A Comparative Study of Textbooks between Teachers' and Students' Perspectives

8/10/2019 A Comparative Study of Textbooks between Teachers' and Students' Perspectives

1/9

3 ()

25 ..2556

A Comparative Study of Textbooks between Teachers' and Students'

Perspectives

***Siriporn Khienwongand Songsri Soranastaporn

1) 2) 3) 75 6 1,800 0.94back translation t-test 1)2) 3)

:

Abstract

The purposes of this study were: 1) to examine EFL teachers opinions on their English textbooks,

2) To examine students opinions on their English textbooks, 3) to compare the level of opinions on

English textbooks based on perspectives between EFL teachers and students. The populat ion included

*

; Email: [email protected]**

; Email: [email protected]


2/9

325 ..2556

[10-244]

75 EFL teachers and 1800 students. The subjects included 63 EFL and 317 students selected by simple

random sampling technique. The research instrument included textbook evaluation form developed by

Litz.The Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient of the textbook evaluation form was 0.94. Questionnaires

were translated into Thai and were tested valid ity from three experts. The statistical devices used for data

analysis were mean, standard deviation, and independent t -test.The major results of this study showedas follows. 1) EFL teachers rated their opinions on English textbook at the high level 2) Students rated

their opinions on English textbook at the high level.3)Students rated the level of opinions on Englishtextbook higher thanEFL teachers, but there was no statistically significant difference between EFLteachers and students opinions on English textbook.

Keyword:English textbooks,Textbook evaluation,Opinions

(Crystal, 2003) (, 2555) 100 (Crystal, 2003) (Ministry of Education, 1999) .. 2538 1 (, 2549) (, 2549) (O-net) 6 ..2555 8 22.13 ( ,2556) (Very low proficiency) 53 54 (EF English Proficiency Index, 2012)

(, 2553) (Tomlinson, 2012)

( , 2552)Laimie (1999) (Richards, 2001) Richards (2001)


3/9

325 ..2556

[10-245]

(Savignon, 1983) Tok(2010) (Kitao & Kitao, 1997)

Grant (1987) (Savignon, 1991) Savignon (1991)Ur (1996) 1) 2) 3) 4)

(Kayapinar, 2009; Tosun, 2013; , 2551; , 2554; , 2555)

Kayapinar (2009) Tosun(2013)

(2551) (2554) (2555)


4/9

325 ..2556

[10-246]

1) 2) 3)

76

6

1

,800

4

1) 2) 3) 4) (simple random sampling) Cochran (1997) 63 6 317

2 2 1)

2) Litz (2005) 0.94 40 25 (rating scale) 5 5= 1=

independent t -test

1. 1

M SD alpha :1. 3.49 0.82 0.946 2. 3.83 0.61 0.947 3. 3.50 1.02 0.949 4.

/

4.41 0.64 0.947

5. 3.63 0.99 0.947


5/9

325 ..2556

[10-247]

:6. (functions) 4.10 0.58 0.946 7. 3.97 0.60 0.946 8. 3.97 0.74 0.945 9. 3.65 1.07 0.944 10. 3.87 0.75 0.946 11. 3.51 0.86 0.946 12. 4.27 0.57 0.946 13. 3.69 1.02 0.947 :14. 3.60 0.83 0.945 15. 3.61 0.86 0.945 16. 3.76 0.88 0.946 17. 3.81 0.72 0.945 18. 3.67 0.74 0.945 19. 3.76 0.73 0.945 20. 4.05 0.73 0.945 :21. 3.68 0.72 0.945 22. 4.03 0.74 0.945 23. 3.70 0.84 0.945 24. 3.37 1.01 0.947 25. 3.65 0.70 0.946 :26. 3.89 0.81 0.946 27. 3.87 0.66 0.944 28. 4.02 0.61 0.945 29. 3.71 0.87 0.945 30. (language functions) 3.51 0.86 0.946 31. 3.52 0.98 0.946 :32. 3.75 0.74 0.946 33. 3.92 0.68 0.945 34. 3.83 0.71 0.946

