UNIVERSITAS ISLAM 1NDONESIA
FAKULTAS PSIKOLOGIDAN ILMU SOSIAL BUDAYA
Progtam Studi Pseobgi 1S1), Prug.am Stl,di llmu Komunikasilsl), Program Magister Pro{esi psikotogi (S2), proglam D
l
Bahasa tnggds
SURAT KETERANGAN
of English and Education (JEE) program Studi Bahasa Inggris
psikorogi
3 Fakurtas
dan IImu sosiar Budaya universitas Isram Indonesia
mene€ngkan bahwa terdapat kesalahan penulisan nama penulis
Kharis Sukarno
Muhammad yang seharusnya bernama sukaino untuk artiker
berjudur "How to choose
Suitable English CouEebooks to be Used in the English
Teaching_Learning process
Redaksi Journal
Diploma
:
Doing a Micro Evaluation" pada lournal of English and
Education (JEE) Volume z Nomer
1, Juni 2008.
Demikian surat keterangan
jni dibuat agai dapat dipergunakan
sebagaimana
mestinya.
28 Juni 2010
Adam Anshori, S.S.
Kampus Universiias lslam lndonesia, Jl. Kaliurang Km. '14,5 Besi, Sleman, YOGYAKARTA55584
re9.
0274 - 898444, Exi. 211412113, Fax.0274 - 898444, Exi. 2'116; E-mailjpisb@uii.ac.id
Puhlhher:
English Srudy hogra]n Diploma 3
Faculty of Psychology and Socio-Cultuml Scjences
Islan]ic University of lndonesia
ISSN:
l9l8-:l7tx
T€rbit
Scjak:
Juni 2007
Chief Erecutive Olficer :
H. Fuad Nashori, S.Psi.,l\'1.Si.,Psikolog
(Dean af Facutty afPsj.holosJ and Socia-CuLurul
Sciences, UII)
Director:
Puji Rahayu
(Hedd of Enelish Study Pn)gnn
Editor-in-chief:
Dipla
a 3, UII)
Adam Anshori, S.S
Editor
Ririn Tdsnawati, S.S
Imla WindyAstuti.S.S
Honorary Editors (Mitra Bestlri)
Proi Dr Siti Chamanah So€ratno, M.A. (UcM)
Proi Djuhertari Iman Muhni, M.A. (UGM)
Prof Dr. Suwarsih Madya, M.A. (JNY)
Uarketing Staff
Ani Zaerina
R. Seno Plabowo. A.Md
Mugi Susetyani, A Md., S.Si
Dani Ukasah, S.T
ContactAddress
I
Program Studi Diplonu 3 Bahasa Ingsris
Fakultas Psikologi dan llmu Sosial Budaya
Kanpus Demanean UII Jl. Demangan BaruNo.24
Yogyakana 55281
Telp. (0274) 540254;Fax (0274) s40251
Enail: dSbahasa@uii.ac.id
Cotrtact Address
II
Fakultas Psikologi dan llmu Sosial Budaya Ult, Unir XII
IGmpus Teeadu UII Jalan Kaliurang Km 14
Sleman Yogyakana
Tclp. (027.1) 8984,44 psw 1112 F t.898444psi,. 1114
,r/
Edacatu r. Vol. 2
No lJnni
200R
Editorial
Greetings!!!
We would like to thank you first to all of our colleagues who have gave iheir
contribution by sending their paper. We will also want to thank our readers who
gaveinputs to us inthe form ofcornmcnts. suggestions andespecially critics. This
joumal is far fiom perfect and therefor once again w€ invit. our readen and our
prospectwdters to criticizeus sowe canbccomebetterfromtime totime.
There has bccn a lot interesting articles which we have published, butyet we
still
have difnculties in collccting them. Wc hope that thc Joumal of English and
Education (JEE) can be acknowledge not only in Indonesia but also from overseas.
We are now living in an era where pcople will be recogdze ifmanypeople knows
theirwork.As an academician, it is our duq,/ to write and also publish our work so
that we willb€ rccoglize not only inlndonesiabutthroughoutthe world.
\l'e inhoduce our third cdition ofJEE. Please do explorc rhc English Education.
Language amd Literaturc we have prcsented. Suggcstiolls, critics and any othcr
comments which can make this Joumal better will always be acccpted with arms
Journal ofEnglish and Education Universitas Islam Indonesia
Vol. 2 No.
I Juni 2008
fable of Contents
Page
-:donesian two-week fieldwork inAustralia: Great orno impact?
lnra
SanrLa Dewi
:nglish lndonesian Bilingual Attitudes Toward Codeswiiching In
Ciassroom Communication
\fargana
......................
9
Creating A Standardized Test For The Vocational High School
:oglish Final Examination: An Aliemative
{sbadi
.........................
25
)roppings, Addings, And Spelling Deviations In Georgia Doyle
. :ohnson's Ftederlck Dorglds And Loraine Hansberry's fl Raisin
lt The Sun)
\iz muddin Sadiq.......
