DEBREMARKOS UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND LITERATURE

COURSE TITLE: SYLLABUS DESIGN AND MATERIAL

WRITING I

TERM PAPER ON:LANGUAGE CURRICULUM Vs LANGUAGE

SYLLABUS

SET BY: MESELU LAKEW

ID. GSS/1205/09

SUBMITTED TO: MEKONEN ESUBALEW (PHD)

AUGUST2/2010 E.C

DEBREMARKOS,ETHIOPIA

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Introduction
1. Language curriculum...................................................................................................................1
1.1 Characteristics of language curriculum..................................................................................1
1.2 Principles of language curriculum.........................................................................................2
1.3 Language curriculum development.....................................................................................2
1.4 Historical background of language curriculum....................................................................3
1.5 Content selection in language curriculum............................................................................4
2. Language syllabus.......................................................................................................................5
2.1 Characteristics of syllabus.....................................................................................................6
2.2 Requirement of syllabus........................................................................................................6
2.3 Functions of Language syllabus.............................................................................................6
2.4 Components of language syllabus..........................................................................................6
3. Summary language curriculum versus syllabus.........................................................................7
4. Conclusion with some implications.............................................................................................8
References....................................................................................................................................9

I
 Introduction
The term paper focused on the features of language curriculum and language syllabus by
specifying their own definition, characteristics, components, principles, historical backgrounds,
functions and framework of them in individual.

Thus the main goal of this paper is to present or to provide some points or concepts both in
language curriculum and language syllabus with their own basic difference and similarities. But
when I try to present the language curriculum and the language syllabus, it may not fulfill
necessary points or ideas because of the interchangeablenessof the course itself but increases
awareness of a wide range of issues in language curriculum and language syllabus with different
elements inside them and will give some knowledge how to prepare and organize language
curriculum and language syllabus.

II
 1. Language curriculum

The term curriculumand syllabus are sometimes used interchangeable, sometime different and
sometimes mixed. However, curriculum refers to all those activities in which children engage
under the auspices of the school and includes how they learn it, how teachers help learners with
materials, styles, method of assessment, how they learn and what theoretical document and
reference to the programme of studies in an educational system or institution.

Curriculum deals general goal of education which reflects the overall educational and cultural
philosophy of a country and political trends as well as theoretical orientations to language and
language learning or provides overall relational for educating students, and address:
 purposing of educating student
 kind of knowledge
 kind of learning experiences, and answers:
- The goal of education, the subject to be taught, how activities engaged , methods and
materials, use of time and resource, assessment of learners.
Curriculum is a plan to realize a goal of education that prescribes:
a) content of information and problem solving methods of a domain.
b) The objective of students should reach in cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains.
c) The sequence in which these can be learnt by student in an estimated period of time.
Curriculum is a dynamic, ever changing series of planned learning experiences.

1.1 Characteristics of language curriculum

Based on language curriculum there are some characteristics of ideas such as:
1. Curriculum model throughout history
2. Those models are systematically, carefully, and scientifically, planned
3. Curriculum is a systematic attempt of course designs
4. Presence of traditional curriculum models in linguistics
5. Emphasis individual learner and shifted from teachers to teacher
6. Needs process
7. Attend learner and shifted from teacher to learners
8. Better to learner centered.
1
 9. Don’t choose teaching methods but how learning process will be

1.2 Principles of language curriculum

Language curriculum development is concerned with principles processes and procedures for the
planning, management, and assessment of language teaching learning, so some of the
principles:
a) Relevance
b) Flexibility
c) Continuity
d) Practicality
e) Effectiveness or in general ,
- Language learning , language teaching , choice of contents, choice of materials,
choice of tasks, choice of effective classroom assessment.

1.3 Language curriculum development

Curriculum development is an essential, practical activity since it seeks to improve the quality of
language teaching through the use of systematic planning, development and review practices
in all aspects of language programme.
Process of difference between language curriculum and language syllabus that evolved for
language teaching professionals to have sense of history of issues that have shapped the
development of language teaching. And those issues related to curriculum development issues
and processes illustrating different point of view and providing detail practical examples .
language curriculum development is examining and addressing the issues that arise in
developing and evaluating language programmes and teaching materials.
Curriculum development is more comprehensive, harmonize than syllabus design and it
includes aims and objective, need of learners (context), organized materials and assessment
techniques with three contexts, wider language curriculum, language classroom and participants,
educational and social reality.
Generally, language curriculum development involves four stages:
a) The careful examination, drawing, all available sources of knowledge objective to teach.

2
 b) Development and trial use schools of methods and materials are judged.
c) The assessment of achieved its objectives
d) Feedback of all experience gained
Curriculum development is the range of planning and implementation process involved.
- Need analysis, situational analysis, planning learning outcomes, course of
organization , selecting teaching material, provide effective evolution
Language curriculum deals with the following questions which provides the framework of the
book:
 What procedures can be used to determine the contents of the language programme?
 What are learners need?
 How can learners’ need determined?
 What contextual factors need to be considered in planning language programme?
 What is the nature of aims and objectives in teaching and how can those be developed?
 What factors are involved in planning organization of cases?
 How can good teaching be provided in programmed?
 What issues are involved in selecting, adapting, designing instructional materials?
 How can one measures the effectiveness of language programmed?
Language curriculum development is an aspect of broader field of educational activity that
studies curriculum development determining what knowledge, skills and values students learn in
school, what experiences should be provided to bring about intended learning outcomes and how
teaching learning in school or educational systems can be planned measured and evaluated.