35. 3.97 0.65 0.945 36. 4.05 0.705 0.946 :37. 4.00 0.57 0.946 38.- 3.71 0.79 0.945 39. 3.65 0.83 0.945 40. 3.43 0.89 0.945 3.83 0.43 0.944

1 (M=3.83,SD=0.43)


6/9

325 ..2556

[10-248]

/ 4.41 (SD= 0.64) 4.27(SD=0.57) (functions) 4.10 (SD = 0.58)

2. 2 6

M SD alpha

3.79 0.78 0.956 3.84 0.86 0.955

3.74 0.70 0.953 3.76 0.82 0.953

3.79 0.74 0.953 3.83 0.68 0.953

3.62 0.95 0.954

3.78 0.65 0.951

26 (M=3.78,SD=0.65) 3.84 (SD= 0.86) 3.83(SD= 0.68) 3.79 (SD= 0.78)

3.

3 6

Independent t-teestM SD M SD t df p

3.66 0.58 3.79 0.78 1.543 112.103 0.126 3.97 0.62 3.84 0.86 -1.356 112.873 0.178

3.68 0.65 3.74 0.70 0.607 370 0.544 3.82 0.60 3.76 0.82 -0.624 102.894 0.534 3.75 0.57 3.79 0.74 0.468 107.893 0.641 3.90 0.52 3.83 0.68 -0.940 109.567 0.349 3.54 0.74 3.62 0.95 0.704 106.749 0.483 3.77 0.49 3.78 0.65 0.161 101.056 0.872

3 0.05


7/9

325 ..2556

[10-249]

1.

(2551) Tosun (2013) (2551) (2552)

2.

Tosun (2013)

3.

. 2549.

. 9 2556. http://www.moe.go.th/web_studyenglish/plan.html.


8/9

325 ..2556

[10-250]

. 2554. Access . . .2552. Super Goal(4-5-6)

. ..2555. My World

. .

. 2553. : . 9 2556.http://social.obec.go.th/node/98

. 2551. 3 .

. .(2556). 9 2556. http://www.niets.or.th/

index.php/news_events/view/223/3.

.2555. 9 2556. http://english.obec.go.th/english/2013/index.php/th/2012-08-08-06-24-42/2012-08-08-06-25-22.

Cochran, L.J. 1997. Sampling Techniques. New York: Wiley.

Crystal, D. 2003. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

EF English Proficiency Index. 2012. EF EPI Country Rankings. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from

http://www.ef.co.th/__/~/media/efcom/epi/2012/full_reports/ef-epi-2012-report-master-lr-2.

Grant, N. 1987. Making the most of your textbook. New York: Longman Inc.

Kayapinar, U. 2009. Coursebook evaluation by English teachers. Inonu University Journal of the

Faculty of Education. 10 (1): 69-78.

Kitao, K. & Kitao, S.K. 1997. Selecting and developing teaching/learning materials. The internet TESL

Journal4 (4). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html.

Lamie, J.M. 1999. Making the textbook more communicative.The internet TESL Journal1(1) . Retrieved

from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lamie-Textbooks.

Litz, D. R. A. 2005. Textbook Evaluat ion and ELT management: a South Korean Case Study.Asian EFL

Journal. Retrieved from: http://www.asian-efljournal. com/Litz_thesis.pdf.

Ministry of Education. 1999. National Report. Retrieved February 10, 2012 from http://

www.ibe.unesco.org/International/ICE47/English/Natreps/reports/ Thailand.pdf .

Richards, J. C. 2001. Curriculum development in language teaching . Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Savignon, J. 1983. Communicative competence: theory and classroom practice . Reading, Mass.:

Addison Wesley.

Savignon, J. 1991. Communicative language teaching: Sate of the art.TESOL Quarterly25(2): 261-301.


9/9

325 ..2556

[10-251]

Tok, H. 2010. TEFL textbook evaluation: From teachers perspectives.Educational Research and

Review5(9): 508-517.

Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching.Cambridge Journals

42 (2): 143-179.

Tosun, S. 2013. A comparative study on evaluation of Turkish and English foreign language textbooks.

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 70: 1374-1380.

Ur, P. 1996. A course in language teaching: Practi ce and theory . Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Documents

A Comparative Study of Textbooks between Teachers' and Students' Perspectives