An Evaluation of Course

Materials for Language

Examination Purposes

Simona Petrescu

5000 words

1

Table of Contents I. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2

II. Section 1: Overview of Success with BEC Vantage ......................................... 3

1. Target population ......................................................................................... 3

2. Pack Components ........................................................................................ 3

3. View of needs ............................................................................................... 4

4. Syllabus ....................................................................................................... 4

5. External evaluation ....................................................................................... 5

III. Micro-analysis and evaluation .......................................................................... 7

1. Methods of evaluation .................................................................................. 7

2. Results ......................................................................................................... 8

IV. Overall evaluation .......................................................................................... 12

V. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 14

VI. APPENDIX 1.................................................................................................. 17

VII. APPENDIX 2 .............................................................................................. 19

2

I. Introduction

This paper aims to analyse and evaluate a Business English course pack preparing

learners for the Cambridge BEC Vantage examination (CEFR B2). The title in question is

Success with BEC Vantage by John Hughes, published by Summertown Publishing in 2008

(ISBN 978-3-526-51335-3).

The evaluation outlined in this paper will follow that proposed by McDonough, Shaw, &

Masuhara (2013). Thus, the first section will provide an external analysis of the material to

determine its intended audience, level, and aims; the course syllabus and the components of

the material pack will also be examined. The section will conclude by evaluating its

effectiveness and matching its claims to their realisation.

The second section of the paper will perform an internal evaluation by focusing on one

unit in the textbook. In this micro-evaluation I will examine aspects related to learner needs

with respect to exam requirements, e.g. exam training, validity and authenticity of tasks, but

also to overall methodological approach.

At both internal and external levels, evaluation will be distinguished from analysis

(Tomlinson, 2003). I will set out by analysing the features of the materials and will go on to

evaluate their effectiveness, by matching them to the materials’ stated aims and claims.

Littlejohn’s (2011) evaluation involves matching materials’ features to the target situation in

use, while Hutchinson and Waters (1987) propose a match to teacher’s context. Similarly, I

will evaluate Success with BEC Vantage by checking whether its claims related to exam

preparation are supported, incorporating findings from my actual use of the materials in two

exam-preparation courses (2012, 2013).

The evaluation process presented in this paper can also be mapped on

Cunningsworth’s (1995) pre-, in- and post-use evaluation. Before adopting this material I

examined it externally, while the internal evaluation was only possible during, and mostly

after, the course. As for the purpose of the evaluation exercise, this paper undertakes what

Cunningsworth calls evaluation for suitability, i.e. with a specific course in mind, as opposed

to that for potential.

3

II. Section 1: Overview of Success with BEC Vantage

1. Target population

The course materials are designed for adult learners preparing for BEC Vantage, but

are also suitable, according to the blurb, for “business people and students wishing to

improve their English and job prospects” (Hughes, 2008b). These claims entail a number of

further statements about the materials:

Level: the overall difficulty level is geared at CEFR band B2;

Context of use (McDonough, Shaw, & Masuhara, 2013): Business English

classes, business specialist knowledge not required but useful;

Use (McDonough, Shaw, & Masuhara, 2013): core material; selective use

depending on course aims; concerning BEC, it claims to provide “a complete

preparation” (Hughes, 2008b);

View of needs: apart from language and communication needs, the materials

undertake to address exam-specific needs, i.e. coverage of a specific syllabus

of items at a specific level of difficulty and complexity, provision of exam

information and sample tasks or models, practice of exam tasks.

2. Pack Components

The pack also includes a Teacher’s Book (TB), a Workbook (WB) available either with,

or without, answers, as well as two audio CD’s for the listening activities in the textbook.

The TB features the following:

reduced Student’s Book pages “for easy reference” (Hughes, 2008a) while

teaching,

detailed teaching notes and answer keys,

listening scripts,

extra photocopiable activities with accompanying notes, for each unit.

The WB is claimed to feature “interesting and motivating input and activities” which

“consolidate and extend” the main language and skills areas in the SB (Hughes, 2008a).