Language curriculum development refers to the field of applied linguistics that addresses those
issues. And describes an interrelated set of processes that focus on deciding revising, ,
implementing and evaluating language programmes.

1.4Historicalbackground of language curriculum

The history of curriculum development in language teaching starts with the notion of syllabus
design. As syllabus design is one aspect of curriculum development but is not identical with it.
A syllabus design is a specific content of a course of instruction and lists what will be taught and
tested. Thus the syllabus for speaking course might specify the kind of oral skills that will be

3
taught and practiced during the course, the functions, topic or other aspects of conversation that
will be taught and ordered in the course.

Curriculum development in language teaching really began in 1960s as syllabus design emerged
in the first part of 20th c and that laid the foundation for more broadly based curriculum
approaches that are used in language teaching today. Starting this period, methods with greater
dominance.
- Grammar translation method (1800-1900)
- direct method (1930-1960)
- structural method (1920-1950)
- reading method (1950-1970)
- audio-lingual method (1950-1970)
- situational method (1950-1970)
- communicative approach (1970-present)

1.5 Content selection in language curriculum

A) Vocabulary selection: when there is language curriculum developments, there is selection of

contents related to vocabulary with the following criteria’s:
 Teachability, similarity, availability, coverage, designing power etc.
B) Grammar selection: The need for systematic approach to select grammar for teaching
purpose was also a priority for applied linguistics from the 1920s. The need for grammar
selection is seen in the following examples from as Jack Cited Wilkins 1976:59 can be used for
speech act of asking permission.
 Can/may I use your telephone , please?
 Please, let me use your Telephone.
 If it all right to use your telephone?
 If it is all right with you, I will use your Telephone?
 I allowed to use your telephone?
 Do you mind me using yourTelephone?
 Would you mind if I used your telephone?

And answers which of these structures would be useful to teach grammar structure.

4
 2. Language syllabus

Syllabus is a statement of what is to be learnt and refers to the content or the subject matter of an
individual subject. It is detailed and operational document which specify the content of a
particular subject with plan and translates goals of curriculum from abstract to concrete learning
objectives.
And includes:objectives, selection and grading of contents ,learning tasks and activities,
methodologies
Thus, when we design syllabus, we should be considered with the following points: selection,
subdivision and sequence of contents.
The term syllabus has been much more difficult concept to define. For example as Jack Cited, “
Widdowson” interprets on syllabus as … the specification of teaching programme or pedagogic
agenda which defines a particular subject for a particular group of learners… a syllabus
specification of teaching programme or pedagogic group of learners… a syllabus specification,
then is concerned with both the selection and order of what is to be taught (1900:127).
Next, as Jack Cited Nuan (1993:8) a syllabus is a process that focuses more narrowly on the
selection of grading contents and Candlin (1984) defined a syllabus as a means for encouraging
learners to challenge the pedagogical ideologies and views of reality that the syllabus designer
brings to the class. Yalden (1983:14), feels that a syllabus… replaces a concept of ‘methods’
and it is an instrument by which the teacher, with the help of syllabus. Thus, there are three
issues to design syllabus:
a. The extent to which syllabus needs to be made explicited their relation with different
types of learners.
b. Basic organizing principles and how those should be realized.
c. The nature /need for evaluation procedures.

Totally, syllabus is/uses for teaching not learning and must be workable in units of work, use
particular methodology, and retrospective recorded, not prospective plan including, cultural and
communicative activities interms of contents.

5
2.1 Characteristics of syllabus

Comprehensive, content items or process, ordered, explicated objectives, approach or

methodology, phenomended materials, public document of guides.

2.2 Requirement of syllabus

 Course plan framework for teachers and learners.
 Offer sense of continuity and direction in work of learners
 Represent a retrospective accounts of achieved
 Provide basis an learner progress with evaluation
 Assessed implementation for its purpose user

2.3 Functions of Language syllabus

 Establish an early point of contact and connection between students and instructors.
 Helps set the tone for your course.
 Describes your beliefs about education purpose.
 Contains connected handouts.
 Define students responsibility.
 Describes active learning methods.
 Help students to assess their readiness.
 Sets the course in a broader context for learning
 Provides conceptual frame work.
 Describes available learning resources
 Communicates the role of teaching in the course.
 Provides reading materials
 Improve effectiveness of students note taking.

2.4 Components of language syllabus

 General information- course name, instructors name, contact information office hourse
and day and place.
 Course description- course content

6
  Course codes and objectives- what expect to learn
 Grading producers or scales
 Course policies
 Course schedules-exam date and assessment.

3. Summary language curriculum versus syllabus

 Generally, curriculum is concerned with making general statements about language
learning, learning purpose and experiences relation between teachers and learners,
whereas, syllabus is more localized and based on the accounts and records of what
actually happens in the classroom level to their situation.
 Curriculum is a theoretical policy document, which, syllabus a guide for teachers and
learners that indicates what is to be achieved through the process of teaching learning.
 Curriculum is more than a list of topics to be covered by an educational programme,
whereas, syllabus is specific once.
 Curriculum is a broad description of contents or subject matter, with evaluation of all
the learning experiences, whereas, syllabus is a specific level of subject department with
choosing text books.
 Curriculum development is more compressive process and includes determining the
need of learners, aims and objectives and syllabus itself, course structures, teaching
methods and materials, evaluating systems, while, environment, deciding success of
achieving goals in the language teaching process.

