Tài liệu An evaluation of american headway 1 for first year junior college students in electric power university submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of master of arts in tesol

M IN IS TR Y OF EDUCATIO N A N D TR A IN IN G HANOI UNIVERSITY NG UYEN TH I BICH NGOC AN EVALUATION OF AMERICAN HEADWAY 1 FOR FIRST YEAR JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS IN ELECTRIC POWER UNIVERSITY t TIMJNG И М ĩHÚNO TIN THƯ VIỀN NN-VH Nưứ c ỉiGOẲl Т4ГѴ SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL SUPERVISOR: Dr. L A M QUANG DONG Hanoi October 2008 ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS I have had considerable help from a number o f people to accomplish this work, and I would like to thank them here. I, first and foremost, owe a great debt to my thesis supervisor. Dr. Lam Quang Dong, for his immense encouragement. W ithout the valuable instructions, comments, criticisms, questions, and corrections which I received along the way fk)m him. this thesis would not exist. I would like to give my sincere gratitude to Dr. Nguyen Van Dai and M.Ed Nguyen Thai Ha - the leaders and the whole staff members o f the Department o f Post-Graduate Studies at Hanoi U niversity fo r their useful lectures and assistance, valuable comments, and suggestions. I acknowledge the excellent assistance o f Dr. Pham Xuan Khang- Head o f Fundamental Scientific Faculty, m y colleagues，and students in Electric Power University fo r their support, assistance，and cooperation in performing this work. I would be remiss i f I d id n 't express my special thanks to my parents, my younger sister whose encouragement and care were accompanying me during the long journey to the university. O f course, nothing o f this would have been possible i f it had not been for the love and support from my husband who has helped me in so many ways to ease the burden o f the work. Needless to say, their patience and support have kept me going this far and their love w ill keep me going further. ABSTRACT This study adopts both quantitative and qualitative approaches to evaluate the textbook American Headway 1 for the first year junior college students in Electric Power University. The study attempts to find out how much the textbook fits with the course aims and the students' needs on the content and methodology. Data were gathered by means o f existing information and questionnaires. The existing information data were collected by only one subject- the researcher. The questionnaires data were obtained by a total o f 200 students from 5 classes and 7 teachers o f English. The results indicate that the textbook was basically suited to the course objectives and the students7 needs. Nevertheless, the textbook failed to provide the students with pronunciation. Moreover, it did not completely satisfy the students^ needs on its content (some difficult grammatical structures, difficult and abundant vocabulary, the difficulties o f writing, listening, and speaking skill), its methodology (some difficult kinds o f exercises, the organization o f pair and group activities, some aids, necessary supplementary missing materials), and its time requirement. Based on the findings, a number o f recommendations were made to overcome its weaknesses by using the adding, replacing, and modifying technique as well as to enhance English teaching and learning for the first year junior college students in Electric Power University. LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1 The Factors that need examining in the materials evaluationprocess. Table 2 The detailed information o f the student questionnaires. 29 Table 3 The detailed information o f the teachers. 31 Table 4 The detailed information o f the topics in the textbook. 44 Figure 1 Evaluation Model by Hutchinson & Waters (1987). 11 Figure 2 Evaluation Model by McDonough & Shaw (1993). 13 Figure 3 Evaluation Model by Ellis (1998). 14 Figure 4 Materials adaptation framework by McDonough & Shaw (1993). 23 Figure 5 The students， judgments about the aims o f the textbook. 38 Figure 6 The teachers’ judgments about the aims o f the textbook. 39 Figure 7 13 The students^ judgments about the Presentation & Practice o f the 45 language points & language skills. Figure 8 The teachers9 judgments about the Presentation & Practice o f the 45 language points & language skills. Figure 9 The students’ judgments about the difficult level o f the language 46 points & language skills given in the textbook. Figure 10 The teachers’ judgments about the difficult level o f the language 46 points & language skills given in the textbook. Figure 11The students9judgments about the variety, attractiveness o f the text- 47 types & the familiarity, interest o f the topics in the textbook. Figure 12The teachers5judgments about the variety, attractiveness o f the text- 47 types & the familiarity, interest o f the topics in the textbook. Figure 13 The students’ judgments about the teaching-learning techniques in the 51 textbook. Figure 14 The teachers’ judgments about the teaching-learning techniques in the 51 textbook. Figure 15 The students’ some overall judgments about the textbook. 58 Figure 16 The teachers’ some overall judgments about the textbook. 57 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EPU Electric Power University GE General English ESP English for Specific M .A Master o f Arts B.A Bachelor o f Arts c.v Curriculum Vitae TESOL Teaching English to Speakers o f Other Languages AHI American Headway 1 Purposes TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................i ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES.......................................................................................... iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................V CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Background to the Study and Statement o f the Problem....................................................1 1.1.1. Overview o f Electric Power University........................................................................... 