Content uploaded by Akbar Azizifar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Akbar Azizifar on Nov 09, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 3 (2010) 36–44
A
vailable online at www.sciencedirect.com
1877-0428 © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.010
Telling ELT Tales out of School
An analytical evaluation of Iranian high school ELT textbooks from
1970 to the present
Akbar Azizifara*, Mansour Kooshaa, Ahmad R. Lotfia
aIslamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
Elsevier use only: Received date here; revised date here; accepted date here
Abstract
Textbooks play a very crucial role in the process of language teaching and learning. The present study carries out an evaluation
of two series of ELT textbooks used for teaching English language in Iranian high schools from 1965 to the present. For this
purpose, Tucker’s (1975) textbook evaluation model is employed. The results suggest that one of the main factors for the
students’ achievement in English language is the ELT textbooks. The researchers suggest that in the textbooks, there should be
enough opportunity for the learners to practice the language they are learning communicatively.
© 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Key words: English language teaching; English language learning; text book design; text book evaluation; communication; ach ievement
1. Introduction
Textbooks are important resources for teachers in assisting students to learn every subject including
English. They are the foundation of school instruction and the primary source of information for teachers. In Iran, in
practice textbooks serve as the basis for much of the language input learners receive and the language practice that
takes place in the classroom. For the EFL learners, the textbook becomes the major source of contact they have with
the language apart from the input provided by the teacher. Hutchinson and Torres (1994) suggest that the textbook is
an almost universal element of English language teaching and no teaching-learning situation, it seems, is complete
until it has its relevant textbook.
Textbook evaluation is an applied linguistic activity through which teachers, supervisors, administrators and
materials developers can “make judgments about the effect of the materials on the people using them" (Tomlinson,
et al 2001, p. 15). McGrath (2002) believes that textbook evaluation is also of an important value for the
development and administration of language learning programmes.
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: aazizifar2@gma il.com
Akbar Azizifar et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 3 (2010) 36–44 37
As far as the review of literature is concerned, in Iran several projects have been carried out to eva luate
textbooks, among which Ansary and Babaii (2002), Yarmohammadi (2002), and Amalsaleh (2004) are typical
examples.
Ansary and Babaii (2002) analyzed a corpus of 10 EFL/ESL textbook reviews plus 10 EFL/ESL textbook
evaluation checklists and outlined what they perceived to be the common core features of standard EFL/ESL
textbooks. The major categories comprise approach, content presentation, physical make-up, and administration
concerns. Each set of major features of EFL/ESL textbooks consists of a number of subcategories. They concluded
the article mentioning that not all of these characteristics would be present in each and every textbook.
Yarmohammadi (2002) evaluated the senior high school textbooks based on a revised version of Tucker’s
model. He came to the conclusion that these textbooks suffer from a lot of shortcomings: 1. they are not authentic; 2.
English and Persian names are used intercha ngeably; and 3. oral skills are ignored. At the end, some suggestions
were proposed to remedy the shortcomings.
Amalsaleh (2004) examined the representation of social factors in three types of textbooks, including junior and
senior high school textbooks, based on Van Leeuwen's model (1996). According to the results, generally, the
textbooks demonstrated a deferential representation of social factors that tended to portray female as performers
belonging to a home context and having limited job opportunities in society. In particular, high school textbooks
tended to shape normative views of gender and class relations in which a middle-class urban male was considered to
be the norm.
Regarding the studies mentioned, a comprehensive study is still urgently needed to allow a subsequent
assessment of the amount of us e of different pronunciation points, grammatical structures, and content forms in t he
Iranian high school English language textbooks.
1.1. Objectives
Many teachers and school authorities believe that there are different factors involved in the Iranian students’
achievement in English language. One of these factors may refer to the quality and characteristics of textbooks used
in the process of English language teaching in the country. The present study believes that having a greater
knowledge of materials development can help teachers, learners, textbook developers and the educational authorities
to find new ways for improving the quality of textbooks and consequently the quality of teaching and learning
English in the country’s educational system. The results of the study is hoped to benefit English language teachers,
learners, and textbook developers to improve their teaching, learning, and designing of the textbooks. As such, the
study seeks answers to the following questions:
RQ1. How are the pronunciation points, content, and grammar dealt with in “Graded English” (henceforth: GE)
series?