7
4. Conclusion with some implications

When curriculum and syllabus designs, there are many comments from different societies,
teachers, and learners. Because those comments raised during implementation in the class room.
Based on this reason, I try to put the following implication as a conclusion.
 The present curriculum should be avoided or changed some language polices, this means,
EFL learners start from grade seven in other subjects.
 Language syllabusmaterials (texts) should be short simple and interesting because they
are very wide and broad to cover for both teachers and learners.
 The number of examinations, specially, grade 8,10,12 should be more of skill and
communicative based than grammar and structure.
 Training language in college should be English language because it creates failure in
working places and universities.

8
 References

 Alduais A.M.S (2012). Analysis of ESP syllabus: Saudi Arabian University

 Brumfit, C.J. (1984). General English syllabus design
 Clark J.L. (1987). Curriculum Renewable in school FL learning:
 Gregory Hadley (1998). New millinum: Asurvey of EFL Syllabus Design>
 Jack C. Richards (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching:
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY:

9
Karthleen Graves(2000). Designing a language courses: A guide for teachers. 1)
determining the effectiveness of a particular intervention 2) finding out how
well students are learning 3) identifying improvements which could be
made to a specific course, learning activity or learning process 4) satisfying
internal or external auditing requirements 5) demonstrating value to
stakeholders (which might include project founders) 6) reflecting on
professional practice in a structured way 7) building evidence for a portfolio
(e.g. career development, teaching fellowship) 8) producing guidelines for
colleagues (internal and external) who might want to carry out a similar
innovation 9) generating data for a research study or publication 10)
investigating an issue of personal, intellectual or professional interest
Attempting to connect all the interrelated issues of teaching materials
evaluation, many practical evaluation tools, such as evaluation checklists,
have been created for both selection and evaluation. The evaluation
instruments development procedures involve considering the evaluators
who will conduct the evaluation, the type of the instruments or the criteria
that will be used, the users’ needs and the method for reporting the results
of evaluation. These evaluation instruments can help to facilitate the whole
evaluation processes and eventually yield effective and practical
evaluations where the final reports can be used in the materials
amendment, improvement and supplementation. Weir & Roberts (1994)
differentiated between the “evaluation for accountability and evaluation for
development” where the first examines “whether a course will be
repeated…dropped or whether a particular source such as listening
laboratory has been used sufficiently” and 61 the second “purpose of
evaluation makes staff and/or institutions answerable to authorities and/or
sponsor. It also makes publishers and textbooks writers accountable to
teachers and teachers accountable to their students” (Weir & Roberts
1994: 4). In consequence, the instrument selected for evaluation is
important to reach reliable results. Tomlinson (2013: 31), a key researcher
in materials development and evaluation, recommends that “making an
evaluation criterion–referenced can reduce (but not remove) subjectivity
and can certainly help to make an evaluation more principled, rigorous,
systematic and reliable”. He also suggests that “many of the checklists and
lists of criteria …provide a useful starting point for anybody conducting an
10
evaluation”. Unfortunately, not all the instruments available for teaching
materials evaluation are effective and practical in their use, as “some of
them are impressionistic and biased” and “some of the lists lack coverage,
systematicity and/or a principled base, and some give the impression that
they could be used in any materials evaluation” (Tomlinson 1999: 11, cited
in Tomlinson 2013: 35). The types and methods of teaching materials
evaluation are discussed next to identify the most viable tool to be used in
English language programmes.

