An evaluation of the Advanced Oxford Practice Grammar Course book used for VLU’s English majors
Abstract
Textbook evaluations help select the best textbook by highlighting its potential strengths and weaknesses. This mixed-methods study aimed to determine whether George Yule’s Advanced Oxford Practical Grammar remained relevant as a compulsory textbook for first-year English-majored students at Van Lang University, Vietnam. Questionnaire and interview were served as the main research instruments with the participation of the thirty experienced English instructors. Quantitative data analysis involved the use of Microsoft Excel for frequency and percentage calculation, whereas the checklist for the questionnaire was based on and covered two main rubrics, namely content and practical considerations. Meanwhile, the qualitative responses from the interviews were carefully analyzed using a six-phased thematic analysis framework guideline, which allowed for the systematic categorization of instructors' assessments and experiences regarding the grammar course book into related themes. The findings demonstrated how well-suited the textbook was for tertiary students in terms of teaching grammar in a practical setting. The thoughtful application of additional grammar exercises and the connection of more pertinent contexts to communicate grammatical points and structures were two other suggested enhancements. Even though the textbook covered the most crucial grammatical topics for advanced learners with a plethora of examples and hands-on exercises, the participants pointed out some complex and unusual grammatical usage that might need to be revised. Particularly, suggestions called for more additional and interactive activities and tasks.
References
Abdelwahab, M. M. (2013). Developing an English Language Textbook Evaluative Checklist. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 1(3), 55-70.
Ansary, H., & Babaii, E. (2002). Universal characteristics of EFL/ESL textbook: A step towards systematic textbook evaluation. The Internet TESL Journal, 2, 1-8. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ansary-Textbooks/
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Brindley, G. (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program. Sydney: New South Wales Adult Migrant Education Service.
Brown, J. D. (2009). Foreign and second language needs analysis. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 269–93). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cunningsworth, A. (1984). Evaluation and selecting EFL teaching materials. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing Your Coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.
Ellis, R. (1997). The Empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT journal, 51(3), 36.
Eliana, M. (2024). Presentation of Grammar in English Please 2: Evaluation of a Colombian Coursebook. MEXTESOL Journal, 48(2), 1-13.
Ghorbani, M. R. (2011). Quantification and Graphic Representation of EFL Textbook
Evaluation Results. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(5), 511-520.
Ho, N. T., & Nguyen, V. D. (2022). An evaluation of the pre-intermediate market leader, third edition, course book used for business English students at a university in Ho Chi Minh city. Journal of language and life, 11B(333), 164-173.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A Learner Centered Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT journal, 48(4), 315-328. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/48.4.315
Johns, A. (1991). English for specific purposes: Its History and Contribution. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 67-77). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Kayapinar, U. (2009). Course book evaluation by English teachers. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(1), 69-78.
Littlejohn, A. (2011). The analysis of language teaching materials: inside the Trojan Horse. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching (179-211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDonough, J. & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and Methods in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell.
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Mukundan, J., Hajimohammadi, R., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2011b). Developing an English Language Textbook Evaluation Checklist: A Focus Group Study. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(12), 100-106.
Nunan, D. (2001). Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rea-Dickins, P. (1994). Evaluation and English language teaching. Language teaching, 27(2), 71.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sheldon, L. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(4), 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/42.4.237
Tarone, E. & Yule, G. (2000). Focus on the language learner. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education
Press.
Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (1998). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (2003). Developing materials for language teaching. London:
Continuum.
Tomlinson, B. (2011). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woodward, T. (2001). Planning Lessons and Courses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zhou & Xiaowei (2024). Evaluation of side by side from a grammatical perspective. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 14(3), 383-400. doi:10.4236/ojml.2024.143021.
1.png)
.png)
