with real teaching-
learning situation so they cannot be sure about teaching methodology, learner’s needs,
teaching and learning context.
Robinson (1991) states that they may be unsympathetic and it may take more time for them
to get to know the local situation such as learner’s needs, facilities as well as constrains.
Therefore, they may not have exact judgments’ and real recommendations; or maybe what
they find has already been found. Dudley – Evans (1998). Within scope of this research, the
study will be addressed to insider participant who are the teachers at primary schools in the
North of Vietnam.
2.2.5. Principles of materials evaluation
a. Approaches to Materials Evaluation
Historically, there have been approaches suggested in field of the materials evaluation. These
approaches can be differentiated from each other basing on research paradigms. Ellis, R
(1998) offers ―objective model‖ and the ―responsive evaluation‖ which are based on
10

A thorough look into these steps we can see in Figure 1 below:

11

Define criteria
On what bases will you judge materials?
Which criteria will be more important? Subjective analysis Objective analysis
What realizations of the criteria do How does the material being you
want in your course? evaluated realize the criteria? Matching
How far does the material match your needs?
Figure 1: The materials evaluation model proposed by Hutchinson and Waters (1987:98)
Evaluation model proposed by Cunningsworth (1995)
Cunningsworth (1995) presents a checklist for textbook evaluation and selection organized
under the following perspectives: language content; selection and grading of language items,
presentation and practice of new language items, developing language skills and
communication abilities; supporting materials; and motivation and the learners. Dealing with
evaluating the material's language content, parts of language system(form, function, etc. ),
language skills, language styles in the material will be considered whether they are taught in
the materials as well as whether the language style matched to social context and are taught
fully and systematically. For selection and grading of language items, examining this means
pointing out the kind of syllabus and approach the material follows as well as how the

Appendix 6). According to the framework, there are four different stages for material
evaluation. The first stage is to analyze the target situation and materials. The target situation
of use is analyzed in terms of the culture context, the institution, the course, the teachers and
the learners. The materials are analyzed to describe the aspects of design and aspects of
publication. The next stage is matching and evaluation which helps the evaluator to figure
out how appropriate the aspects of design and aspects of publication to the target situation of
use are. In the action stage, what can be done to improve the materials such as materials
adoption, reject, adaptation, supplementation, etc. will be carried out.
13

2.2.5.3. Summary
In summary, although the above models suggested by authors vary in the procedure and the
evaluators’ purposes, they will be useful to pursuit the appropriateness of the materials in
particular context or group of learners. Many other factors should also be taken into account
when the evaluator decides the model employed in her/his study such as: time availability,
facilities as well as matter of context. Depending on the evaluators’ purpose and other
requirements, a combination of models by Hutchinson and Waters and Cunningsworth will
be applied to this study.
Criteria for Materials Evaluation
Criteria are what evaluators use to "reach a decision regarding what needs to be evaluated"
Tomlinson (1998:220). They base on these criteria to make their comments and judgments.
Many scholars have set up methods of using checklist or guidelines in evaluation of
coursebooks. Among the theorists, Cunningsworth (1995) and Hutchinson and Waters (1987)
offer very the most popular sets of criteria.
Criteria defined by Cunningsworth (1995)
The criteria proposed by Cunningsworth (1995:15-17) will be presented as following. Firstly,
they should correspond to learners' needs. They should match the aims and objectives of the
language learning program. Secondly, they should reflect the uses (present or future) which
learners will make of the language. They should be selected in order to help equip students to
use language effectively for their own purposes. Thirdly, they should take into account
15
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Chapter three starts with the description of real context of teaching and learning at primary
schools in the Northern provinces in Vietnam and the methodology employed in this study.
3.1. Primary school English education in North Vietnam: Policy and Practice
Despite the difficulties resulted from the history of wars, Vietnamese Government are soon
aware of the important role of English teaching and learning in the national economic and
social development. Since 1996, English has been applied in the pilot program from grade 3
to grade 5 as an optional subject by the Ministry of Education and is taught in every two
forty-five minute’s period per week at most of primary schools in Vietnam. A 10 year
English project from primary to secondary has recently been developed, in which, ―All
primary students will learn 2 periods per day in 2020. Primary students will learn a new