2.9 Materials Evaluation and Types

11
 There are many methods and types for materials evaluation. Some are
more practical and easy to use and others need more expertise and longer
time to conduct. As evaluation in general is clarified in section 2.2 through
Brown (1995) and Worthern and Sanders (1973) definitions, teaching
materials evaluation will be defined in this section. Tomlinson's (2003: 15)
definition of materials evaluation is “a procedure that involves measuring
the value (or potential value) of a set of learning materials. It involves
making judgments about the effect of the materials on the people using
them”. He advises the evaluators to: “apply” their own “principles of
evaluation to the contextual circumstance” of their “evaluation in order to
determine the most reliable and effective procedures”. Tomlinson suggests
several principles for materials evaluation as well as the procedures and
the items to be measured and tested. He proposes that through materials
evaluation, the evaluator “tries to measure some or all of the following: the
appeal of the materials to learners, the credibility of the materials, the
validity, the reliability, the flexibility, the contribution made by the materials
to teacher development the ability of the materials to interest the learners
and the teachers, to motivate the learners…, the value of the materials in
terms of short-term learning…and long-term learning…” (Tomlinson 2013
a: 21-22). 62 Despite his detailed clarifications, the evaluator may find
difficulty conducting the evaluation for a number of reasons. First, the
evaluation items are based on one source, which is second language
acquisition principles. Second, there are no specific procedures for each
item, and finally, there is no specific model or framework that can be used
as a guide for inexperienced evaluators. Johnson (1989: 223) defines
curriculum evaluation, which can be also used in materials evaluation, as
“the systemic collection and analysis of all relevant information necessary
to promote the improvement of the curriculum and assess its effectiveness
and efficiency, as well as the participants’ attitudes within the context of the
particular institutions involved.” The three definitions mentioned for general
evaluation, curriculum evaluation and teaching materials evaluation share
some general characteristics. These are judging the evaluand, identifying
its effectiveness and utility to its users. Despite their comprehensiveness, it
was thought that a more appropriate definition would include several
additional issues in materials evaluation such as its goals, procedures,
12
evaluators’ roles and reporting results. Thus, material evaluation in this
study will refer to investigating teaching materials by any of the potential
users for selection or improvement using a viable instrument leading to a
final report about the evaluation procedures and results. In spite of the
huge number of studies that have been conducted on teaching materials,
the checklist method instructions and items are still muddled, as is
mentioned by many researchers including Tomlinson (2013) and
Mukundan & Ahour (2010). Tomlinson (2012) presents a detailed literature
review on how different researchers have proposed different schemes or
criteria to evaluating teaching materials from Tucker (1975) to Ur (1996),
Brown (1997), Hemsley (1997) and Gearing (1999). These criteria,
contributed to the evolution of materials evaluation and understanding their
content. However, there are still to be encountered many opinions and
types of evaluations for teaching materials, which are mostly based on
repeated procedures of designing and developing the preexisting checklists
and the evaluators' own experiences. Some of these methods are
discussed in the subsequent sections as an introduction to specify the most
practical and effective evaluation instrument for teaching materials in the
English Foundation Programmes.

2.9.1 Macro and Micro Evaluation

13
 Macro evaluations are inclusive compared to micro evaluations. In other
words, macro evaluation is broader than micro evaluation. It involves
administrative matters besides 63 the curricular matters. The curricular
matters include materials, teachers and learners evaluations. According to
McGrath (2002) the “macro dimension” has several stages which he calls
the ‘approach’ and the “micro dimension occurs within each stage”. This
micro dimension is the “set of technique employed”. Therefore, evaluators
can do the two evaluations separately or together. Though this method
seems comprehensive, it may not suit the contexts of the Omani English
Foundation Programmes as it will require more time and expertise than
what is available in the actual settings. 2.9.2 Pre-use, in-use and post-use
Evaluation McGrath (2002) puts the three types of evaluation in a cyclical
approach to evaluate teaching materials. Cycle one is the pre-use, cycle
two is the in-use and the third is the post-use. He states that the pre-use is
the most popular type of evaluation as it is the easiest in terms of time and
effort. The other two are difficult because “time is not available or has not
been allocated” for them. Tomlinson has the same three types except that
he substitutes the term “in-use” with “whilst-use” (Tomlinson 2003: 25-26).
For him, the pre-use evaluation is “impressionistic” most of the time even if
it is done against a number of criteria points. Most researchers use
categories like the ones suggested by Tomlinson (texts, layout, tasks,
objectives, local needs and pedagogical factors) to form the main
checkpoints for materials evaluation. Teaching materials evaluation in-use,
needs a close observation to all the details and activities that happen in the
classroom. Though it takes more time, its results help considerably in
materials development, improvement and in providing the appropriate
supplementary texts and tasks. The post use evaluation of materials
according to Tomlinson can answer questions about different stakeholders
in the educational institution. First, the students’ evaluation questions
should enquire about the learners’ skills or abilities “which they did not
know before”, the things that the learners can do “which they couldn’t do
before”, how the materials prepare them “for their post-course use of the
target language” and the effect they “had on the confidence/ the motivation
of the learners”. Second, teachers’ questions in the evaluation examine if
they find the “materials easy...and helped them to cover the syllabus”.
14
Finally, the context is also covered through administrators’ needs and if
they find materials a good apparatus that helped “them to standardize the
teaching in their institutions” (Tomlinson 2017: 26). This method is clear but
not easy to explain and conduct in the English Foundation Programmes in
Colleges of Applied Sciences. So a new conception of evaluation that
incorporates both views is essential. Considering the scattered views, all 64
the stages referred to by McGrath and Tomlinson above can be easily
assembled into an easy and practical evaluation instrument. 2.9.3 External
and Internal Evaluation External evaluation is the quick and general look at
the materials or the coursebook. In their evaluation model that includes
external and internal reviews, McDonough, Shaw and Masuhara (2013: 59-
60) focus on two things regarding external evaluation: the “blurb”, or the
claims made on the cover…and “the introduction and table of contents”.
After this stage, comes the second one which is the internal evaluation.
The internal evaluation is a thorough examination of the course book
content. The investigation includes the: “the presentation of the skills in the
materials and the grading and sequencing of the materials”. The final step
in this set of criteria is to check factors as “usability, generalizability,
adaptability and flexibility” (ibid: 60-61) in the teaching materials. This
framework seems similar to Tomlinson and McGrath’s pre-use and whilst-
use evaluation, which includes both impressionistic and close evaluations.
This framework is also comprehensive but not practical for the busy
practitioners in the English Foundation Programmes.