The textbook itself also includes supplementary material at the back, such as activity

files for pair work, lists of useful expressions per unit, listening scripts, and brief grammar

reference.

4

3. View of needs

The SB contents reveal the author’s modular approach. Units are split into three main

blocks: business topic, business skill, and exam spotlight (see Appendix 1). This reinforces

the statement made about target population and use; namely, that the course book aims to

cater for two types of needs – exam preparation and business communication in general.

The TB suggests that the SB content should be treated in a differentiated way, as follows:

learners intending to take the BEC exam should cover the entire book;

learners interested in grammar and vocabulary should only cover the Business

Topic sections;

learners particularly interested in business communication should only cover

the Business Skills sections;

learners interested in improving their language overall, but with no interest in

BEC should cover everything except the Exam Spotlight sections.

The business topics comprise a typical Business English range, from work,

recruitment, advertising to management or business ethics. The Business Skills section also

covers a typical sample of issues, such as making contact, presenting your company,

telephoning, or meetings. It becomes clear, therefore, that the writer considered the needs of

a generic business communicator in an international context.

Another significant point is that the author chooses to start from typical business

topics, breaking them down into various skills and language areas (vocabulary, grammar,

reading, speaking etc) while taking care to model tasks on BEC formats throughout the

book, not just in the Exam Spotlight sections. This suggests, first, that the author is aiming

for broad but systematic coverage of the topics typically encountered in business

communication. Secondly, he seems to be concerned with language needs mainly related to

accuracy and appropriateness, crucial for language examinations, accounting for the high

frequency of exam-type, focused pedagogical tasks, such as lexical clozes, multiple choice,

or mini-presentations.

4. Syllabus

The textbook is designed on a Type A syllabus (White, as cited in Long and Crookes,

1992) which details what needs to be learned through the authority of the teacher, or in the

present context, of the textbook author. Such a syllabus also views success as “achievement

or mastery” (p. 29) which ties in with the main goal of Success with BEC Vantage, namely, of

paving the way to exam success.

Like most ESP materials, as reviewed by McDonough, (2010), this textbook is also

designed on a topical syllabus (Richards, 2007). As mentioned above, each lesson starts

5

from a topic, which is then used as a context for a business skill and an exam task.

Horizontally, therefore, (Waters, 2009) the syllabus covers a spectrum of topics. Vertically, it

systematically packs within each unit a full range of language and business communication

skills.

Considering the book’s aim to provide exam preparation, the role of the syllabus

seems to match Hutchinson and Waters’ (1987) description of a language-centred approach.

More specifically, the material was most likely designed setting out from the BEC Vantage

specifications, with the activities and texts selected in a subsequent stage.

Regarding sequencing and grading, due to its topic-orientation the syllabus does not

display a visible grading path (Richards, 2001). The only rationale for the order of the units

might be the grading of the grammar structures, as Unit 1 revises present tenses, with Unit 2

looking at past, while lessons in the latter half of the book examine complex syntactic

patterns such as relative clauses or indirect questions.

5. External evaluation

As I mentioned in the Introduction, my evaluation relates to the use of Success with

BEC Vantage as an exam-preparation textbook. That is why the criteria I will consider have

been selected with a view to exam needs.

Before evaluating a textbook it is essential to decide what aspects of the material we

should look at (Littlejohn, 2011), as the numerous checklists proposed or reviewed by

researchers such as Tomlinson (2010), Cunningsworth (1995), Hutchinson and Waters

(1987), Mukundan and Ahour (2010) are either very general, or have an in-built judgment of

what is desirable for the materials to contain (Littlejohn, 2011, p. 181). McGrath (2002), citing

Grant, suggests an evaluation procedure starting from categories, to be detailed down to

individual criteria. The three categories proposed relate to teacher’s needs, learner’s needs

and requirements set by external curricula or examinations (p.41). However, he points out,

not all criteria, as well as not all categories will carry equal weight in any given teaching

context (p.42).

At the level of macro-evaluation in this section, my own categories of criteria are

related a) to teacher’s needs and b) to learner needs, both in view of exam preparation.