34
Hawthome's Attitudes Toward His Ancestols' Religious
Reflected ln "Young Goodman Brown"
BeliefAs
\itenAnggraeni
The Role of Parentese in
Piycholinguistic Study
ll.ik Sudartinah
45
Fint Language Acquisition: A
....-......
loni Monison's
Hegemony
Lirin Kumia
I&e Bfuest
tle:
54
When Beauty Tums Out To B€
Trisnawati
6l
lIow To Choose Suitable English Coursebooks To Be Uscd In The
:nglish Teaching-LeamingPrccess: Doing A Micto Eraluatian
K\arisSukamoMuhanrmad................................
iti
92
i{olv To Choose Suitable Engiish C*ur;cllco&io Tc E* Us*cl
{n The trngtistrr Teac}ring-X-earning }r*cesr: lloi*s,l
Misa Eva{aation
Sulial'no
Stdte U n
-.tia
ivLrr.y
it),
of lbg.'u kLult
r'" , :. i
,\bsfrRct
inillish coitrsebr,'oks are one ci'the nair elerr:en1s r1:ler,rii:it'rg llr !lc.css
Ji' lhe ;nglish te:rchftgJearn itg pror-rt:r 1ri rrcci r.he ire-d,jt.irir)eC
|hieclil's. lult,-rt11,, ih,: rcarhcr; ..ri i:.ngii:h n hConrsia iacr ;i
!:il:rrp1ic:ii.d tas!: iit choosing luitilble Erl.qTilL lcachinslutcii,ls in r.iir'
l-om of llrgiish r:rrrscbr:okr. i h: nurlose ol ihe anicle i: io ditrr:s: :r:i
rlproprkie tal,to choose Eirglisl coLrschoaks ;.Lit3blc r','ii! thr ilirltleJlts'
socio-econonric culn.rml backsiorads ic hciljtrac ;iLrderls' lcrming. lle
irlandcd rvirl is lhai the tcach.r! of ingli:h rlo ar enplir:ti evahatior of
the coulsebooks the,v are usir:g- a letrospr:clilc e'ralultiol. TLe eralLtalion
can i:e donc tlrroLrgl either n:tcro or llicrii evahLation. iihc tangible lnd
,;r:icticll eviLluution ro do rs a micro cvaluation in rchich rhe telcircrs ui
ilgiish
retrospectively lrnd $oroughL)' eralu:rie ceftain paIts o1'the Enghsh
coLl1 seboEtks representilg thc llhole coltert. 'l'he cnleria lo ! a lLrate inc [uie
goa1s. sruclents' backgrounds (topics end vocabu)ary relared to itudcnts'
iives). cultural acceptabiliw, lunguage skiLls ro develop. qriallt1' ofpmcticcl
iratertals in the classroorn (acrir,aling studen*' panicrpation). n-rles,
sequencing of rhe nateiral.s {procrdure), iirmlals, i!stluctio!s. and
r srLallzirtion. lfthe teachers ofErglish firc oL* sr.rcb English coursebooks
i,'loLrgh llleir evaluelioir, ihev cat'r rLse $re coLirsebooks jt rlie foller',,il!
:ci!r'rF. lt x wiFc lva-y to choose English cor$*.books to be esed to cptiiuall_.,
reach lhe pre-Celermrned objcriices. lithe reachers ofEnglisir do not hnd
such s'-ritrble gngiish coursebool-s thorLgh their evaluation, $1ey lan add
flaierials to or rerluce thc contert olibe corrsebooks and finally'rhey will
l1x1,e teachers' edilion English ieachirg narerlals.
r
lieyworfu. strinble English .aursebotkt, En,tli.sh teaching-ledrnirg
;rr1rf.r-i.r, /?torJrgtli\'€ {\,aluolia , tatIro e\'ulua!io , t,tj nticxt
t!,!
.IoumalofEnEnsh e"d E.lu.rtior, vol
2
No.I
Juni 2003
A. Introduction
One of the main components detemining the success of the English
teachingleaming process is English coursebooks. Theyconsistofa sctofEnglish
teaching materials so called a set oftasks. Teaching materials are a key component
in most language programs, including in schools- Whether the teachers ofEnglish
use a t€xtbook or other forms ofnatcdals, insfuctional materials generally sewe
as the basis for much of the language input leamers receive and the language
practice occuring in thc classroo, more prominentdran anyotkrelemcnt in the
curriculum. To reach the objcctivcs of thc English teaching-leaming process,
thereforc, thc English tcacling materials must be suitable with the teachen of
English, studcnts, and cnviroffnents. It is in line with the implementation of
school-based curriculum which insists that thc natcrials be bascd on shrdents'
socio-economic cultural backgrounds,
Recently, to reach the objectives ofthe English teachingJeaming process,
as othe$, the govemment of the Republic of Indoncsia tkough Ministry of
National Education and pdvatc publishers provide the teachers of English with
yarious teaching materials or rasks in the form of English coursebooks. Thosc
English counebooks consisting ofa set of English teaching materials have been
predictively evaluatedby the experts onthebasis olphilosophical perspectives or
have been developed on the basis of theodes of leaming, not retrospectively
cvaluated on the basis ofempirical €vidcncc in the classroom during the teachingleamingprocess.
The quality of those English courscbooks is theoretically good but
empirically they might be suitable with the English teachcrs, students, and
environments or might be not, because of the implementation of school-based
curiculum. As a result, the teachers of English in Indonesia face the task of
choosing what English teaching materials to use, whether suitablc widl their
students'backgounds or not. To find out teaching materials in ihe fofm ofEnglish
coursebooks suitable with the sf,rdents' backgrounds, thcrcforc, it is wise that the
Englishteachers retrospectively evaluate English coursebooks having been being
used, and possibly to be used in the followingterms.
93
B. English Coursebooks
English coursebooks consisting ofEnglish teaching matedals in the form
oftasks providc the students with meaningful inputs for their comprehension ofa
ccrtain goal 1o achievc, as stated in thc standard ofcontent ofEnglish. Thereforc.
Erglish cou$ebooks are one ofthe main elements detemining the success ofthe
English teaching-leaming prccess. The writer's point ofview is in accordancewith
Richatds al1d Renandya (2002) andNullan,s ideas (1999) as follows.
Teaching materials are a key component in most language
programs. Wherher the teacher uses a texibook, instirutionally prepared
n1aterials, or makes use of his or her own nareriats- insrructionat
materials generally serve as the basis for nuch of the language jnput
leamers receive and ihe language pracrice that occurs in the classroom.