2.9.4 Formative and Summative Evaluation

15
Since their coinage by Michael Scriven in 1967, these two types of
evaluation have been used in evaluating different aspects of programmes
and organizations. The two types can be used also to evaluate course
materials and curriculum. Both methods with their techniques are used in
conducting research projects. According to Stufflebeam & Shinkfield (2012:
314), Scriven’s formative-summative approach designates evaluation as
“the systemic and objective determination of the worth or the merit of an
object”. The “object” here can be anything including teaching materials. So
in relation to materials evaluation, it can be said that formative evaluation is
somehow equivalent to the in-use evaluation and that summative
evaluation corresponds to the post-use evaluation. Nation & Macalister
(2010: 126) compare the two types in terms of purpose, data type, data use
and the “presentation of findings” in evaluating any course, as in table (6).
Despite the importance of such types of evaluations, their use in the
English language programmes and in other similar evaluations is not
effective, hence, we can find researchers such as Williams and Burden
(994) looking for another complementary evaluation type such as
illuminative evaluation, discussed earlier in section 2.3., which enables the
researcher to 65 collect more data during the implementation of the
intervention and find solutions for the problems that occur during the project
enactment. Formative Summative Purpose Improve the course Judge the
course Type of data More likely to look at causes, processes, individuals
More likely to look at results, standards, groups Use of data Used for
counselling, mentoring, professional development, setting goals, adapting
material Used to make decisions on adequacy Presentation of findings
Presented to and discussed with individuals Presented in a report Table (6)
Formative & Summative evaluations from Nation and Macalister (2010) As
can be seen, different researchers and evaluators have their own terms,
methods and models for materials evaluation. Despite the
comprehensiveness of some frameworks, they all lack a focus on practical
application in a complicated educational setting such as the English
Foundation Programmes in Colleges of Applied Sciences in Oman.
Varieties of terms and models sometimes complicate the situations rather
than simplifying them, especially for busy practitioners who do not have
time to read or understand all the issues related to the use of such
16
schemes A checklist that is divided into two parts (representing quick and
detailed evaluations) which can save the time and effort needed to conduct
such evaluations is a recommended alternative. In fact, many of the
complications and unnecessary intricacies can be avoided through
incorporating both types (quick and detailed evaluation) in one practical
evaluation instrument such as an evaluation checklist designed specifically
to be used in the English language programmes. So, the search for more
practical and simple methods continues in the next section. 2.10 Practical
Methods for Teaching Materials Evaluation Beside the different types that
can be used as evaluation tools for teaching materials, as well as other
aspects of the educational programmes, there are particular types that can
be used specifically to evaluate the different textbooks that are selected or
will be purchased for the English programmes. To avoid confusing methods
and models discussed in the previous sections with the suggested ones,
the three methods are illustrated in the next sections. The three methods
are the impressionistic, the in-depth 66 and the checklist. These methods
are simple and easy to use by most stakeholders and they require less time
and effort. 2.10.1 The impressionistic method The impressionistic method
is similar to McDonough et.al (2013), external evaluation mentioned earlier.
It is a quick glance at the exterior features of the coursebook or the
materials. All the descriptions on the cover of the book, the shape the size,
the colours and the layout can be noticed and seen through the
impressionistic method. McGrath (2002:25) expands the process to include
“skimming through the book looking at organization, topics, layout and
visuals”. But, as the name of this method suggests, it is not considered a
comprehensive tool to judge the effectiveness of the materials. So it should
be used along with another instrument or as a part of a comprehensive
one. 2.10.2 The in-depth method Both the impressionistic method and the
in-depth method look at the claims made by the author. But the “in-depth
method” is more detailed and thorough than the impressionistic method. It
involves using many techniques that are mentioned by different
researchers such as: a focus on specific features (Cunningsworth 1995), a
close analysis of one or more extracts (Hutchinson 1987), or a “thorough
examination of several units using predetermined questions” (Johnson
1986, cited in McGrath, 2002: 28). This method has disadvantages that are
17
mentioned by (McGrath, 2002: 28) to include the following: 1)
Representativeness of samples: the samples…selected for analysis may
not be representative of the book as a whole… 2) Partiality: It gives only a
partial insight into what the material offers. 3) Time and expertise required:
some proposals for in-depth evaluation would involve a good deal of time;
others require expert knowledge. 2.10.3 The checklist method Checklists
can be used in all disciplines as they are a very practical tool for all
stakeholders. Scriven (2007: 1) defines checklists as “a list of factors,
properties, aspects, components, criteria, tasks, or dimensions, the
presence, referent, or amount of which are to be considered separately, in
order to perform a certain task”. McGrath (2013: 182) stated that “even
when teachers have the freedom to make the choice, either collectively or
individually, they seem not to approach this in a systematic way” so he
proposes that “one of the strongest recommendations in the professional
literature is that a checklist be used.” He also stated that the reasons which
discourage teachers from doing materials 67 evaluation are “lack of time,
lack of training, and lack of confidence.” Therefore, in order to ensure a