1 1.1.2. Statement o f the problem.................................................................................................2 1.2. Aims o f the study.............................................................................................................. 3 1.3. Research questions.............................................................................................................. 3 1.4. Limitations o f the study......................................................................................................4 1.5. Scope o f the study............................................................................................................... 4 1.6. Organization o f the study....................................................................................................5 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................... 6 2.1. Some basic concepts in the study....................................................................................... 6 2.1.1. Evaluation........................................................................................................................ 6 2.1.2. Needs................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1.3. Learning styles................................................................................................................. 7 2.1.4. Textbooks......................................................................................................................... 7 2.2. Materials Evaluation...........................................................................................................7 2.2.1 The role o f materials......................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2. Types o f materials evaluation......................................................................................... 8 2.2.3. Guidelines for evaluation................................................................................................ 9 2.2.3.1. Guidelines for evaluation by Cunningsworth (1995).................................................. 9 2.23.2. Guidelines for evaluation by Grant (1987).............................................................. 10 2.2.4. Types o f materials evaluators..................................................................................... 10 2.2.5. Evaluation models for materials evaluation................................................................11 2.2.5.1. Evaluation model by Hutchinson and Waters............................................................ 11 2.2.5.2. Evaluation model by McDonough & Shaw................................................................ 12 2.2.5.3. Evaluation model by E llis ............................................................................................14 2.2.6. Tools for gathering information....................................................................................15 2.3. Previous studies............................................................................................................. 18 2.4. Adapting materials.............................................................................................................19 2.4.1. Reasons for adapting materials...................................................................................... 19 2.4.2. Techniques for adapting materials................................................................................. 21 CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY......................................................................................... 25 3.1. Data collection tools.......................................................................................................... 25 3.1.1. The statement o f the existing inform ation.....................................................................25 3.1.2 Questionnaires................................................................................................................. 26 3.1.2.1. The statements o f the questionnaires........................................................................ 26 3.1.2.2. Question formats........................................................................................................ 27 3.1.2.3. Student questionnaires............................................................................................... 28 3.1.2.4. Teacher questionnaires...............................................................................................29 3.2. Subjects..............................................................................................................................30 3.2.1. The researcher as a subject.............................................................................................30 3.2.2. The teachers................................................................................................................... 30 3.2.3. The students....................................................................................................................31 3.3. Data collection procedures...............................................................................................31 3.3.1. Existing information collection procedures...................................................................31 3.3.1.1. Literature review..........................................................................................................31 3.3.1.2. The aims o f the course................................................................................................32 3.3.1.3. Textbook..................................................................................................................... 32 3.3.2. Teacher questionnaire collection procedures................................................................ 32 3.3.3. Student questionnaire collection procedures................................................................. 33 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................... 34 4.1. The results......................................................................................................................... 