(Riohards and Renandya, 2002: 65 66)
Al the classroon level, materials often seen more proninent than any
other el€ment in rhe cuniculun. Th€y are rhe tangibte manifestation of
lhe cmiculum in action. They are, in faci, onnipresent in the language
classroom and ir is difiiculr to imagine a ctass without books, pictures,
fi
Lnsrdps,realia, gamesandsoon. (Nu.ran,
I
999: 98)
Both cxpefts above emphasize that any form ofteaching materials arc a
kcy component in language programs. One of them is Dresented in the fofm of
te\lbooks. or nanowly called couresebooks. \unan, tn other $ordc. state. lhal
teaching materials coursebooks are the representation ofthe curriculum, currcntly
in Indoncsia it is called standard ofcontent consisting of stanrlard of competence
and ba iic competcnce (Depdiknas, 2006). Nunan (1999: 98). furthermor;. stares
thal.ndlcri"l.domorcrhansimplllubricalelhe$hec'coflcdmine.Coodmdrcriatc
al.o Drovide nodcl. for reachers to lollow in deveroling rhei o\ n matcrials.
Richards (2001: 15) adds that the primary input leamcrs ieceivcd to the language
lcaming is the textbook.
Coursebooks are prepackaged, published books used by the students and
teacher as lhc pflmary basrs for a language course. Courqebook; range i]om t_bose
that are broadly focus on developing all language skills to those th;t focus
on a
specific skill such as \rriting, or specific area such
Nunan,2003: 226).
as
hotel management (Graves in
Ansary and Babaii(2002) askhownecessary atextbookis. The answer to
tbis question depends on the teachers, own teaching style, the rcsources available
9a
Vol 2 No. I Juni 2O0t
lo thc-n. lhe xcccpred \r]ndard.
of:ca.lll rn evcrr langu-gc.choor.
,:00r r Jo).,rr*",r.rr r""",r,r,,i_'ng
crc. Bro$n
and mo'r cornmon ror''. ol
'n"'.nur *op,'n ro, iun;,;;;
,;;;lJ;J"'cnmc'"b\.ror"
lhrougl lcrrbook.
'hereasr.qn,nr,
lvenrhough
n.r.
oerrcrt rerrhoo(,. rhir
luttenye ro m.le rtr.
',r",i,"".',n"rji,.
u"o i".;',^". :;:,0*'"ihcr.r"nd
re\rbou(s rh.) ha'e 1 g|.o',n.
'r
ro. r J7). Thererore.,,;.
roo,.
;,:. ;;,,;'.1'he te-cnc ' cho"se
r"L'rc
Fngr'srr
' ',r\coook: ,
'u
,J;;:;.:;i.'j,nfh+
d Jdrron Jlrnng lne rcarJ
rng-leJ;.r g
.1oce,.. '",rr
:
.'
TheFnglrsh language teacbnc
IFI tt'*ocnc
nenrs abo\ e ernPr-riirc
.o,,..u,^i.;,1:; i;;;: ll,;
.sr'rc
.cc , or !:r,gri h ar pua,;,;;;,;;
,:,:"iil:;:l::i;:,::;.,;:,,..Tl,llH,lf;
r ngtr.rr
r?n adopr or aJapr tIe Engljsh
reachinL_ m,
presenred in
;' ;,;#, ;J;-;':'irr'
- o\ Hower cr. r, r,*.,.
:Tl;"
' uncbook. rr rirer.. .
"",i,"ii..'
re\ tslng \r,ays to presenr
""J1
the contcnt an.
" 'erie'
orr-'(\
'n a
;i:;:i,:i:l, i;:.*,,;J :;
ere.cr,es
or rle,c\rbook,o,he
lr.
i,,lH;:;;;.:li
..rrbookc.rur.ebook.rh",":;;;;,;"i:,,''r"irraoJeroflhereacher.rochoosc
,,r.,,,.,s.*n.:bor
,.c,n larown, zoor r
*hcr.,rconen
r
r?r;;,,r;';:.:'.*-
"iciths
but complex hsk ahead
or
r-.ed,,,,;,;;;:i:;.,i"j:ill,ll ;ff1;il:lj;i.,",,1: *'
T sine tr"chin! r"lcnaJ..
no,.ihlv ir ,.rc lnlnr courreboo\., v prve
.
rJl
,,r,..
. c,r'robLlhrhcrerclrerandrhe,nr,l6nl.-,r.,.6byu,;gtur.roito,,.
$'e reach wiih. ratter than through
n: b"'nL-- 'e o
""'r
r*'r""(
''.p,^'".,.a,o.p,,n,.i;";;;::,i
I lre' rIe ea"nrrs
r: ,'
;1.":"'*'"
'a''e.,r'.;,i:"J
,,
"s". ".,, . ... "".",i"i. lliLlil. 1l :lLi"ll;lii.:,I,
cacrers ro
be more
h0rh t
.,.,., *"a..* le\ponsrre.
;i il
"1i "",;l
,o,,. cJn
bene,
0nd strucrure
l:":l i.
r. " . .,,"r.,.* ,"
"
$is alto!rs lhem {o
Dul
r b! ordt00):s8,
,1"-"T_*":
iil";:,",:::::,:
"i-..;;;;h..;;;;
on t'heir 'cJrnrnr
'w r'h In
facilitate
tcaching and lcaming in the
l"tcriats
classroom
*.
intended
marerials
provide ,* ,rui"",,",,,i
Ir€rursfrc
).:'.* rnputs. Tbe tcrm,culiural
.i,*rriiil
"boutci
..,,,^,,]j
' 'ltraJ brckground
-
o.,r Nu,,onar
en\
inouts, rrrers Io \tudcnr5'soc'o-economic
,*,n'..",,."ii:itl]l
Fcu.,r,o^;;;;;il;.:
i
#
95
r'r."Jiff J:*
fftl:
jr"
j8ll
Jownal of Enplish and E hcano,, Vol. 2 No. I Juni 2003
about national standardofeducation, and Nationel Education Ministerial Rule No.