reliable evaluation, the teacher-evaluators have to be trained and provided
with an appropriate instrument even if they are experienced. McGrath
(2013: 124) advises that “while experience …is valuable, it is not a
substitute for training in evaluation.” Wilson (2013: 13) clarifies checklists
general strengths as “they are easy to administer and use, less training is
required than with other methods, the output produced by checklist is
immediately useful, they can serve as memory aids” and finally their flexible
nature that makes them easy to “customize” through “adding or removing
sections or modifying items” makes their use easier than other evaluation
instruments. McGrath also (2002) refers to the advantages of checklists in
evaluating teaching materials as they are “systematic…cost effective…
explicit…permitting a good deal of information to be recorded in a relatively
short space of time” and “information is recorded in a convenient format,
allowing for easy comparison between competing sets of material”. These
checklists also offer “a common framework for decision-making” (McGrath
2002: 26- 27). Scriven (2007: 4) also states the importance of checklists as
tools that are having the characteristics of being “mnemonic devices” and
“easy instruments.” They also help to “reduce the influence of the halo
18
effect, i.e., the tendency to allow the presence of some highly valued
feature to over influence one’s judgment of merit” besides reducing “the
influence of the Rorschach effect, i.e., the tendency to see what one wants
to see in a mass of data…”. Lastly checklists “can contribute substantially
to (i) the improvement of validity, reliability, and credibility of an evaluation;
and (ii) our useful knowledge about a domain.” Despite their importance,
most developed checklists never explain how they are developed apart
from the authors' descriptions of reasons for choosing the items to include
in their checklists. Looking at the literature of checklists and their
development, some instructions can be found for general evaluative
checklists and others for teaching materials checklists. It seems that
different disciplines are not benefiting from each other’s research and
guidelines. For example, it is clear that educational evaluation depends
mostly on applied linguistics, ignoring the contributions of other researchers
in other areas like management, business and design. The checklist
method is used widely in these fields and many others to evaluate the
quality and effectiveness of their programmes and products. The evaluation
checklists are defined as “tools for assessing a product or a service against
a set of principles, best practices, or specific criteria” (Brykczynsk 1999,
cited in Wilson, 68 2013: 5). They comprise consulting many references,
opinions and constant improvements. Scriven (2007: 5) introduces some of
the requirements that should be considered by the evaluator to produce a
good checklist where it “should refer to criteria and not mere indicators” as
well as being “complete (no significant omissions) and with “contiguous”
items that do not overlap and “commensurable, clear, concise astated that
“evaluation is an intrinsic part of teaching and learning” and Cunningsworth
(1984 cited in Dougill, 1987: 29) assured that “professional judgement…lies
at the base of the evaluation procedure.” These advantages and others
were summarized as “some common objectives for evaluation” in general
by Mahfoodh & Bhanegaonkar (2013: 4) to include: 1) determining the
effectiveness of a particular intervention 2) finding out how well students
are learning 3) identifying improvements which could be made to a specific
course, learning activity or learning process 4) satisfying internal or external
auditing requirements 5) demonstrating value to stakeholders (which might
include project founders) 6) reflecting on professional practice in a
19
structured way 7) building evidence for a portfolio (e.g. career
development, teaching fellowship) 8) producing guidelines for colleagues
(internal and external) who might want to carry out a similar innovation 9)
generating data for a research study or publication 10) investigating an
issue of personal, intellectual or professional interest Attempting to connect
all the interrelated issues of teaching materials evaluation, many practical
evaluation tools, such as evaluation checklists, have been created for both
selection and evaluation. The evaluation instruments development
procedures involve considering the evaluators who will conduct the
evaluation, the type of the instruments or the criteria that will be used, the
users’ needs and the method for reporting the results of evaluation. These
evaluation instruments can help to facilitate the whole evaluation processes
and eventually yield effective and practical evaluations where the final
reports can be used in the materials amendment, improvement and
supplementation. Weir & Roberts (1994) differentiated between the
“evaluation for accountability and evaluation for development” where the
first examines “whether a course will be repeated…dropped or whether a
particular source such as listening laboratory has been used sufficiently”
and 61 the second “purpose of evaluation makes staff and/or institutions
answerable to authorities and/or sponsor. It also makes publishers and
textbooks writers accountable to teachers and teachers accountable to
their students” (Weir & Roberts 1994: 4). In consequence, the instrument
selected for evaluation is important to reach reliable results. Tomlinson
(2013: 31), a key researcher in materials development and evaluation,
recommends that “making an evaluation criterion–referenced can reduce
(but not remove) subjectivity and can certainly help to make an evaluation
more principled, rigorous, systematic and reliable”. He also suggests that
“many of the checklists and lists of criteria …provide a useful starting point
for anybody conducting an evaluation”. Unfortunately, not all the
instruments available for teaching materials evaluation are effective and
practical in their use, as “some of them are impressionistic and biased” and
“some of the lists lack coverage, systematicity and/or a principled base,
and some give the impression that they could be used in any materials
evaluation” (Tomlinson 1999: 11, cited in Tomlinson 2013: 35). The types