Teacher’s needs

Teacher’s needs refer, in this context, to the support teachers expect from a course

material. The course pack under examination provides a very helpful TB, with detailed

methodological guidance, word lists per unit and supplementary activities. Also, the clear

unit structure in the SB enables teachers to plan their lessons quickly, by splitting units in

goal-oriented blocks. This matches McGrath’s (2002) requirement of course materials to

6

have clear layout and pathways (p. 150), or Hutchinson and Waters’ (1987) criterion of

helping to organise the teaching-learning process (p. 107). Apart from the clear structure, it

is also the size of the units and modules which helps teachers deliver focused, self-

contained lessons, matching the requirement for manageability and feasibility listed by

McGrath (2002, p. 150).

Flexibility is a desirable feature present in numerous evaluation checklists, for example

in Tomlinson (2010). The bite-size format of the unit blocks makes it easy for teachers to

skip, combine or reorder sections in the material depending on the specific students’ needs.

On the downside, however, the course pack does not provide sample writing to

illustrate the genres relevant for the exam, so that the teacher needs to resort to other

sources or invest more classroom time in the discussion of the genre. Also, neither the SB

nor the TB provide a full overview of the BEC Vantage examination, which means that

teachers with less teaching experience and less familiarity with the exam will need to look

elsewhere for this information.

Another great deficiency is the absence of any practice tests – with a view to exam

preparation – or any progress tests or revisions – with a view to recycling acquired

knowledge.

Learner needs

Learner needs refer to students’ needs as learners (Cunningsworth, 1995, p. 16).

Course books cater for such needs by providing learning support and developing learner

independence. Success with BEC Vantage does this by means of a clear unit structure and

user-friendly layout, as well as by including back-of-the-book sections (grammar reference,

useful expressions, listening scripts) or the answer key to the WB. However, some of the

useful learning tools (word lists per unit, model answers to writing tasks, BEC Vantage

assessment criteria for Speaking and Writing) are only provided in the TB, which hardly

fosters learner independence:.

Another positive feature is the integrated approach both to communication skills and to

exam preparation, through the consistent inclusion of exam-type tasks throughout each unit,

covering all skills.

On the negative side, also mentioned under teacher’s needs is the absence of an

exam overview, which is an even greater disadvantage for learners than for teachers.

Students should be in a position to permanently relate what they are studying and practising

to the final requirements of the exam; also, they should be able to check at any time their

progress against the final goals set by the exam. The Exam Spotlight sections address exam

tasks individually, so that the learners are expected to piece up the puzzle at the end. This

relates to Long and Crookes’ (1992) analytical syllabuses, which provide the pieces and

leave the learners to assemble them for the big picture at the end of the course.

7

Following the initial, pre-use macro-evaluation, the language school delivering the

BEC-preparation course that I taught adopted the book. I was also briefly consulted and

agreed with their choice; my long experience with BEC helped me minimize the

disadvantages of the course pack not providing sufficient exam support. My main reason for

adopting the pack was the structured, manageable unit structure.

III. Micro-analysis and evaluation

1. Methods of evaluation

Following Littlejohn’s (2011) framework for materials evaluation, we need first to

establish what we are going to examine in or about the materials. As this section deals with

a sample unit, in a detailed analysis, we are clearly directing our attention to what Littlejohn

calls “Design” (p. 183) features, i.e., to do with the thinking behind the material. But since I

am analysing a textbook as an exam-preparation tool, my criteria will need to be specified for

such aims. The existing checklists are unsuitable for my purposes not just for the reasons

quoted from Littlejohn (2011), but also because exam preparation represents a more specific

teaching-learning goal; criteria like appeal, flexibility, cultural appropriateness, or an

educational character of the materials are either of secondary importance when working

towards a very specific goal such as an exam, or already built-in with the exam syllabus

itself.