34 4.1.1. The fitness o f the textbook to the aims o f the course....................................................34 4.1.1.1. Statements o f aim s...................................................................................................... 34 4.1.1.2. Textbook analysis results............................................................................................34 vi 4.1.1.3. Questionnaire results...................................................................................................38 4.1.1.4. Matching and discussion.............................................................................................39 4.1.2. The fitness o f the textbook content to the students’ needs.......................................... 40 4.1.2.1. Textbook analysis results........................................................................................... 40 4.1.2.2. Questionnaire results.................................................................................................. 44 4.1.2.3. Matching and discussion............................................................................................ 48 4.1.3. The fitness o f the textbook methodology to the students’ learning styles and expectations.............................................................................................................................. 49 4.1.3.1. Textbook analysis results........................................................................................... 49 4.1.3.2. Questionnaire results................................................................................................... 51 4.1.3.3. Matching and discussion.............................................................................................52 4.1.4. Suggestions for the textbook improvement.................................................................53 4.1.4.1. Teacher questionnaire results..................................................................................... 54 4.1.4.2. Student questionnaire results..................................................................................... 55 4.2. Major findings.............................................................................................................. 56 4.2.1. Strong points.................................................................................................................. 56 4.2.2. Weak points.................................................................................................................... 56 CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION........................................ 59 5.1. Recommendations............................................................................................................. 59 5.1.1. Areas o f unfitness...........................................................................................................59 5.1.1.1. A im s............................................................................................................................ 59 5.1.1.2. Content........................................................................................................................ 59 5.1.1.3. Methodology...............................................................................................................60 5.1.1.4. Time allocated to lessons............................................................................................61 5.1.2. Techniques for adaptation........................................................................................... 61 5.1.2.1. Adding..........................................................................................................................61 5.1.2.2. M odifying.................................................................................................................... 66 5.1.2.3. Replacing.................................................................................................................... 69 5.1.3. A sample unit for adaptation....................................................................................... 69 5.1.3.1 Rationale for the adaptation........................................................................................ 69 5.1.3.2. Suggested adaptation................................................................................................... 69 5.2. Suggestions for further study.............................................................................................71 5.3. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 71 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 74 APPENDIX 1 .................................................................................................................................. 80 APPENDIX 2 .................................................................................................................................. 84 APPENDIX 3 .................................................................................................................................. 92 APPENDIX 4 ................................................................................................................................ 100 APPENDIX 5 ................................................................................................................................ 104 APPENDIX 6 ................................................................................................................................ 105 APPENDIX 7 ................................................................................................................................ 