20
and methods of teaching materials evaluation are discussed next to identify
the most viable tool to be used in English language programmes. 2.9

Materials Evaluation and Types

21
 There are many methods and types for materials evaluation. Some are
more practical and easy to use and others need more expertise and longer
time to conduct. As evaluation in general is clarified in section 2.2 through
Brown (1995) and Worthern and Sanders (1973) definitions, teaching
materials evaluation will be defined in this section. Tomlinson's (2003: 15)
definition of materials evaluation is “a procedure that involves measuring
the value (or potential value) of a set of learning materials. It involves
making judgments about the effect of the materials on the people using
them”. He advises the evaluators to: “apply” their own “principles of
evaluation to the contextual circumstance” of their “evaluation in order to
determine the most reliable and effective procedures”. Tomlinson suggests
several principles for materials evaluation as well as the procedures and
the items to be measured and tested. He proposes that through materials
evaluation, the evaluator “tries to measure some or all of the following: the
appeal of the materials to learners, the credibility of the materials, the
validity, the reliability, the flexibility, the contribution made by the materials
to teacher development the ability of the materials to interest the learners
and the teachers, to motivate the learners…, the value of the materials in
terms of short-term learning…and long-term learning…” (Tomlinson 2013
a: 21-22). 62 Despite his detailed clarifications, the evaluator may find
difficulty conducting the evaluation for a number of reasons. First, the
evaluation items are based on one source, which is second language
acquisition principles. Second, there are no specific procedures for each
item, and finally, there is no specific model or framework that can be used
as a guide for inexperienced evaluators. Johnson (1989: 223) defines
curriculum evaluation, which can be also used in materials evaluation, as
“the systemic collection and analysis of all relevant information necessary
to promote the improvement of the curriculum and assess its effectiveness
and efficiency, as well as the participants’ attitudes within the context of the
particular institutions involved.” The three definitions mentioned for general
evaluation, curriculum evaluation and teaching materials evaluation share
some general characteristics. These are judging the evaluand, identifying
its effectiveness and utility to its users. Despite their comprehensiveness, it
was thought that a more appropriate definition would include several
additional issues in materials evaluation such as its goals, procedures,
22
evaluators’ roles and reporting results. Thus, material evaluation in this
study will refer to investigating teaching materials by any of the potential
users for selection or improvement using a viable instrument leading to a
final report about the evaluation procedures and results. In spite of the
huge number of studies that have been conducted on teaching materials,
the checklist method instructions and items are still muddled, as is
mentioned by many researchers including Tomlinson (2013) and
Mukundan & Ahour (2010). Tomlinson (2012) presents a detailed literature
review on how different researchers have proposed different schemes or
criteria to evaluating teaching materials from Tucker (1975) to Ur (1996),
Brown (1997), Hemsley (1997) and Gearing (1999). These criteria,
contributed to the evolution of materials evaluation and understanding their
content. However, there are still to be encountered many opinions and
types of evaluations for teaching materials, which are mostly based on
repeated procedures of designing and developing the preexisting checklists
and the evaluators' own experiences. Some of these methods are
discussed in the subsequent sections as an introduction to specify the most
practical and effective evaluation instrument for teaching materials in the
English Foundation Programmes. 2.9.1 Macro and Micro Evaluation Macro
evaluations are inclusive compared to micro evaluations. In other words,
macro evaluation is broader than micro evaluation. It involves
administrative matters besides 63 the curricular matters. The curricular
matters include materials, teachers and learners evaluations. According to
McGrath (2002) the “macro dimension” has several stages which he calls
the ‘approach’ and the “micro dimension occurs within each stage”. This
micro dimension is the “set of technique employed”. Therefore, evaluators
can do the two evaluations separately or together. Though this method
seems comprehensive, it may not suit the contexts of the Omani English
Foundation Programmes as it will require more time and expertise than
what is available in the actual settings. 2.9.2 Pre-use, in-use and post-use
Evaluation McGrath (2002) puts the three types of evaluation in a cyclical
approach to evaluate teaching materials. Cycle one is the pre-use, cycle
two is the in-use and the third is the post-use. He states that the pre-use is
the most popular type of evaluation as it is the easiest in terms of time and
effort. The other two are difficult because “time is not available or has not
23
been allocated” for them. Tomlinson has the same three types except that
he substitutes the term “in-use” with “whilst-use” (Tomlinson 2003: 25-26).
For him, the pre-use evaluation is “impressionistic” most of the time even if
it is done against a number of criteria points. Most researchers use
categories like the ones suggested by Tomlinson (texts, layout, tasks,
objectives, local needs and pedagogical factors) to form the main
checkpoints for materials evaluation. Teaching materials evaluation in-use,
needs a close observation to all the details and activities that happen in the
classroom. Though it takes more time, its results help considerably in
materials development, improvement and in providing the appropriate
supplementary texts and tasks. The postuse evaluation of materials
according to Tomlinson can answer questions about different stakeholders
in the educational institution. First, the students’ evaluation questions
should enquire about the learners’ skills or abilities “which they did not
know before”, the things that the learners can do “which they couldn’t do
before”, how the materials prepare them “for their post-course use of the
target language” and the effect they “had on the confidence/ the motivation
of the learners”. Second, teachers’ questions in the evaluation examine if
they find the “materials easy...and helped them to cover the syllabus”.
Finally, the context is also covered through administrators’ needs and if
they find materials a good apparatus that helped “them to standardize the
teaching in their institutions” (Tomlinson 2017: 26). This method is clear but
not easy to explain and conduct in the English Foundation Programmes in