Drawing on McGrath (2002) citing Grant, I am now going to examine the material by

considering mainly student needs and exam requirements (p.41). Over the years of teaching

exam preparation I have developed an empirical agenda in selecting my course materials,

which neatly fit in with Grant’s categories. The items to do with lesson / unit design, relevant

for this section, are listed below:

i. Coverage of topic: the lesson must equip the learners with the relevant

vocabulary, appropriate to the level, but also with the related conceptual input

that they might be expected to address in the exam, e.g. in Speaking;

ii. Appropriate frequency of exam-type practice activities: exam tasks (or similar)

need to be embedded throughout the lesson;

iii. Task validity and authenticity: exam-type activities must have a sound design

and should be accurately modelled on live exam tasks;

iv. Exam training: the material should provide sufficient tips and models, and

should develop exam strategies and familiarity with exam requirements;

v. Suitable teaching methodology: the material should be designed on a

methodological approach mirroring the exam’s (Tomlinson, 2010, p. 95). In this

case, a communicative methodology, matching the design of Cambridge

8

exams, grounded on principles such as language-in-context, holistic approach

anchored in meaning, learners involvement, integrated skills.

The criteria listed above will be detailed in the following section, where I am examining

unit 7 from Success with BEC Vantage. A scanned copy of this unit is available in Appendix

2.

2. Results

i. Coverage of topic

The overarching topic in unit 7 is “sales”. The first unit block is dedicated to the topic

itself; the second (“Business Skills”) addresses the related skill of selling, while the final

block (“Exam Spotlight”) looks at the BEC Vantage Reading Part 1, which is exemplified by a

suite of short job adverts. From this first glance doubts can arise as to the thematic link of

the Exam Spotlight section to the rest of the unit.

At a closer examination, the first unit block, claiming to address Sales, sets out from a

reading activity based on a text pointing out how wrongly a career in sales is perceived. The

lead-in speaking task focuses in fact on comparing jobs. The focus-on-form rounding up this

reading is done by a short vocabulary matching exercise which is entitled “Sales terms”.

However, the vocabulary extracted from the text is not necessarily a set of “sales terms”, as

words like “buzz”, “myth”, “air” or “jollies” appear in a multitude of other contexts. In Figure 3

you can see, for example, a screenshot from the results displayed by Just the Word, a free

corpus listing BNC content, for “get a buzz”.

The lesson moves on to a second reading, making up the rest of the Business Topic

block in unit 7. This text is also about jobs, this time not remotely linked with the topic of

sales. The focus-on-form is done through vocabulary (words to describe jobs) and grammar

(comparisons), rounded up by an over-to-you type of speaking task, entitled “comparing

jobs”.

The second module of the lesson consistently deals with selling, first as a professional

and interpersonal skill (p. 70-71) and then as a writing skill, focusing on proposals, which are

sales-related documents. However, the last module of the unit, introducing part 1 of the BEC

Vantage Reading paper, is again disconnected from the unit topic. In fact, it seems to aim

towards some thematic coherence with the first module of the lesson, in that they are both

related to jobs, but in this way the Sales topic of the lesson has been for the best part

hijacked.

ii. Exam-type practice

9

The unit offers plenty of exam-like tasks, such as the reading and writing ones.

Speaking and listening are also practised in similar patterns of design as in the BEC exam,

for instance matching speaker to main idea (listening), or compare and contrast jobs

(speaking).

iii. Task validity and authenticity

Tasks are here discussed in the meaning of pedagogical tasks (Long & Crookes,

1992). I am using the term task validity to describe a task that is designed so that the rubric,

the input, and the expected output do not conflict with each other. For example, if a multiple-

choice reading a) rubric specifies that there is only one answer possible, b) the TB key

indicates one, but c) the input text leaves room for several answers, there is obviously a

conflict and I call this problem task invalidity. Task authenticity, echoing for example Waters’

(2009) discussion of authenticity, refers, in my evaluation, to a pedagogical task that

replicates the task in the context of language use envisaged; in my case, a task that faithfully

replicates the parameters of BEC exam tasks. I will not expect every pedagogical task to be

authentic in this sense; but I will check task authenticity for those pedagogical tasks that

adopt the format of BEC tasks, thus claiming to replicate them.