RQ2. How are the pronunciation points, content, and grammar dealt with in “Right Path to English”
(henceforth: RPE) series?
2. Method
2.1. Materials
The materials of this study are the two locally produced series of English language textbooks used in Iranian
high schools since1970. In order to be more specific based on simple random sampling procedure the researchers
select and focus on Book Two of each of these series. The ser ies are:
a. Series of GE books published by the Ministry of Education in 1970, and
b. The series of RPE books by Birjandi in 1985.
2.2. Instrument
To conduct the evaluation, Tucker’s (1975) evaluating model was used. Then, the researchers used the ideas
and suggestions of different experienced persons in the field of textbook evaluation both in Iran and abroad -
including Brian Tomlinson- and provided a modified version of Tucker’s (1975) evaluating model for the study.
Tucker (1975) believes that a system for evaluating textbooks should include basic linguistic, psychological, and
pedagogical principles. Accordingly, he discusses four main categories: pronunciation, grammar, content, and
g
eneral cr iteria. Each cate
g
or
y
has some subdivisions.
38 Akbar Azizifar et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 3 (2010) 36–44
The rating scheme used with the model is based on three scales:
1. The Value Scale (VS) shows the relative weight assigned to each one of the mentioned criteria by the evaluator. It
consists of a score of 0 to 5.
2. The Merit Scale (MS) delineates the evaluator
’
s judgment of the text in relation to any specific criterion. It ranks
from 0 through 4 numerically. A score of 0 shows that the evaluator considers the text totally lacking any merit in
that respect; conversely, a score of 4 reveals the ideality of the book
’
s merit by a specific criterion.
3. The Value Merit Product (VMP), which is a combination of the importance of the criterion and the merit of t he
book, can be obtained by the value score times the merit score.
2.2.1. Modifications on Tucker
’
s model
Tucker
’
s model focuses on those elements which are generally considered fundamental to a structural syllabus.
However, the researchers want to go a bit further and evaluate the textbooks from the standpoint of communicative
language learning and teaching. Thus, Tucker
’
s model is modified to fulfill the objectives of this research.
Since this study focuses on pronunciation, grammar, and content of the mentioned textbooks, the general
criteria in Tucker
’
s system are not directly relevant. Thus, they are excluded from the version adapted here.
3. Analysis & Discussion
This part presents the analyses and results of the data collected and their interpretations. As noted earlier,
Tucker’s (1975) modified model is applied to serve the purpose of the study. The data used in this study was
collected through the analysis of GE and RPE series used for the teaching of English in Iranian high schools.
3.1. Pronunciation
In this section, the presentation of pronunciation points in GE and RPE series are analyzed. T he presentation of
pronunciation is evaluated on the basis of three criteria: completeness of presentation, appropriateness of
presentation, and adequacy of practices.
3.1.1. Pronunciation in GE
Completeness of presentation: Fries and Pike (Paulston and Bruder, 1976) classify English consonants as below:
p, b, t, d, k, g, f, v, θ, ð, s, z, š, ž, h, č, ĵ, m, n, ŋ, r, l, w, y.
The consonants presented in the GE series consist of the following: t, d, v, θ, ð, s, z, ŋ, w.
Considering the consonants of Fries and Pike’s system, GE does not present the following consonants: /p/, /b/,
/k/, /g/, /f/, / š/, / ž/, /h /, / č /, / ĵ /, /m /, /n /, / r/, / l/, and /y /.
The following initial clusters are also practiced in GE: st, bl, pl, kl, sk, sl, sp, br, dr, gr, fl. But there are some
other initial clusters of two and three consonants that are not presented in GE: fr, gl, pr, tr, θr, sw, spr, str.