22 (about standard ofcontent), 23 (abou! standard olgraduate's colnpetencies), and
24. aboutthe implementationolNational Ministerial rules No. 22 and 23) (2006).
C.Tasks
English courscbooks consist ofEnglish tcaching nutcrials in thc form
of
lask can be described in terms of its objectires, input, conditions.
prccedures, and outcomcs. Thc propefties ofthe task should simultaneously be
presenred so lhal they can give the leamcrs leaming experienccs involvins
linguistic competence and linguistic pcrfonnance. Linguistic perfonnance is
closcly relatcd io communicalivc compelence, i.e., thc ktowlcdge thatusers ofa
language have intemalizcd to enable them to understand andproduce messages in
ihc languagc.It cntails linguistic competence, pragmatic competence (Ellis,2003:
696), and sociolinguistic competence (Council olEuropc,2002: 108). Pragmatic
competencc rcfcrs to thc knowledge that speaker-hcarer usc in order to cngagc in
communication (El1is, 2003: 719).
tasks.
,A.
The ahJectites af the lask rcler ta tahat sklLs that the ledrners shauld
dccatnplish. Tjle input of lhe lar,+ provides the strldents wilh activities and
excrclses 1o {ork on (i.c. thc vcrbal or non-verbal infomution supplied). The
canditians oj the task reJbl lo under which the task is to be perlormed (c.g. whclhcr
inlockstcp wilh thc whole class or in small group wotk).Theprocedures ofthetask
fty'ar l, r,rdl the students need to carry outto complete rhetask (c.g , whether ihe
sludcnls havc thc opponunity to plan prior to perfoming the task). The last
propcrly ofthc taskis ortcomes. Outcomes refer tlr what is achieved on completion
ofthetask.
The outcomes takc the form oltheproduct(s) and proccsses. Prcducts rcfer
to what the studcnts will accomplish (e.g. dmwing a map, a written paragmph,
some kind ofdccision). The processes refer to what the students will be engaged in
pcrfomring ihc task (c.g. negotiating meaning when some communication
problem adses, correcting other shrdentsr errors, asking questions to extend a
top\c) (Ellis, I 997: 38).
According to Breen in Nunan (20A4: j), pedagogically, task is aD.
struclunl langwge leaming endeavour which has d particular objecti\'es,
96
,r.l
Ed,cario,, vol.
2
N. I tuni2008
appropriate conlent, a specilic yrorkihg procedure, a d a range of outcomes
lar
those who nde ake the task. Task is thereJbre assunect to r{er to a rangi of
workplan, which h,rve the overall purpo,es af l'a, itiranng tanguae. teamnglntn
the simple and briefexercise q,pe, ta more comple\ a d length| activities
s;;h as
gtoupproblen
'atvtneor 'inulaions and Jeauon naAng
The tasks used in the English teaching,learning prccess are almed at
dewloping students' communi.ative competence_ Communicative pedagagic
tasks, therefure, aim to actiyely inwlw learners in meaningful communicaio).
ire
rclevan!. are challengingbut teasibtc !\,ith latk naniputaion ih, rc pa,,tblq. and
haw identifable outcomet. me leaners are intolved for contriiutions to task
selection, management, and evaluation, trhich in a language leaming contet may
aften become integr(il parts oJ the tdlk: themsel\,es. Clarsro()m tasks. whether
relecting'rcal-life' use or essentially 'pedagogic' i11 ature, are communicatire to
the extent lhat they require learners to comprehend, negotiate, and erpress
meaning in order to achiere a communicatiye goal (Council of Europe, 2002:
t58).
On the basis of the ELT experts' views on tasks, the writet concludes that
laski afe workpla s consisting of a series of actiyities and exerciset that the
students should accomplish ta achieve communicatiye competence. meteJbre,
thet haye goals, inputs, pntceilures, a d outcomes. If the stutlents are aile to
accomplish the oyerull tas&d suitabte with their socio-economic cultural
backgrounds, they witl be able to dewlop theirfoul language skills and dre able
to
cohmunicate intelligibU rclaant to their lives
D, Evatuation ofEnglish coursebooks (tasks)
Teachers are often faced with tlre task of choosing what teaching materials
to use (Ellis, 1997: 36). Ir also happens in Indonesia in which the sovemment
through Nadonal fducdlion Departnent and privale publishers
f,rovide thc
fom tasks. Howevet tle teaching
materials provided, including English reaching materials in the form of tasks
prcsented in English cousc-books, ate not always suitable with the teachers.
studentq. and envLonmenrs $here the English leacbing leaming process takes
teachers with abundant teaching materials in the
plac€.
g7
Joutnal
ofE,shhant Edt.ati,n.
Vol 2No i Juni 2008
The facl in lndonesia above is in line with Ansary & Babaii's statcment
(2002). They state that teachers, students. and adminisiers are all consumcrs of
textbooks. All thesc gloups, ofcourse, may have confliciing views about what a
good/standard textbook is. Howcvcr, the question is $here they can tum to for
rcliablc ad\.ice onhow to makc aninformeddecision and select a suitabletextbook.
Furrhcrmore, Murphy ( I 993 : 146) proposcs questions related to the use of tasks in
the classrcom. Hc asks, "Howdo teacherand leamcr dccide wh ich task to ptoceed
nexl? What do teacher and leamcr idcntify as a task? Ho$ does the teacher know
whcthcr a task suited the leamer, thal is 1() say, interested lhem and was, in their
view, conlrollable? He answe$ his qucslions by himsclf. The answeris a lormative
evaluation llrough aprocess, teaching-leamingproccss in the classroom. Johnson,
Kim, and Ya-Fang et al. (200 8: I5 7) slalc that in the last several years the number of
-English language teachiig matcrials on thc market bas grown exponentially,
addrcssing a variety of leamer intcrcsls, skill levels, and tastes. Among other
fealulcs, these materials also vary in their linguistic design, focus, andobjectives,
making the choice of a textbook an intcgml pafi of many ELT classrooms a
seemin gly formidable task.