My in-use, micro-evaluation has revealed that all reading tasks in the unit have at least

one questionable answer. Multiple-choice questions 1 and 3 for the comprehension task on

pages 66-67, for example, have two possible answers; it is very difficult for the teacher to

advocate the suitability of only one answer, provided by the key. On page 68, the reading

task attempts to replicate part 1 of BEC Vantage Reading, with fewer items, but for question

1 answer B relies on matching “the same every day” to “boring”, which is hardly suitable for a

B2 level. Also, for the answer to question 2 there is no evidence in any of the extracts, which

is not merely questionable under validity concerns, but also under authenticity with respect

to BEC Vantage Reading part 1. According to the BEC Handbook for Teachers (2008), part

1 is a matching exercise focusing mostly on “the identification of specific information and

detail, although some questions may focus on gist” (p. 53), which means that the answers to

the items must be retrievable from the text itself. According to the preparation advice

supplied further on by the Handbook, this is an exercise where paraphrasing is crucial (p.

54). By contrast, question 2 requires learners to interpret the information and make

inferences beyond the text itself.

Finally, for question 2 in the Exam Spotlight reading students may well decide in the

end that D is a safer choice, but doubts may persist as to why the job in A does not also

answer the question, since its creation is due to a recently-built conference centre. The

formulation of item 6 might have also been less ambiguous; a degree is indeed explicitly

required in only one extract (B), but the wording leaves room for the students’ own

10

interpretation, so that they might argue that one must also have a degree (in Finance) for the

job in D.

Turning to the listening task on page 71, we notice that it also aims to provide listening

practice within a BEC format (matching) and for an exam-relevant skill (identifying gist). The

scripts are provided here. It could be argued that item 1 is extremely easy, since the word

advertising itself is explicit, surrounded also by an easily identifiable semantic field (radio,

mailshots). But the more problematic aspects arise with items 3, 4 and 5. The answer to Item

3 (stationery) depends on catching and understanding one single word, letterheads. Item 4 is

about a product that is practically outdated in the digital era, so validity might be a problem

here, as learners are expected not just to understand the gist, but to possess certain

knowledge of the world. Item 5 has no clear answer, as the script does not provide sufficient,

and sufficiently specific, clues. The answer provided in the key, home improvements /

insulation, either requires learners to catch a single phrase (as for item 3) or to make

guesses and inferences beyond the text itself, which might also lead them to vocabulary

problems or face them with the same issue of possessing the right knowledge of the world.

What are home improvements – insulation?, interior design? Etc. This raises questions on

the item’s validity, but also implicitly on the item’s authenticity, as the corresponding BEC

listening task tests this skill by a) having candidates match, not generate by themselves, the

gist, and b) excluding the possibility of finding the answer by simple “word match” (BEC

Handbook for teachers, 2008, p. 70).

There are further problems with this listening task. It requires learners to match

extracts to the steps mentioned in the text on page 70, but the text includes two “steps” that

cannot be followed or failed, because they are not actually steps, i.e. tips, rather general

statements about selling. Further, the second listening is performed on a gap-fill exercise

which is extremely easy. Answers are provided in a straightforward manner and it is only

hearing ability that is required. Although I cannot support my statement with assessment

data, I have found in class that such an exercise is too easy for level B2. It is also hardly

motivating to listen to the extracts for a third time only to extract the functional language in

exercise 5.

iv. Exam training

The unit gives practice in a variety of skills and the tasks are mostly modelled on BEC

formats, providing ample opportunity for students to become familiar with the exam, although

the quality of the individual tasks is not consistent, as I explained above.

There are two sections in the unit where exam training is particularly necessary. First,

in the Exam Spotlight section. Apart from a small advice box and a brief description of the

exam task, there is little further guidance as to the procedure and strategies needed to deal

with this task effectively. This is one of the trickiest reading tasks in Cambridge exams, as it

11

requires candidates to skim and scan, which are techniques that learners need to become

aware of and perform with confidence. Also, in the economy of the Reading paper, this task

is supposed take the shortest time, as the following tasks will require more attention to detail.