The following vowels are presented and practiced in the GE series: i, i:, u, u:, e, ^ ,
ə.
Considering the Fries-Pike’s system, the following vowels are not introduced in GE: æ, o, э. The first two vowels
exist in Persian though they are slightly different. The third one does not exist in Persian (Yarmohammadi, 1987);
therefore, it should have been presented in a series such as GE.
Considering supra-segmentals; stress is treated from the outset in GE series. The stress of almost all the words
which have more than one syllable is displayed though only the primary stress is emphasized. Also, sentence-stress
and the stress of some expressions, e.g. good morning, are practiced in GE. Two main intonation patterns -rising and
falling- of English are dealt with in GE series.
On the whole, in GE, pronunciation is largely identified with the articulation of individual sounds and, to a
lesser extent, with the stress and intonation patterns of the target language. Consonants, clusters, vowels, stress, and
intonation are presented. However, some important points are missing in the presentation of consonants, clusters,
and vowels. English syllabic /m/, /n/, /l/, and /r/ are of much importance. Also, diphthongs, pitch, and juncture are
not presented in GE at all. Therefore, the scor e of the GE’s merit would be 2.
Appropriateness of presentation: As far as the linguistic background of Persian students is concerned, the authors of
GE try to present the materials on the basis of a contrastive analysis of Persian and English (Manuchehri, 1971).
However, as it was discussed earlier, some of the sounds (syllabic /m/, /n/, /l/, and /r/, etc) which are points of
difficulty for Persian students are not dealt with in GE.
Akbar Azizifar et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 3 (2010) 36–44 39
Anyhow, the CA of Persian and English sound systems has been the source for the selection and gradat ion of
some of the English sounds in GE. The following segmentals are presented in groups with reference to the above
mentioned source:
/i/ and /i:/, / ð / and /d/, /θ/ and /t/, /u:/ and /u/, and /w/ and /v/.
A few segmentals are presented in groups because of their voiced/voiceless distinction. For example, / ð / and
/θ/, and /t/ and /d/.
Considering the inappropriate presentation of some English segmental and also some pronunciation points
which are difficult for Persian students, the merit score of GE would be 1.5.
Adequacy of practice: Repetition drills r epresent the only manner in which the sound system of English is practiced
in GE. The learners are expected to produce the sounds in words without having the opportunity to discriminate
between similar sounds. Moreover, all the consonants and vowels are presented in words, but words - and
consequently the sounds - are not practiced in sentences.
Tucker (1975) believes that the quantity of materials for pronunciation practice should be adequate. It is while,
/ə/, / ^/, / ŋ /, and /u / sounds are not practiced adequately in GE.
Since pronunciation is practiced through just one technique and the segmentals are practiced only in words, and
finally since the practice of some sounds is not adequate as far as the CA of English and Persian sound systems is
concerned, it would be justified to score GE’s merit as 1 as far as the adequacy of practice is concerned.
3.1.2. Pronunciation in RPE
Unfortunately, pronunciation is nearly neglected in RPE. There are just a few fragmentary explanations on the
pronunciation of present and past tense suffixes. It is explained, for instance that "s" added to third person singular
verbs in simple present may sound /z/, /s/, or /Iz/. Also, it is said in RPE that /d/ should be added to voiced final
sounds such as in "Listened", etc. Obviously, these linguistic descriptions would not help the learners to l earn the
English sound system. Therefore, the merit score of pronunciation for RPE would be 0.
3.2. Grammar
Grammar in GE and RPE is analyzed and evaluated on the basis of adequacy of pattern invent ory, appr opriate
sequencing, adequacy of drill model and pattern displays, and finally adequacy of practice.
3.2.1. Adequacy of pattern inventory.
GE – In Book T wo the concentr ation is on the simple past along with the distinction between mass and count nouns.
Also, comparison - "Ahmad is as old as Mina," "He is taller than …," "She is more beautiful than …" - and two
auxiliary verbs (must and may) are presented in Book Two.