of Education permits schools choose one of these materials for their teaching English: Let’s
Learn English , Let’s Go (2
nd
Ed), Go Go Love English and Phonics UK . All these
textbooks are written and published by international publishers, except for Let’s Learn
English which is written by the local author and published locally. Understandably, Let’s
Learn English is the most popular coursebook used within North Vietnam and Let’s Go is the
most popular imported material which has been used in the most economically advantaged
regions of Vietnam, especially in the urban areas where parents find the book affordable. So
far, there is still not any empirical study to evaluate the merits and demerits of these
materials. In other words, the choice of the coursebook remains impressionistic rather than
empirically. Most of the school managers as well as teachers and parents have little
knowledge about how to choose the right English textbook for their students. In some cases,
teachers and even students and their parents may prefer one particular textbook but they have
to use another one simply because they cannot afford the preferred one.
3.2. Research Design
Due to purpose of the study, the material will be evaluated in terms of objectives, content and
methodology. Because the textbook has been in use for several years, teachers have different
views about the textbook. Yet, there has been any empirical research on the extent to which
the textbook satisfies the course requirements and the learners. Therefore, this study reports
the results of an in-use evaluation by a group of 20 teachers who have been using the
textbook.
17

3.3. Research Method
This part discusses the description of the instruments for data collection and the strong points
and weak points of the employed research methods.
The researcher chose document analysis and survey questionnaire. Of these two methods,
although document analysis played an important role which provided an in-depth analysis of
the material under evaluation, it was not the leading instrument. Thus, the survey

against the use of questionnaires due to its failure to collect full questionnaires or some items
in the questionnaires which are left with.
Questionnaires items can be relatively closed or open ended. A closed item is one in which
the range of possible responses is determined by the researcher. An open item is one in which
the subject can decide what to say and how to say it. Questionnaires can consist entirely of
closed questions, entirely of open questions or a mixture of closed and open questions.
Nunan (1992: 143). Normally, survey questionnaires are designed to collect both teachers
and students comments and judgments about the textbook. Given the purpose of this study
which was to have teachers’ evaluative feedback on the textbook, a survey questionnaire is
considered appropriate.
A questionnaire(see Appendix 1) which was composed of thirty-six items was designed and
administered to a group of 20 primary school teachers who teach English to 3
rd
graders at
different primary schools in the North of Vietnam. It was divided into 4 areas: question 1 to 3
are served to seek the appropriateness of the material with the outcome standard of the
course; question number 4 to 29 survey teacher’s ideas of the suitability of the material to the
content prescribed by the MOET; 4 questions from 30 to 34 collect teacher’s feedback of the
methodology in the book and the other two questions number 35, 36 to reflex other aspect of
the material such as: the price and so on. A Vietnamese translation and detailed instructions
were offered to the teacher for their convenience as well.
3.4 Data Collection Procedures
To collect data for the study, the coursebook was analysed. The analysis is based on the
criteria for materials evaluation established by Hutchinson and Walters (1987) against the
aims, objectives, content and methodology. In the first step of the analyzing stage, the aims,
the objectives set in the course book as well as the content of the book (divided into
grammar, vocabulary, reading and writing, listening and speaking sections) were analyzed.
The methodology underlying the coursebook was evaluated both indirectly through an
analysis of the activities provided in the coursebook and directly through the
teaching/learning techniques suggested by the authors of the book

3.5 Participants
An important element in the evaluation procedure is the participant or evaluator that should
be considered. Many authors in the literature keep the belief that the evaluation should not
―be restricted to outside evaluator‖ (Tomlinson, 1998: 224). In this case, inside evaluators
may make use of their experience in the program context to carry out the evaluation.