The material on pages 74-75 provides very little support both regarding reading techniques

and the issue of timing. This is a disadvantage for learners, but also points to a lack of

consideration of the teachers’ different degrees of familiarity with the exam, or their overall

teaching experience.

Secondly, pages 72-73 introduce a genre (proposal) that candidates may be required

to produce in the Writing paper. Students are offered a model on page 72, but there is no

minimal genre analysis to assist learners in understanding and subsequently reproducing the

genre. What is more confusing is that the proposal is presented in a fax format;

professionally less experienced learners, such as pre-service trainees, may not distinguish

features of a fax from those of a proposal. With no writing file section at the back of the book

(see my macro-evaluation), it is again up to the teacher to select a sample proposal, suitable

for BEC, to discuss and examine in class.

v. Methodology

The material design is clearly grounded on a communicative view of language

teaching and learning. It meets most relevant criteria proposed, e.g. by Tomlinson (2010):

activities are fully contextualised (p. 94), learners are involved holistically (p. 93) and are

provided with opportunities to use the target language (p. 96). The unit offers great variety of

activities and a balanced weight of skills. The reading on pages 66-67 is sequenced from a

lead-in involving the learners and encouraging their output, moving on to a holistic initial

approach to the text, followed by detailed reading and concluded by a focus on language.

Similarly, the grammar on page 69 emerges from the previous discussion of jobs and the

preceding vocabulary, is then practised in a contextualised way, i.e. within a text, concluded

by an oral output task. It is also a good example of integrating skills and of anchoring

grammar practice in a meaning-oriented activity, by working on a text describing exam

conditions.

vi. Micro-evaluation: Unit 7

Overall, unit 7 is designed on a sound communicative approach, involving learners,

providing variety, integrating skills and making language work meaningful. The material

offers plenty of exam practice, covering all four skills in exam-similar formats. However,

exam training, in the form of explicit guidance as to models, strategies and techniques, is

minimal and the validity and exam-referenced authenticity of individual tasks leave to be

12

desired. Finally, the topic itself (sales) is hijacked, which means that the exam syllabus is not

fully covered; this amounts, firstly, to vocabulary deficiencies and, secondly, to insufficient

exposure of learners to content issues, potentially leading to inadequate performance in the

exam, be it in receptive, or in productive, skills. A final remark is that jobs is a topic partly

addressed also in units 1, 2 and 6, which makes it redundant in unit 7.

One solution to drawbacks of course materials is obviously to adapt them. In my first

course on this book I left, for example, the Reading on page 68 as homework, I skipped

activities 5, 6 and 7 on page 71, and I photocopied and discussed in class the sample

proposal from the TB instead of asking students to write it. In the second course on this book

I decided to replace unit 7 with my own materials covering sales concepts, vocabulary and

typical discussion points.

However, the book’s poor design as a learning tool towards BEC outweighs its user-

friendly, communicative qualities if it is used in exam courses. That is why my decision,

based on such a micro-evaluation, is to stop using it again in the future for exam-preparation

purposes.

I should mention here that the objections I have made in this paper to unit 7 draw on

actual difficulties that arose in class, e.g. from students’ queries, confusion or boredom, and

therefore do not reflect any conceivable attempt to find fault with the material.

IV. Overall evaluation

The findings of my macro- and micro-, as well as of the in-use evaluation are

summarized in the diagrams below. Some of the criteria for in-use evaluation draw on

Tomlinson (2003).

13

Figure 1

Figure 2

On balance, my macro-evaluation procedure, mostly a pre-use procedure in my case,

concluded by adopting Success with BEC Vantage, while the micro-evaluation pointed to the

opposite decision. Similarly, the pre-use evaluation led to adopting the book and using it for

two consecutive courses (2012 and 2013), while the in-use evaluation gradually steered

towards a negative stance.

14

In particular, the micro-evaluation revealed a host of negative aspects to do with the

book’s adequacy regarding exam preparation. Moreover, one of the in-use findings after the

coverage of about 50% of the book pointed to an inappropriate difficulty level of the material.