Although there are some compound nouns in GE, they are not distinguished from nouns as modifiers. Tucker
(1975) believes that such a distinction should be included in any beginning text.
The presentation of grammatical patterns in GE is satisfactory enough to score its merit as 3.
RPE – Book Two off ers two tenses (present continuous and simple past), three modal verbs (can, should, may), and
distinguishes between mass and count nouns. It seems that the presentation of adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, and
possessives in RPE is sufficient as far as the level of the series is concerned. Yet, it presents a few conjunctions in
Book 2. It does not differentiate between nouns as modifiers and compound nouns either. Therefore, it would be fair
to score RPE’s merit as 3.
3.2.2. Appropriate Sequencing
GE – Although the verb "to be" is irregular, in majority of the available texts it is presented very early because of its
very high functional load. GE seems to follow the same order; however, it presents WH questions—e.g. what time is
it? – before yes/no questions – e.g. are you a student? Since WH questions involve more transformations than yes/no
quest ions, it would be mor e appropriate that the latter pr ecedes the for mer.
The first four lessons of Book Two review the basic structures introduced in Book One. Mass and count nouns
and how many / much questions are the structures presented in lessons 5 and 6. First, mass and count nouns are
distinguished, then, how many / much questions are introduced. Although these two successive units show an
appropriate sequencing, how many / much questions do not appear in the remaining lessons. Of course, how many
/much questions do appear in some of the drills in Book Two; nevertheless, their appearance is a mechanical review
40 Akbar Azizifar et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 3 (2010) 36–44
of these structures. In fact, the learner is only reminded of the structures practiced earlier in the book. Possessive
forms, simple past tense, comparison, and some modal verbs make up the basic structures sequenced successively in
Book Two.
On the whole, GE presents the structures as isolated and loosely related blocks. Sometimes the blocks have no
specific relationship and it is not clear why they are arranged in this or that way. As such, the merit score of
sequencing in GE would be 2.
RPE – Book Two begins with the present continuous tense only in the statement form. Negative and question forms
of this tense are not dealt with, the reason of which is not clear. The simple past tense of the verb "to be" with its
various forms is presented in lessons 3 and 4. This is a new area which has no relationship with what comes before
and after it, because in lessons 5, 6, 7, and 8 adjectives, possessives, mass / count nouns and how much / many
questions are introduced. Moreover, all of these structures are constructed in the pr esent tense. After that the past
tense of regular and irr egular verbs is dealt with and finally three modal verbs are introduced.
The structures are presented in isolated blocks. Some of the units could be switched around without disturbing
the order. In Book Two, ther e is not a profound sequencing of the grammatical str uctures. Therefor e, the RPE’s
merit would be scored as 2.
3.2.3. Adequacy of drill model and pattern displays
GE – Grammar in GE is to be practiced through oral and written drills. Although the instructions to some of the
drills specify the modality, var ious ot her drills are not often clearly distinguished. The age and the level of the
learners require each dr ill (or group of drills) to be clearly defined and restricted in terms of the appr opriate
modality. For example, it is not explained how to do drills with titles such as “Change into questions”, “Change
from ‘now’ to ‘every day’”. Moreover, different instructions are used for the same types of drills, e.g. “Complete the
following”. “Fill in the missing words”, “Fill in the blanks”. It would more appropriate to use one instruction for
similar kinds of drills as far as the age and level of the learners are concerned. Also, drills of the same modality (e.g.
oral) should be grouped together so that the learners could discern easily how they should do the drills.
New patterns are usually written under each other. Vertical lines separate identical grammatical structures (e.g.
subjects, verbs) so that the learners could discern the identical structures. Unfortunately, boxes, arrows, and other
graphical devices that could help the learners to understand various patterns are not used in GE. Because of the
above-cited deficiencies in drill model and pattern displays of GE, its merit score would be 2.
RPE – There are three kinds of drills in RPE. The titles that display these drills are "Oral drills", "Write it down",
and "Speak out". Although there are models and examples for most of drills to help the learners discern the
exercises, some of the drills are just clarified by explanations writt en in English. The age and level of the learners
requir e examples and not just explanations.