Colleges of Applied Sciences. So a new conception of evaluation that
incorporates both views is essential. Considering the scattered views, all 64
the stages referred to by McGrath and Tomlinson above can be easily
assembled into an easy and practical evaluation instrument. 2.9.3 External
and Internal Evaluation External evaluation is the quick and general look at
the materials or the coursebook. In their evaluation model that includes
external and internal reviews, McDonough, Shaw and Masuhara (2013: 59-
60) focus on two things regarding external evaluation: the “blurb”, or the
claims made on the cover…and “the introduction and table of contents”.
After this stage, comes the second one which is the internal evaluation.
The internal evaluation is a thorough examination of the course book
content. The investigation includes the: “the presentation of the skills in the
24
materials and the grading and sequencing of the materials”. The final step
in this set of criteria is to check factors as “usability, generalizability,
adaptability and flexibility” (ibid: 60-61) in the teaching materials. This
framework seems similar to Tomlinson and McGrath’s pre-use and whilst-
use evaluation, which includes both impressionistic and close evaluations.
This framework is also comprehensive but not practical for the busy
practitioners in the English Foundation Programmes. 2.9.4 Formative and
Summative Evaluation Since their coinage by Michael Scriven in 1967,
these two types of evaluation have been used in evaluating different
aspects of programmes and organizations. The two types can be used also
to evaluate course materials and curriculum. Both methods with their
techniques are used in conducting research projects. According to
Stufflebeam & Shinkfield (2012: 314), Scriven’s formative-summative
approach designates evaluation as “the systemic and objective
determination of the worth or the merit of an object”. The “object” here can
be anything including teaching materials. So in relation to materials
evaluation, it can be said that formative evaluation is somehow equivalent
to the in-use evaluation and that summative evaluation corresponds to the
post-use evaluation. Nation & Macalister (2010: 126) compare the two
types in terms of purpose, data type, data use and the “presentation of
findings” in evaluating any course, as in table (6). Despite the importance of
such types of evaluations, their use in the English language programmes
and in other similar evaluations is not effective, hence, we can find
researchers such as Williams and Burden (994) looking for another
complementary evaluation type such as illuminative evaluation, discussed
earlier in section 2.3., which enables the researcher to 65 collect more data
during the implementation of the intervention and find solutions for the
problems that occur during the project enactment. Formative Summative
Purpose Improve the course Judge the course Type of data More likely to
look at causes, processes, individuals More likely to look at results,
standards, groups Use of data Used for counselling, mentoring,
professional development, setting goals, adapting material Used to make
decisions on adequacy Presentation of findings Presented to and
discussed with individuals Presented in a report Table (6) Formative &
Summative evaluations from Nation and Macalister (2010) As can be seen,
25
different researchers and evaluators have their own terms, methods and
models for materials evaluation. Despite the comprehensiveness of some
frameworks, they all lack a focus on practical application in a complicated
educational setting such as the English Foundation Programmes in
Colleges of Applied Sciences in Oman. Varieties of terms and models
sometimes complicate the situations rather than simplifying them,
especially for busy practitioners who do not have time to read or
understand all the issues related to the use of such schemes A checklist
that is divided into two parts (representing quick and detailed evaluations)
which can save the time and effort needed to conduct such evaluations is a
recommended alternative. In fact, many of the complications and
unnecessary intricacies can be avoided through incorporating both types
(quick and detailed evaluation) in one practical evaluation instrument such
as an evaluation checklist designed specifically to be used in the English
language programmes. So, the search for more practical and simple
methods continues in the next section. 2.10 Practical Methods for Teaching
Materials Evaluation Beside the different types that can be used as
evaluation tools for teaching materials, as well as other aspects of the
educational programmes, there are particular types that can be used
specifically to evaluate the different textbooks that are selected or will be
purchased for the English programmes. To avoid confusing methods and
models discussed in the previous sections with the suggested ones, the
three methods are illustrated in the next sections. The three methods are
the impressionistic, the in-depth 66 and the checklist. These methods are
simple and easy to use by most stakeholders and they require less time
and effort. 2.10.1 The impressionistic method The impressionistic method
is similar to McDonough et.al (2013), external evaluation mentioned earlier.
It is a quick glance at the exterior features of the coursebook or the
materials. All the descriptions on the cover of the book, the shape the size,
the colours and the layout can be noticed and seen through the
impressionistic method. McGrath (2002:25) expands the process to include
“skimming through the book looking at organization, topics, layout and
visuals”. But, as the name of this method suggests, it is not considered a
comprehensive tool to judge the effectiveness of the materials. So it should
be used along with another instrument or as a part of a comprehensive
26
one. 2.10.2 The in-depth method Both the impressionistic method and the
in-depth method look at the claims made by the author. But the “in-depth
method” is more detailed and thorough than the impressionistic method. It
involves using many techniques that are mentioned by different
researchers such as: a focus on specific features (Cunningsworth 1995), a
close analysis of one or more extracts (Hutchinson 1987), or a “thorough
examination of several units using predetermined questions” (Johnson
1986, cited in McGrath, 2002: 28). This method has disadvantages that are
mentioned by (McGrath, 2002: 28) to include the following: 1)
Representativeness of samples: the samples…selected for analysis may
not be representative of the book as a whole… 2) Partiality: It gives only a
partial insight into what the material offers. 3) Time and expertise required:
some proposals for in-depth evaluation would involve a good deal of time;
others require expert knowledge. 2.10.3 The checklist method Checklists
can be used in all disciplines as they are a very practical tool for all



27