While the students (in two different courses) were facing no challenge solving the exercises

in SB or WB, with occasional yawns, they scored only a statistical mean of 50-60% in their

first BEC Vantage mock test based on past papers. Their exam results, too, at the end of the

course, failed to match their confident performance in the classroom activities.

In systematizing in-use data, McGrath (2002) suggests three main aspects to consider:

the amount of the material that was usable without adaptation, whether such sections

worked well, as well as the changes that were, or would be, required in future (p. 181). In my

overall, post-use evaluation, going back to Grant’s (1987, as cited in McGrath, 2002, p.41)

three categories of needs, I consider the learner’s needs with respect to exam requirements

to be central. That is why the negative features highlighted in the in-use evaluation,

correlated with the amount of material that I have had to adapt or replace altogether, as well

as with the students’ final results in BEC Vantage, call upon a withdrawal of the materials

from the future course curriculum.

V. Conclusion

In this paper I have evaluated Success with BEC Vantage (2008). My evaluation

procedure went from a macro- to a micro-examination of the materials and was performed,

as a real-life process, before, during and after using the course pack in class. Moreover, my

post-use conclusions are based on two different courses taught with these materials. I have

tried to demonstrate in this paper that the pack is not suitable as an exam-preparation

material, although it may be quite a stimulating book for general Business English classes.

I have found it difficult, in searching for a suitable evaluation tool, to relate to existing

checklists proposed both from a researcher’s and a teacher’s perspective (Gilmore, 2012).

There were two main reasons for this. First, the length and with it the generalization level

made the checklists hardly practical: either short but very vague, or specific but very long

and detailed. Second, the relevance of such checklists was very low, considering the fact

that I was examining a textbook for very specific purposes. Learning goals to do with real-life

language use are centred on language development, while learning goals to do with exam

preparation have more immediate concerns and may prioritise the development of certain

skills within certain formats, at a pace often dictated by practical aspects external to learning

itself. The framework proposed by McGrath (2002), drawing on Grant, enabled me to

integrate my empirical criteria within a set of principles which connected teaching, learning

and external requirements such as exams.

15

References

Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.

Gilmore, A. (2012). Comparative Book Review: Materials evaluation and design in language

teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 250-262. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000607

Hughes, J. (2008a). Success with BEC Vantage. Student’s Book. Summertown Publishing.

Hughes, J. (2008b). Success with BEC Vantage. Teacher’s Book. Summertown Publishing.

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A Learning-Centred

Approach. Cambridge University Press.

Littlejohn, A. (2011). The analysis of language teaching materials: inside the Trojan Horse. In

B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching (pp.179-211).

Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 28 December 2013, from

http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=305509.

Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design.

TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27-56. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587368

McDonough, J. (2010). English for specific purposes: a survey review of current

materials. ELT journal, 64(4), 462-477. Doi:10.1093/elt/ccq060

McDonough, J., Shaw, C., & Masuhara, H. (2013). Materials and Methods in ELT. A

Teacher’s Guide. Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved 14 January 2014, from

http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=447050 .

McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press.

Mukundan, J., & Ahour, T. (2010). A Review of Textbook Evaluation Checklists across Four

Decades (1970-2008). In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Research for Materials

Development in Language Learning: Evidence for Best Practice (pp. 336-352).

Continuum. Retrieved 29 December 2013, from http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=291251.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge

University Press.

Tomlinson, B. (2010). Principles of effective materials development. In N. Harwood (Ed.),

English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice (pp.81-108). Cambridge

University Press.

16

Tomlinson, B. (Ed). (2003). Developing materials for language teaching. London:

Continuum.

University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations (2008). BEC. Business English Certificates:

Handbook for teachers.

Waters, A. (2009). Advances in materials design. In M. H. Long, & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The

Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 311-326).

Doi:10.1002/9781444315783.ch18/pdf

17

VI. APPENDIX 1

18

Back

19

VII. APPENDIX 2

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Back

29

Figure 3: Concordancer results for “get a buzz”

Back

Figure 3

30

Audio script for listening Unit 7 page 71

Back