In rclation to a number ofcourscbooks provided by the govemment and
private publishen,Ansary and Babaii (2002) state that there is no perfectte{lbook.
Thcrefore, teachers should have the option ofassigning supplcmenlary malerials
bascd on their o\r,n specific nccds in their own specific teaching situation.
Thcrcfore, iiis suggested that thc tcachcrs adapt the teaching mater ial s prov ided to
be suitablc with their studenis. Lvcn thcy nccd to do an empirical evaluation of
suoh a tcaching material or task whcn thcy are using it in the teaching-leaming
proccss. In short, the abundant tcaching materials, includiDg English teaching
materials in the fonnoftasks needto be empiricallyevaluated.
The first way in which materials may b€ evaluated is in tcrms ofhow wcll
they reflect thc principles by which they have been written. Theorctically, in
Indonesia they must be based on the standard of content (Education Minislcdal
Rule No. 22, year 2006). In the case ofclassJextbooks, the evaluation criteria will
bc those used when dcciding which book is best for the teaching context (ReaDickins and Germaine, 2003: 256). Byrd in Celce-Muria (2001: 416) states that
systems for evaluation oftextbooks (and other instnrctional materials) gcnerally
provide checklists builtaround numerous aspects ofteachhg and student-teacher
98
Joutual oJ EhEIhh ahd Etlu.hior,
\al
2
Na.
I Jui
2AO8
Theprincipal problem is that somcaspects in the framework actually cnlail
coming to a conclusion about othd aspects in the liamework. This mcans that in
buildingup an analysis ofa sct ofmaterials. teacher-analysts will not onlyhave to
examinc dillcrcnt scctions ofthe materials but, more importantly, move through
diflercnt 'level' ol analysis, making more and more infercnces ' and subjective
judgments as ihey move from a consideration ol thc morc easily ideDtifiable
aspects to the more abstract and complex (Littlejohn in Tomlinson, 1998: l95).In
line withthe experts' perspectives on tcaching material above, MurphvinCrookcs
and Gass ( 1 993 : 145 - 1 46) states tha! thc idca ofteaohers conducting investigalions
into what is happening in thcir classroom, like many olthe ideas about tasks, has
been around for somc timc, but has come into greater prominencc as educators
realizethatchange has totakeplacc in the school through teachers.
The wriier agrees wjth the statements above that thc English tcaching
matcrials presented in English coursebooks should bc cmpidcally evaluated. The
teache$ of English are the persons who exactly kno$ what happcns in the
classroom duringtbe English teachingleamingprocess. Therefore, the teachers of
English must be a part of the research empirically evaluating the English
coulesebooks,
1.
Prcdictivecvaluation
Aptedicliw evalutian ofcoursebooL,s is an eraluation rthich is desigled
b make a decisiotr regarding what naterials to use in the dassrcom,
during the teachhg-learning process (Ellis, 1997. 36). II is done on the
basis of theories an a cefiain subject mattex thearies of leaning, antl
theories ofpsfchalog. Thetefore, teachi g naterish written h! erperts
ure expected to be s itable with the stuclents and to Jacilitdte students'
leaming.
ptedictiv eydlualian of English coursebaoks is conducted behind a
desk.It i: done belote tuebooks are massively protluced. Theoretically the
coursebooks predictiwly evaluated will suit the leachers and students'
eeds in learning. It is the apposile of rctraspectite ewluatio that is
conducted thefelds, itassroom.
A
i
In Indonesia, predicttue ewluation ofEnglish coursebooks is conducted by
Badan Sandar Ndsianal Pendidikan (BSNP), Boad of Educational
National Sta dard. The instrument oJ English courseboaks ptedictiw
eyalualio consists ofcontent suilabilily a d delivery suilubilir. Content
99
JournaltfEnptLh ahd Edu.atior Vo!
lNo lluLi2003
suitubiliq consists oJ 0) dpptupridteness heNeencontent and sta daftl oJ
competence qnd basic competence, (2) natetial acturacy, and (3)
supporting materials. Delitery suitabili, consisls oJ (1) presentdtiotl
technique, (2) presentation of leaning, a d (3) campteteness of
2.
Retrospectiveevaluation
A
relrospecliw erah&lion of coursebooks is designed to erami e
hav aclually been used in the clatsrooht. Retraspecti,e
eyaluatio s can be inpressianistic or empitical (EIis, 1997. 36). It is in
li e with Harmer (2001: 301) that states thal cowsebook eraluation is d
judgnent on haw vell a book has perJbrnetl in fact. It means thdt
relrospeclfue etalu.tlion cun refer to empifical evaluatio of tea&i g
narc' ial. donc duti e!hetea.hing Laryngfto.ct,.
materfuls lhal
Thc necds to evaluate materials rctrospectively take on special importancc.
Such an evaluation providcs the teacher with information wlich can bc
it is \a'orthwhilc using thc naterials again,
which activities 'work' and which do not, and how to modilythe materials
to make them more effective for futuc use. lt is what happens in tbe
used to detemine whelher
classroomwhentheteachingmaterialsareusedftlis, I 997 ; 37 ).