113 CH APTER I: IN TR O D U C T IO N 1.1. Background to the Study and Statement o f the Problem 1.1.1. Overview o f Electric Power University The School o f Electricity was established in 1966. Thanks to the development o f the country, the increasing requirement o f human resources in the field o f Electricity, the School o f Electricity has also been developing. It was upgraded into Electric Power College in 2001 and then Electric Power University (EPU) in 2006. Nowadays, EPU still maintains to train at three levels: junior college, college, and university in eight specialties: Electric Power System, Information Technology, Thermal Power Generation, Hydro Power, Automation Technology, Energy Management, Electric Mechanics, Electronic Mechanics, and Electronic Telecommunication. Up to now, EPU has not had an English Faculty yet. Therefore, English teaching which is a subject in Fundamental Science Faculty is undertaken by twelve female teachers. More than half o f them finished Master o f Arts (M .A) courses with English teaching experiences from 3 to 25 years. The student body has been increasing to the current number o f more than 2,000 because o f the high demand for human resources in the field o f Electricity. Their backgrounds o f English are varied since some had learnt English or other foreign languages at school, but those from mountainous areas either have never been exposed to a foreign language or have very low level o f English. English has been taught as a compulsory subject in EPU since 1996. Students study General English (GE) in two terms (150 periods) at three levels (university, college and junior college) and continue to learn English for Specific Purposes (ESP) in one term (60 periods) at two levels (university and college). English textbooks currently applied in EPU are diverse, including Lifelines, American Headway, Headway，and New Headway. Many meetings have been taking place in order to discuss the selection o f textbooks, to strengthen the quality o f English teaching and learning in EPU. The textbooks, yet, remain 1 problematic, especially for junior college students. In 2004, the system o f modules was designed and used. After two years, this system o f modules was replaced with the adoption o f American Headway Լ 2 by Soars, L. & J. (2001). However, the examination results have not considerably been improved. The students still have a lot o f difficulties in exploring the textbook. 1.1.2. Statement o f the problem Fostering the quality o f teaching and learning is always a burning problem o f each school. There are many factors which directly affect the training results, for instance, goals, materials, teaching, testing, equipments, and the students՜ attitude, etc. However, in the limited scope o f a thesis and with the expectation o f contributing partly to enhancing the quality o f English teaching and learning in EPU, the researcher made a decision to investigate, study a textbook- a kind o f material since it is one o f the important factors determining the quality o f teaching and learning. The textbook examined here is American Headway 1 (A H I) which is currently applied for the first-year junior college students in EPU. In addition, there are some other reasons which urged me to conduct this study as follows: In fact, English teaching and learning for the first-year junior college students in EPU still suffers from a lot o f restrictions. This is shown by the results o f the term-end examinations which have been low in recent years. More than 50% o f the students usually get the English marks below average and certainly these students have to retake the English course. A lot o f students may reluctantly learn English to face with the examinations. Furthermore, many teachers o f English have controversial views on the application o f A H I currently used for the junior-college students in EPU. As a teacher who has directly been teaching English in EPU, I may understand the most clearly about the existing problems. It is likely that A H I is a quite nice textbook both in content and form. The information is update as it was published in 2001. Nonetheless, it is not a perfect one, especially for the jun io r college students. Perhaps, it has some weaknesses, for example, some difficult grammatical structures, insufficient pronunciation practice, and so forth. Consequently, 2 most o f the students often make mistakes o f those grammatical structures or have wrong pronunciation o f some very basic words. So far, there have been just a small number o f studies about the materials evaluation, for instance, Nguyen Thi Hai Ha (2004)，Nguyen Thi Thanh Van (2004)，Tran Thi Thuy Nga (2005)，Hoang Hoa Lien (2005)，and Pham Thi Thanh Huong (2006) examined ESP materials; Le Thi Ngoe Diep (2006) and Vu Thi Yen Nga (2004) evaluated General English materials (Powerbase，Lifelines); Akin & Guceri (2001) and Ngo Thi Thu Huong (2007) assessed in-house materials, and so forth. Nevertheless, there has not been a thesis about the evaluation o f A H I by Soars, L. & J. yet. From the above reasons, the researcher decided to investigate, study, and adapt A H I currently used for the first-year junior college students in EPU. Hopefully, the study w ill be o f some significance to the researcher, the teachers, the first year junior college students, and the authorities in EPU as the findings o f the study w ill supply them with scientific evidence to either enhance the quality o f the textbook or to abandon it altogether. Moreover, this is also an opportunity for the researcher to learn to analyze a study, evaluate, and report about an issue before completing her Master o f Arts (M .A) course at Hanoi University. 1.2. Aims o f the study The study aims to find out how much A H I fits with the course aims and the students’ needs in terms o f the content and methodology. The unsatisfactory areas o f the textbook are, then, adapted to improve its effectiveness for future courses. 1.3. Research questions According to Cunningsworth (1995)，there are many criteria for textbook evaluation, for example, aims and approaches, design and organization, language content, skills, topic, methodology, teacher’ s book, and practical considerations. Due to various constraints and the limitations o f this study, only a number among these criteria can be evaluated in order to find the answers to the following research questions: 3 L How much do the aims o f A H I f it with the aims o f EPU's English program ? 2. How much does the content o f A H I satisfy the students ’ needs? 