Download pdf - Presentation of final thesis

8/8/2019 Presentation of final thesis

1/26

AN EVALUATION OF THE MATERIAL ENGLISH FOR CHEFS FOR THE

FIRST YEAR STUDENTS IN THE COOKING CLASS AT HAI PHONG

TECHNOLOGICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING SCHOOL

nh gi gio trnh Ti ng Anh chuyn ngnh ch bi n mn cho h c sinh n m th nh t ngnh ch bi n mn n tTr ng Trung c p nghi p v v cng ngh H i Phng .

Presentor: Nguy n Th Ng c ChuSupervisor: Ph m Th H nh, M.A.


2/26

ACKNOWLEDEMENTS

Sincere thanks are addressed to:

* My supervisor, Ms. Ph m Th H nh (M.A)* My lecturer, Mr. Le Van Canh (M.A)* Dr. Le Hung Tien - Dean of the Post

Graduate Department & his staff.* Teachers and students of 2 cooking classes at

Hai Phong technological and vocational trainingschool* My parents, my family and other individuals


3/26

OUTLINE OF THE THESIS

3

The Thesis

Part IINTRODUCTION

Part IIDEVELOPMENT

Part IIICONCLUSION

Chapter 1Literature review

Chapter 2Research

methodology Chapter 3

Data analysis

Chapter 4Discussion &adaptation


4/26

The rationale of the study

Evaluate the aim, content andmethodology requirements of the course

with the material-> Suggest suitable adaptations


5/26

The aims of the thesis

1. How appropriate the material is in terms of

content, objectives and methodology.

2. What remedies for changing or adapting should

be used to make the material more suitable with

requirements of the course and students needs.


6/26

Methodology

- Based onHutchinson & Waters

checklist for material evaluation- Questionnaires


7/26

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. D oes the material English for Chefs meet the

requirements of the course provided at HPTVTS i

terms of aims, content and methodology?

2. What remedies for changing or adapting should b

used to make the material more suitable withrequirements of the course and students need ?


8/26

Research sites &Participants* Research sitesHai phong Technological and Vocational

training School* Participants1. Forty students of two cookery classes

2. Four English teachers


9/26

DISSCUSSIONMaterial versus Course: Aims & content

1.1. Language points:- Fully matched the basic grammar and

vocabulary requirements of the course.- The pronunciation part did not meet the aim

and content requirements of the course


10/26

1. Material versus Course: Aims & content1.2 Macro skills

1. Speaking : Fulfill the aim and content

requirements of the course

2 . Writing : Lacked detail instruction of writinga letter or sample of a letter, cooking recipe.3 . R eading : Too many reading texts4. Listening : E xercises for listening were few


11/26

1. Material versus Course: Aims & Content1.3 Micro skills

The micro skills provided in the material

Generally met the content requirements

Though listening and reading skills appeared

not really to be up to teachers and students

expectation.


12/26

1. Material versus Course: Aims & Content1.4. Text types and Subject matter

W ell met the aim and content requirements of the

course as well as teachers and students prospects.


13/26

1. Material versus Course: Aims & Content1.5. Layout and design

- Partly fulfilled the content requirements of thecourse:

- Reasons:

Lack of detailed overview of each lesson


14/26

1. Material versus Course: Aims & Content1.6. Sequence of content

From easy to difficult along with recycling

=> Useful for teachers in their teaching and students

in their learning, understanding and using the

grammar structures and new words


15/26

1. Material versus Course: Aims & Content1.7. Time allocation

Six periods/unit

Not fulfill teachers and students expectations

As: Half teachers and students agreed about that .


16/26

DISCUSSION

2. Material versus Course:Methodology


17/26

2. The Material versus the Course: MethodologyRequirement

2.1.Kinds of tasks/exercises

M eet methodological requirements of thecourse in terms of speaking skill and writing

skillPartly dealt with reading skillD id not succeed in providing tasks and

exercises in listening skill


18/26


2.2. Teaching and learning techniques

M atched the methodological requirement of

the course and the teachers and studentsopinions.


19/26


2.3 . Methodology guidance

1 . N o suggestion for further work or tests

2. Vocabulary lists and language points and

methodology guidance were distributed ineach unit.

=>T he material did not fully meet


20/26

1. Pronunciation practice exercises should be added in the material

2. More tasks should be included in somereading passages

3 . More exercises for listening-skill needto be considered

Recommendations for materialimprovements

1. Addition


21/26

Addition

4 . Instructions and framework for writingletters and cooking recipes should be

added5. Appropriate time for each of eight

sections in a unit or two more periods for

each unit are added6. Detail map of content


22/26


2. DeletionTeachers should delete some

tasks/exercises in the reading section as it

seemed overload to students.

For example: unit 3 , 6, 8, 9 - too many

reading passages


23/26


3 . ReplacementOverall content of the material is mainlyabout W estern foodOnly unit 8 is about Vietnamese

=> Replace unit 7 by a topic about Vietnamesedishes


24/26

Limitation

1. Only one instrument (survey questionnaires) for

data collection

t Not give full and satisfactory analysis and

effective evaluation of the material

2. The authenticity of the material from students

after learning this material has not been referred


25/26

Suggestion for further research

- The research on the authenticity of the

material from students after learningthis material should be conducted.


26/26