The purpose of carrying out the evaluation is lor accountabjlity and
development oflhe task. Where accountability is at stake, tlre purpose of
the evaluation is to detemine whether thc statcd goals ofthe progam have
been met. Wlere at developmcnt, t'he purpose ol the evaluation is to
improve the cuniculum and/or to foster tcacher devclopment (Ellis, I 99 8:
Empitical eydhlation af the leaching materials can be conducled thraugh
eilher macra-eralualian ot micra-ewluation. It is do e during a d ajier
the teaching-learning pt'ocess. me dilference is the umbet of teaching
maler[als or tasks thal are e pirically evaluated.
a,
Macro-evaluation
Empirical macro-evaluation is a kind ofevaluation which empirically
evaluate the whole teaching matcrials or tasks used in th€ classroom,
during the teachingleaming process- A macro evaluation is an
e./aluation carded out for accountability and/or developmcntal
r(Xt
J.rmol
of Entalish o"d
Edtutk
, Vol. 2
No I
Juni 2003
purposes by collecting inlormation relating to various adminisirative
and curricularaspects ofthe program (Ellis, 1998:218).
The empiical macro-evaluation ofcourscbooks means to evaluate the
whole conient of thc counebooks in the classroom. It is iime
colsuming bccause it scrutinizes each elements ofthe coursebooks.
Therefore, il necds longer time to collectandanalyze data.It also needs
morc cnugy and a lot of operating costs. It is hard to do the whole
b.
of the
coursebooks because the teachers are more
conccmcd whethcr they are able to accomplish the goals or not, they
more locus on specific activities in a contextofa particularlesson.
Micro-evaluation
Such ar approach to evaluation does not accord wilh the perspectivc
which many teachers have about what evaluatiorl involves. Teachers
arc conccmed with whether they are able to accomplish dre goals or
not. They do not focus on the entire progam but they more focus on
cvaluation
specific activities and techniques appcaring to 'work' in the cont€xt ofa
padicular lesson in thc classroom (Ellis, 1998: 218). A microevaluation is an cvaluation characterized by a narow-focus on some
specific aspcctolthe curriculum. Therefore, it is possiblc to scrutinize
whcther a particular task is effective or cfEcicninot (Ellis, 1998:219).
In a mido-evaluation, the teacher selects one particular teaching task
in which he or she has a special interest, and submits this to a detailed
cmpirical cvaluation. One way in which an empirical evaluation can be
made more manageabl€ is through micro-evaluation (Ellis, 1997: 37).
Amicrc-evaluation ofieachitg matclials is pcfiaps best carried out in
rclation io 'task' @fhs, 1997: 38). A micro-evaluation of a task can
scrvc several purposes, It can show to what extcnt a task works for a
particular group ofleamers.It can also reveal weaknesses in thc design
of a task, and thus ways in which it might be i'J$o\ed (E is, 1997:
1t ).
Thc writer tends to agree the second model ofthe empirical €valuation
of English coursebooks, micro-evaluation. It deeply scrutitizes the
elements of a certain task or teaching maierial in the English
coursebooks. It means that the detail analysis can be possibly
presented because oftle length oftime available.
tot
Jow"al ofE,slishond Edu.atio,, Vol
Two ways
of
2 No.
1Ju.i 2003
analysing thc data are possiblc. One involves
quanlification ofthc infomaiion. which can ftcn bc presented in the
fol.tn oftablcs. Thc othcr is qualitalive. Here the cvaluator prepares a
narrative description of the information, perhaps illustrated by
quotations orprotocols- In par1, the method chosenwill dependonthe
types of infonnation which havebeen coilected. Thus, lestscores lend
thcmselves to a quantitative analysis, whilc joumal data is pcrhaps bcst
handled qualitatively ftl lis, 1 997 : 40)
E. Crit€riaforempiricalEnglishcoursebook(t.sk)evaluation
judge good criteia for empirical English coursebook evaluatior is a
hardjob. Goodcriteria lor English coursebooks consisting of teach ing materials in
the forn of lasks will vary from a certain school to other schcJols. It happens
because each school in a certain region has its own characteristics, especially its
students' socio-economic backgrounds which will give impacts in other aspects.
However, a number of ELI experts give clues or guide lines lor coursebook
To
evaluation,
Classroom activities should parallel the 'real word' as closely as possible.
Since languagc is a tool of communication, mcthods and materials should
concentrate on Lhc massagc, not thc mcdium (Clarke & Silberstcin in Nunan, I993:
63). Rclelcd to tasks,Widdowson inNunan (1993) tasks must be problem-so1ving.
... What is wxDted is, melhodology which will ... provide
connLlnicarive competence
by funclion inrestment. Such a
methodology would engage the leam€rs in probleFsolving iaskr as
purposeful acrivilies but without the rehearsal requjrement rhat they
should be realistic or 'authentic' as natural social behavior (widdowson in
Nunan,
l99l:63).
It means that the tasks should be authentic as natural social behavior
Natural social behavior refers to what the students do in real life. The tasks must be
suitable with the students' socio-economic cultural backgrounds.
Robinett (l978) in Brown (2001: 142), (Ellis, 1997: 39), Tucker (19?5) in
Ansary and Babaii (2002), Hamer (2001: 301), Reinders and Lewis (2006: 274),
Spntt, Pulvemess, and Williams (2005: 110), Mashura (1998: 240-241), and
Nunan (200,{: 174) givc a plactical sct of criteria for evaluating a cousebook. It
'I
02
inc)ude, goal.. ,rLd.nl, bdr^trornds {toprc. and \ocdbulary relared
lo stuJenr,i,
lr\c,i). cukural a(Lertaoility. langrage skil s lo de\elop. qudlity of pr.rcrrcal
materials inthe clas sroom (activating studcnts' partic ipation), rolcs,
sequencing ol
thc matcrials (prccedure), formats, instructions, and visualization.
Those critiria
should match the shrdcnts, clEractcristics.
Goals ofihe tasks arc relaled to language skills to develop. They
refer to
what the studcnts expect to leam when they use the tasks. Studenis,
bacigrounds
are related to cultural acceptability. Whether thc contcnt of the ;sks
or
coursebooks are suitable with thc students are conceming with
thesc cdteia.