3. How responsive to the students ’ learning styles and expectations is the methodology provided in A H I? In order to answer the specific questions above, the researcher first reviews the literature on materials evaluation. Based on the theories in the literature, the researcher analyses the course aims and the textbook, and then carries out a survey to explore the teachers9 and judgments about the textbook. Finally, the researcher recommends the textbook adaptation. 1.4. Lim itations o f the study In this thesis, three factors might affect the outcomes o f the evaluation research as follows: First, the evaluators were all the insiders. Thus, their subjective points o f views may influence the textbook evaluation. Second, the suggested adaptations are just what the researcher thinks they should be, based on her specific teaching context in EPU. These suggestions, therefore, may be subjective and unsuitable for different students in a different teaching context. Finally, the researcher only applied three criteria and two data collection tools in order to evaluate the fitness o f the textbook to the aims o f the course and the students’ needs. 1.5. Scope o f the study A strong consensus has built up worldwide in recent decades in support o f a large number o f evaluative criteria suggested by some writers such as Cunningsworth (1984), Hutchinson & Waters (1987), McDonough & Shaw (1993)，Brown (1995)，Littlejohn (1998)，and Ur (1991). However, due to the time constraints, the researcher o f the study is only interested in Hutchinson & Waters (1987)’criteria in the textbook evaluation as follows: ♦ Aims o f the textbook. 4 ♦ Content o f the textbook (language points, language skills, text-types, and topics). ♦ Methodology o f the textbook (kinds o f activities/exercises, teaching-learning techniques, aids, flexibility, and language guidance). It is also noted that some sub-criteria chosen for the study are modified so that they are better suited to the researcher’ s particular teaching-learning context. 1.6. Organization o f the study The study is organized into five main chapters as follows: Chapter 1 discusses the background to the study and statement o f the problem, the aims, the research questions, the limitations, the scope, and the organization o f the study. Chapter 2 presents a review o f literature, concentrates on the issues relating to materials evaluation. Chapter 3 describes the data collection instruments, the subjects as well as the data collection procedures. Chapter 4 discusses the findings o f the study, points out the strengths and weaknesses o f the textbook. Chapter 5 presents solutions to improve the textbook, suggests for further study, and concludes the study. 5 C H APTER II : L IT E R A T U R E R E V IE W 2.1. Some basic concepts in the study The title o f the thesis and the research questions result in the demand for exploring some key concepts which are o f great importance before going more deeply into the study. 2.1.1. Evaluation There are a lot o f definitions o f materials evaluation, however, the one o f Hutchinson and Waters (1987) is likely to be the clearest because it provides a comprehensive understanding o f the evaluation process. They regard evaluation as a matter o f judging the fitness o f something for a particular purpose. 2.1.2. Needs In deed, the term needs is not as straightforward as it might appear. When we read or hear it, many words and expressions are triggered in our minds: uWants-Desires-DernandsExpectation-Motivations-Lacks-Constraints֊Requirements^^ (Brindley 1984: 28，cited in Richards 2001; 54). More specifically and practically, Robinson (1991; 7) considers needs as what the students themselves would like to gain from the language course. Needs can be classified into different types, for example, target needs and learning needs (Hutchinson & Waters 1987)，situation needs and language needs (Brown 1995)，etc. Yet, in brief, the term “ needs” is very broad one referring to the language demand o f the particular learners and local learning situation. Furthermore, five needs experienced by beginner students should be considered when analyzing the students’ needs. Those five needs are: the need to communicate effectively, the need to be familiar with the language systems, the need for challenge, the need to take on more responsibility for their own learning, and the need for cross-cultural awareness (Abbs & Freebaim 1990，cited in Cunningsworth 1995: 9 ᄀ). 6 2.1.3. Learning styles According to Richards, Platt & Weber...Richards et a l (1992: 61), a learning style can be considered the particular way in which a learner tries to learn something. In second or foreign language learning, different learners may prefer different solutions to learning problems. For example, some learners may want explanations for grammatical rules; others may not need explanations. Some learners may feel w riting down words or sentences helps them to remember the words or sentences. Others may find they remember things better i f they are associated with pictures. Obviously, a learner may have more than one learning styles, a teacher may also have different teaching styles, and a textbook may have various teaching-learning techniques. The problem is to have the unification among the learners, the teachers, and the textbook (Grant 1987: 11). 2.1.4. Textbooks Materials may be printed (books, worksheets, etc), non-printed (cassette or audio materials, videos, etc), or both printed and non-printed ones (self-access or the Internet ones) (Richards 2001; Brown 1995). A textbook, therefore, can be viewed as a kind o f materials. According to Richards (2001: 254-255), a textbook not only provides a structure and a syllabus for a program, a variety o f learning resources, effective language models and input but also helps standardize instruction or maintain quality, etc. However, a textbook may not reflect students’ needs. As a result, the impact o f a textbook on a program ，teachers, and learners has to be carefully assessed. 2.2. M aterials Evaluation 2.2.1 The role o f materials Teaching materials are also o f great importance in language classrooms and have undergone many fluctuations and dramatic shifts over the years. There are a lot o f different views on their roles. Yet, materials may have a great influence mainly on learners, teachers, and contexts. 