Basic structures of each lesson are displayed in boxes. The relationships among various patterns and the
transformations that any specific structure may involve are illustrated by arrows and small boxes. From the outset in
Book Two, some grammatical terms and explanations are utilized. These are not necessary as far as the level of the
learners is concerned. Moreover, the explanations may impel the learners to concentrate more on the grammarian’s
jargon than on aspects essential for language learning. Some of the drills are accompanied by pictures. And about
ten type faces in black and red are used in RPE.
On the whole, drill models and pattern displays are adequate in RPE and hence its merit score would be 3.
3.2.4. Adequacy of practice
GE – Table 1 classifies the drills in GE 2. Moreover, as Table 2 shows, nearly half the drills are of transformation
type, in which the learners change some sentences into negative, plural, etc. The drills are numerous, yet since the
focus is on transformation type of exercise, they do not represent a variety of drill types.
Akbar Azizifar et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 3 (2010) 36–44 41
Table 1. Classification of drills in GE 2
Total l Communicative drills Meaningful drills Mechanical drills
GE:
Book2 103 9
1
93
On the other hand, all communicative drills in GE are of reply type in which the learners are to answer some
WH-questions. In short, the drills in GE are not distributed adequately to cover various types of drills and to provide
appropriate opportunity for practicing the structures. It seems that the drills i n GE are lengthy. There are drills which
consist of twenty items. As far as the level of the learners is concerned, drills of this length are tiresome.
Table 2. Range of various types of drills in GE 2
Types
of
drills
Mechanical MEANINGFUL
COMMUNI
CATIVE
Transformation
Verbatim repetition
Completion
Moving slot substitution
Short answer
Integration
Expansion
Single slot substitution
reduction
Question/answer
Completion
Describing pictures
Reply
Reply
Number
of drills
41 20 11 11 2 4 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 9
On the whole, there is mainly one class and one type of drills in GE- mechanical and transformational,
respectively. Therefore, the GE’S merit scor e would b e 1.
RPA – As tabulated in Table 3, mechanical drills form the majority of the drills in RPE. In fact, Book 2 does not
provide enough chance for the learners to practice the structures communicatively. Mechanical drills are presented
more than meaningful and communicative drills.
Table 4 shows that there are two main types of drills in RPE, completion and single slot substitution. These
drills constitute more than half of all the drills in Book 2. Seven types of drills are repeated less than six times in the
book. Although the drills in RPE are more divers than in GE, they are far from being exhaustive.
The length of the drills in RPE seems to accord with the age and the level of the learners. There are only 22 (out
of 288) drills which consist of 9 to 12 items. The majority of the drills consist of five items.
Table 3. Classification of drills in RPE 2
Total l Communicative drills Meaningful drills Mechanical drills
RPE:
Book2 129 3
16
110
42 Akbar Azizifar et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 3 (2010) 36–44
Table 4. Range of various types of drills in RPE 2
Types
of
drills
Mechanical MEANINGFUL
COMMUNI-
CATIVE
Completion
Single slot substitution
Transformation
Verbatim repetition
Reply
Expansion
Word order
Describing pictures
Moving slot
substitution
Integration
Completion
Reply
Two s tag e drills
Describing pictures
Drawing
Expansion
Transformation
Reply
Number
of drills
28 33 28 11 1 4 2 0 2 1 13 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
In summary, there are mainly one class- mechanical- and two types- completion and single slot substitution- of
drills in RPE. The length of the drills seems appropriate. Nevertheless, RPE does not pr esent an adequate number of
meaningful and communicative drills. Therefore, its merit score would be2.
3.3. Content
This section aims at evaluating the content of GE and RPE on the basis of functional load, rate and manner of
entry and re-entry, and the appropriateness of contexts and situations.
3.3.1. Functional load
GE – Book Two presents expressions such as “I am happy to have you.”, "what grade are you in?", "of course", and
some other expressions. Of course, these expressions are presented only once and rarely twice throughout the book.