-able
Quality ofpracticat materials rcler to whethcr the tasks arc
to encourage thc
students to participate rhe class or not. Sequencing ol thc materials
refirs to
whether the students are easily able to follow the content of the tasks
or nor
fonrarc are rcared ro r\c .rudcnr\' prcfercnce. on rfie la) our ol lhe t-.J.s
Inshuctions are relatcd to whethcr thc studcnts arc ablc io comprehend
the
i.structions ofthe tasks or not. While last onc, visualization refers
tasks are athactive forthe students ornot_
1()
whethcr the
The basis for such an €valuation is that a task can only be said
to have
the students havc ibund it enjoyable and,ror uscful. Evaluations
conducted by mcans olshort questionnaircs or inierviews with the students
are the
casiest kind to cary out. Response-based cvaluations rcquire the
teacher to
,
worked
if
cxamire the
actua_L outcomes (both thc products and process;s
ofthe task) to se€
wherhcr they matchthe predictedoutcomes
ft1lrr, 1r9': Jgr.
Furthermorc, Brecn and Kumamvadivelu in Stewart (2007:265)
statc that
because of tlte influence of leamers on lesson outcomes, task_based
pedagogy
success should be lncasured tluough the degres to which teasher intcntions
lcarner interprctation ofagiven task converge,. ln concjusion, \l,hethcl
thc English
a;i
courscbooks consisting of English teaching materials in the form
of taskJ are
suitablc or not with the English tcachers, students, and environments
depends o;
what English teachcrs and studcnts, point ofviews when the tasks are
used in the
classroom during the teachingleaming process.
t03
Joztznl.f
EnEIi\h ond
Edu.!tir,. Vol 2No I Ju.i
2008
A Summary ofCriteria for
Robi
Alder
a Courscbook
Trc Ham
ker er
Evaluation
,
Reidcr
Spra
s&
Pulvem
Mash Nun
ura
in
Ellis
Experts
F.
Conclusion
Considcring that English teaching materials
in the fonn of
English
courscbooks arc onc ofrhc main elements determining the success ofthe English
tcaching-lcaming prcccss, the English teachers must bc selective in using such
llnglish coursebooks. They must be suitable with the studcnts' socio-economic
cultural backgrounds environments so that they can give the shrdents meaningfiil
inputs and meanjngful learning experience. As aresult, the students will optimally
reach tle pre-determined objectives, having communicative and pragmatic
compctcncies.
t04
@d Edtctlion.
\6\
2
No. !
Jhi
2003
To find out suitable English coursebook giving meaningful inputs to the
students, and tobe used in dre following terms, thc Englishteachers need {o do an
cmpirical cvaluation of the English coursebooks they are using, rettospective
evaluaiion. The evaluation ca]1 bc done thJough either macro ormjcro evaluation.
A macro evaluation entirely cvaluate thc whole teaching materials in the
courscbooks whilc a micro evaluation evaluate certain parts ofthe coursebooks.
Thctangible andpractical evaluation to do is micro evaluation inwhich theEnglish
teachcrs only evaluate certain pal1s rcprcsenting the whole content of the
coursebooks. Doing such a micro evaluation, the English tcachers will find oui
suchsuitable English coursebooks to facilitate the studcnts' lcaming. It a wisc way
to choose English coursebooks to be used to optimally reach the pre-detcrmined
objectives. Ifthe teachers olEnglish do not find such suitableEnglish coursebooks
through their evaluation, they can add matcrials to or r€duce the content ofthe
courscbooks and finally they will have teachers' edition English teaching
materials.
Bibliography
Ansary rL & Babaii, E. (2002). Universalcharacteristics off,Fl-/trSLtextbooks: Astep
towards systematic textbook eval uatior fielnternet TESLJounal, yot. t/n,
No. 2, February 2r12. Accessed 18" Oclober 2008 from
httpf, ?iErli.orq/Arricles/Ansary-Texibooks/
Brown H. D. (2001). Tea&ing by pnnciples: An interdctye appft)dLh to Ia guage
p"dasop (2" Ed.). New York:Addison Wesley Longman, tnc.
Bryd, P (2001). Textbooks: Evaluation for setection and anatysis for implem€ntation In
Celce-Muria, M. (Ed.). Tedchins E slish as a secon(l arforeisn tansuase
6p.
415-427) (3'hEd.). SouthMelboume: Heinle&HeinleThomsonLeaming.
Council of Europe (2002). Camma Lturcpean tah4totL of rcfe,ence
.for ta guage:
LeLnng. t a hne J".p,tr c. t aon h' itt]e:carrbridep Uri! elc l) pres..
Crawford, J. (2002). Th€ rcle ofmateials in the lansuase classroom: Findina the batance.
ln Rcbard.. J. C. & Renar dya. w A. tF d,.t M, thodotag in tatry ;ee pa.hhR
t
n on
holog
oJ
c'
ent
ra.
lcc' pp. b0
q t
I
Cambridge. Cdmbridge Ur ver,ir)
Depdiknas. (2003). t/ndang-Un.tans Repubtik tndon*ia Nonat 20 rhhun 2003 tentang
Si.' ten P endidikan Na s iondL From Legalitas.org.
t05
Journal
ofEhdilh ukl Etlutttior, Vol.2 No. I Juni2003
Depdiknas. (2005). P€d,'rrrah Penerintah Na.
Pclrdnl,ftar. From Legahras. org.
l9
hhu
20Ai ktltang Standal Nasional
Depdiknas. (2006). Pel?turdn Menteti Pendtlikan Nasi.ndl No. 22 Tdhun 2006 tektang
S/dr./dr1si. From Legalitas.org.