7 For the learners, materials are regarded as sources for their language input, language practice, communicative interaction, useful learning aid, motivation, stimulation，and increase o f knowledge (Richards 2001; Cunningsworth 1995; Dudley-Evans & St. John 1998; Tomlinson 1998; and Grant 1987). For the teachers, materials are considered forms o f teacher training- they provide ideas on how to plan and teach lessons as well as formats that teachers can use, supports for less experienced ones who have yet to gain in confidence, and supports for saving them an extraordinary amount o f time (Richards 2001: 251; Cunningsworth 1995: 7). For the contexts, materials can function as syllabuses. These syllabuses reflect learning objectives that have already been determined, identify what and the order in which it should be taught/ learned，and indicate what methods should be used (Cunningsworth 1995: 7; Ur 1991: 184; and Grant 1987: 8). In addition, materials are valid, useful and labor-saving tools (Grant 1987，W illiam 1983，Ansary & Babaii 2002). As a result，A H I can be considered a syllabus in the case that there is not an English syllabus for the first-year junior college students in EPU. Nobody can deny the importance o f materials in an English course. However, teachers should keep away from much reliance on them which should be viewed as better servants than masters (Cunningsworth 1995: 15) because “ the perfect textbook does not exist.” (Grant 1987). 2.2.2. Types o f materials evaluation Robinson (1991: 59) proposes three types o f materials evaluation: preliminary, formative, and summative. Preliminary evaluation takes place before a course begins and involves selecting the most appropriate from the publications that are available. Formative evaluation is conducted while the course is ongoing so that modifications can be made to the materials whereas summative evaluation takes place at the end o f a course and addresses the question o f whether the materials have been effective. Cunningsworth (1995: 14) introduces three types o f materials evaluation: pre-use, in-use, and post-use which respectively take place before a course book is used, during its use and 8 after use. According to Cunningsworth, pre-use is the most difficult kind o f evaluation whilst post-use aims to identify strengths and weaknesses for future decisions. Richards (2001: 288-291) refers to three types: illuminative, formative, and summative. Illuminative evaluation seeks to find out how different aspects o f the program work or are being implemented. Formative evaluation focuses on ongoing development and improvement o f the program. Summative evaluation seeks to make decisions about the worth or value o f different aspects o f the curriculum and takes place after a program has been implemented. Although the different terms are used to demonstrate the types o f materials evaluation, they are basically similar. First, preliminary, pre-use, and illuminative evaluations mean a process to seek for good materials. Next, formative and in-use evaluations interpret how materials are being exploited. Certainly, summative and post-use evaluations are used to determine how effectively materials have been used. 2.2.3. Guidelines fo r evaluation 2.2.3.1. Guidelines fo r evaluation by Cunningsworth (1995) Cunningsworth (1995: 15-17) offers four guidelines in approaching any materials evaluation exercise as follows: ♦ Course books should correspond to learners’ needs. They should match the aims and objectives o f the language-learning program. ♦ Course books should reflect the uses (present or future) which learners w ill make o f the language. Select course books which w ill help to equip students to use language effectively for their own purposes. ♦ Course books should take account o f students’ needs as learners and should facilitate their learning processes, without dogmatically imposing a rigid 'method*. ♦ Course books should have a clear role as a support for learning. Like teachers, they mediate between the target language and the learner. 9 2.2.3.2. Guidelines fo r evaluation by G rant (1987) Grant (1987: 118-121) suggests the three stages o f evaluation: initial, detailed, and in-use. ♦ Initial evaluation involves the ‘ C ATALYST, test applied in the classroom. The eight letters in the word including с (Communicative) - A (Aims) - T (Teachability) - A (Available Add-ons) - L (Level) - Y (Your impression) - s (Student interest) ֊ T (Tried and Tested) represent the eight criteria by which the decision is made whether a textbook is suitable for the classroom. ♦ Detailed evaluation is carried out to decide how far the course book suits the student, the teacher, and the syllabus. Grant also provides a three ֊֊ part questionnaire which should be applied to one o f the textbook, i f possible, to two different textbooks and then should be discussed with colleagues. ♦ In-use evaluation deals with the constant evaluation by using the questionnaire supplied or modified and one can ensure that the teacher is the master, and not the slave, o f the textbook! These guidelines much help the researcher to have a comprehensive thinking o f materials evaluation during the evaluation process. 2.2.4. Types o f materials evaluators There are two types o f materials evaluators: insiders and outsiders (Tomlinson 1998; Dudley-Evans & St. John 1998; Robinson 1991; and Richards 2001). The outsiders are the ones who are not involved in the program, for example, consultants, inspectors, and administrators. They may provide an objective approach to their materials evaluation and can supplement the teachers’ perceptions o f what happens in a course with independent observation and opinions (Robinson 1991: 68; Richards 2001: 291). However, as no observer is truly objective, they w ill have their own views on language teaching methods, administrative procedures, etc. It w ill take them much time to be aware o f the local needs and constraints, too. 10