The expressions used in naming the months are presented nearly at the end of book two. It is while; expressions for
naming the days, months, etc. must be and could be used much earlier. In other word, GE does not benefit from the
structures and expressions appropriately as far as functional load is concerned. Accordingly, its merit score would be
1.
RPE – Various expressions of greeting, leave-taking, and courtesy are introduced throughout Book Two. They are:
“Hello”, “How are you?”, “Fine, thank you”, “Not too bad”, “Nice to see you”, “See you tomorrow”, “That's too
bad”, and “Thank you”. These expressions are presented as formulas and their structures are not analyzed for the
learners. They are presented in dialogue of each unit; they are often repeated near the end of that unit with some of
its words replaced by blanks to be filled in by the learners. These mechanical "fill in the blanks" drills form the only
type of exercise for practicing the above-mentioned expression. The simple present tense of "to be "and "to have" is
presented before irregular verbs because of their functional load. Both of these verbs are also re-presented
throughout RPE.
In brief, RPE presents some words, expressions, and structures with respect to their functional load. However,
RPE overemphasizes greeting and does not provide appropriate opportunities for the learners to practice the
introduced functions. Therefore, RPE’s merit would be scored as 2.5.
3.3.2. Rate and manner of entry and re-entry
GE – Book Two do not present a quite balanced rate of entr y of vocabulary. For example, unit 13 presents 27 new
words, while unit 16 introduces only 8 new words. These two units present the most and least number of new words
in the second book. As far as the re-entry of grammatical structure is concerned, “how many/much” questions
Akbar Azizifar et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 3 (2010) 36–44 43
introduced in unit 6 are not re-presented throughout the units succeeding this unit. And “comparison” which is
offered in units 15 and 16 is not re-used in the succeeding units, too. Moreover, some words and grammatical
structures do not play active roles in various units though they are introduced in GE. Accordingly, the GE’s merit
score would be 1.5 as far as rate and manner of entry and re-entry ar e concerned.
RPE – The rate of introducing new words in the units of RPE 2 ranges from 10 to 25. Some units introduce only one
new grammatical structure. Tucker (1975) suggests that in early units, vocabulary should be introduced sparingly.
One to three grammatical structures are presented in each unit of RPE. Such a rate of entry of grammatical structures
seems to be adequate. Nevertheless, the re-presentation of some of them is not adequate. For instance, the present
continuous tense is presented in lesson two of book two, but it is not re-presented thr oughout the book. Also, the
simple past tense of the verb “to be”, which is introduced in units 3 and 4, does not play any role in the four
succeeding lessons. In this respect, Tucker (1975) remarks that if a verb tense is introduced, it should play a
substantial part in the majority of the units. In RPE the presentation of the mentioned grammatical structures does
not follow such a manner.
RPE, on the whole, introduces the structure properly, but the introduction of vocabulary and expr essions has
some inadequacies. On the other hand, the re-entry of structures is not appr opriately handled. Therefore, its merit
score would be 2.5
3.3.3. Appropriateness of contexts and situations
GE – GE presents a lot of its vocabularies and gr ammatical structures in isolated sentences. Obviously, isolated
sentences could not present appropriate contexts and situations because; it is possible to attribute different meanings
to an isolated sentence.
Regarding the appropriateness of contexts and situations there is a dialogue in Unit One which is accompanied
by a picture of a classroom. There are some students and a teacher in the classroom. Both the teacher and the
students are males. In the dialogue the teacher says “we all speak English in the classroom”. Such an utterance is not
appropriate as far as the context of this dialogue is concerned. Since all of them (the teacher and the students) have
already spoken English, there is no need to say such a sentence. Moreover, there is no relationship between this
sentence and other sentences. In other words, this sentence breaks down with the propositional development of t he
dialogue. As such, it disturbs the coherence of the dialogue.
On the whole, GE dose not provide appropriate contexts and situations in its dialogues. In almost all of the GE
conversations, little attention is paid to those functions which often dominate in face-to-face interaction. Of course,
there are a few exceptions; nevertheless, majority of dialogues in GE suffer from not being cohesive and coherent.