Depdilnas. (2006). Peldruro Me teti Pendidikan Nasiondl No 23 tuhun 20A6 tuntang
Standa/ Konpete si Ll ur.rr. From Legalitas.org.
Dcpdiknds. (2006). Pelaruru Menteti Pendidiktn Naslotl.tl No. 21 Tahtn 20A6 tutltanE
Pelakanaan Pernle No. 22/2406 a .l Permen Na. 23/20A6.Ftan
Legrliks.org.
Llllis, R. (1997). The cmpirical evaluation oflanguag€ teaching mal€rials lEledronic
veBlo l.EI:l Jounul l/alu e 5l/l .Ianud 1997,36-41. Accessed 18'h
'Oclober 2008 nom
http://elri.oxt-ordjournals.ore.simslad.net.ocs.mo.edu.au/cei/rep!i45!!f,1 !!a
xroshow:&HITS= I 0&hits= I 0&RESUrl.FORMAT=&fulltext=lhe+emliilql t
evalualion+of+languase+teachins-maierials&senrchid:1&FIRSTNDEX=o&r
esoucetllEHlxeL
ElLis, R. (1998). The evaluation of conmunicative tasks. ID
Thoniilson, B. (Ed.).
Mdtetials derelathent iit language teachinE $p. 217-218). New York:
Canbridge Universiry Press.
Ellis, R. (2003).
7'ne rtud-L
H.rmer. J. (2001).
of secand lansuaee dcquBtrto,. OxIord: Oxford Universiiy
rre?/, ctice of Enslish
lansuase rea.nins (3'r Ed.). Harlow:
LonCman.hti!ll{t!r{l!!p.i!da!re!
cument.pb!!!1.34Accessed22""
January 2008
Johnson, K., Krn1, M. & Ya-Fang, L. et a]. (2008). Astep foNard: invesiigating
expenise in materials evaluarron lElectnaic Vetsio"l. ELT Jownul yalume
4 20A8. 157-162. Accessed l" November 2008 fton1
http/ql!.a!ba!i!!!!alr.a!e.rhs!ad.nel.ocs.nq.e!U4tsilep!id,/62l2/l57?m
62/2
axioshow:&HITS:l 0&hits= I 0&RESULTFORMAT:&tulhext=the+empirical
+evaludtion+of+languase+teachinq+materials&searcbi d: 1 &FIRSTIN-DEX:0
&resourcetvpe-S{elT
Littlejohn, A. (1998). Theanalysis of language teaching materials: Inside the trojan
horse- In Thomlinsor\ B. (Ed.). Matetials de.',elopnent in laksuase teachitts
(pp. 190-216). New York Canbridge University Press.
't06
Mashula, H. (1998). W'tiar do teachers really wari ftom coursebooks? tn Thomlinson.
B.(Ed) Matcrtuls devtopnent in Ia sudse teachnE bp.239_260). New
York Cambndge University Press
MurphxD.F.(1993).fi?luatinglaguageleaninsrastu,,/iec1arrru,,,.tnC.ookes.
G & cass, S. M. (Eds.). Tasks in a pedagogicat conlext: lntegraring theory and
praclice (139-161). Frost Road: Muhi Ling al Malie$ L'rD.
Nunan, D. (1993). Task-based syllabus design: Selecring, grading and sequencing hsks.
In Cnokes, G & Gass, S. M. (E.ls.) Tas}'s in a pedagagicat contei:
Inteqrating theary and pructice (55-63). Frost Road: Muhi Linguat Mduen
LTD,
r\-unan, D. (1999). Tre iedrnercentrc.l
cuficutun: A studt in se.and tansuape
/"a.rr,8. CambnJge: CarionJBe Uni!er..r) Press
Nunan, D. (2004). ?dst bdsed lansese teachnE. Cambridse: Cambridqe Universiw
Graves, K. (2003). Coursebook. ln Nunan, D. (Ed.). p,dt:tical En?tish lansud:.e
rcr'ht"g \pp. ):5-2tot \e$ york I or emporan
Rea-Dickins, P & cerrnaine, K. (2003) Purposes for evaluation. In Hall, D. R. &
Hewings, A. (Eds.). lnnoratian i Engtish ta"g age teachinE. A readet (pp.
253-262). N€w York: Rouledse.
& Lewis, M. (2006). An evatuarive checklisr for self-jccess materials
IElectrcnic Yersionl. ELT Joumal lolune 6a/3 Juty 20A6.272 2,/8. A..essed
Reinders, H.
ll'Ocrob( )008 lrom
httprletilxirdjoumals.ors.simslad.net.ocs.mq.erlu.au/cgi/rep4at60/3/272?n
axtoshoF&HITS: I 0&hirs= I 0&RESULTFORMAT=&fulhext=rhe+enzilic4l
+evalmiion r-of+lansuaqe r teachins+naterials&searchid=l &FIRSTINDEX=o
&resourcelvpE:SlUilIT
tuchards,
J
C. (2001i.
(anbridge
I
Crnic lun.leretophent
i
tanauaae
kachins Cambrldsel
nr\errr y tress.
Richards, J. C. & Renandya,W. A. (2002). Methodatop in taneuage teachi,lg: An
anthalog/ of.utent prucltce. Cambridger Cambridge Unive.siry press.
Stewad, T. (2007). ?aclrers d d leaners eyatuati g coune task: together. ELT Jaumat
2007 61(3),256,266. Aciessed l" Novenber 2008 from
httptr?il\i-oxfordjoumals.org.simsmd.net.ocs.mo.edu.au/cqi/conrenrfull/61/3/256?maxro
ShOW=&HiTS= I O&hitS= I O&R€SULTFORMAT=&fu IltEXt=EVALUATINGIT
EACHERS%27+CUIDE&searchid=t&FIRSTINDEx=O&resoucerrpFHWCt
I
107