Also in nearly all of these dialogues the emphasis is often on usage rather than use. Considering all of the above
serious deficiencies, GE lacks any merit as far as the appropriateness of contexts and situations is concerned and its
score would be 0.
RPE – RPE offers a systematic presentation of dialogues. With the exception of the first unit, each of the units of
Book Two consists of a dialogue which is accompanied by pictures. Dialogues 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 of
Book Two, totally or partially, display the English language usage. If a question is asked in these dialogues, it is not
for the manipulation of language in communication, but for exhibiting a grammatical point. In addition, some of the
dialogues in RPE have special inadequacies, for example, in the second dialogue of Book Two, Reza calls Ali, but
this is Ali who asks all the questions. Generally speaking, one expects to know why Reza calls Ali. On the contrary,
not only Ali asks all of the questions, but also he finishes up the conversation and wants Reza to call him later.
In summary, the dialogues in RPE basically deal with English usage. Even in this respect, some of the
utterances are not appropriate. It needs to be pointed out that English usage could be handled directly in drills, and
dialogues should be left for the presentation of natur al English utterances. Therefore, the emphasis which is put on
usage in RPE’s dialogues is not appropriate. On this basis, RPE’s merit would be scored as 0.5.
4. CONCLUSION
This article tried to analyse the kind of materials presented in the coursebooks designed for Iranian students of
high school. The high school textbook lessons start with dialogues and reading comprehension passages. Then some
new structures and gr ammatical forms are introduced following which some speaking and writing activities are
presented. It seems that the aim of such activities is to provide the students with the opportunities to practice
44 Akbar Azizifar et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 3 (2010) 36–44
whatever they learn during the course. However, in GE series there are no listening activities in the text books. It
seems that the material designers ignored the importance of the listening activities. They just focused on the
mechanical, meaningful drills and of course to some minor extent on communicative ones. In RPE series there was
an attempt to introduce some listening activities in which the students are supposed to be involved actively.
Regarding speaking activities, especially with GE series, it is clear that the textbooks are limited to substitution and
repetition drills, students are required to produce simple sentences. Learners find no opportunities to negotiate with
each other and their teacher. Unfortunately they are not provided with the opportunity to practice communicatively
the language they are learning.
The researchers suggest that material designers in preparing teaching materials do not restrict the act process of
language learning to grammatical points and do not limit it within the walls of the classroom, in other words, in
Iranian high school instructional textbooks, there should be enough opportunities for the learners to practice
communicatively the language they are learning.
References
Amalsaleh, E. (2004). The representation of social factors in the EFL textbooks in Iran. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Shiraz University: Shiraz.
Ansary, H., & Babaii, E. (2002). Universal characteristics of EFL/ESL textbook: A step towards systematic
textbook evaluation. The Internet TESL Journal, 2, 1-8.
Birjandi, P.
&
Soheili, A.
(1985).
Right path to English. Tehran: Sherkat Chap va Nashr Iran.
Hutchinson, T. & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48(4), 315-328.
Iran Ministry of Education. (1984). Graded English. 7 vols. Tehran: Sherkat Chap va Nashr Iran.
Leach, G. and J. Svartvik. (1975). A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman.
Manuchehri, P. (1971). Towards a New School Course: The Graded English Series. In J. Stevenson (Ed.), 26-35.
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Paulston, C. B. and M. N. Bruder. (1976). Teaching English as a Second Language: Techniques and Procedures.
Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Tomlinson, B. et al. (2001). ELT courses for adults. ELT Journal, 55(1), 80-101.
Tucker, C. A. (1975). Evaluating beginning textbooks. English Teaching Forum. 13, 355-361.
Yarmohammadi, L. (1987). Contrastive Analysis of English and Persian Sounds. Mimeograph.
Yarmohammadi, L. (2002). The evaluation of pre-university textbooks. The Newsletter of the Iranian Academy of
Science, 18, 70-87.