1.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF TEXTBOOK EVALUATION

Material/Textbook evaluation can be distinguished in two types, namely predictive
which concerns decisions regarding what materials to use, as well as retrospective
which is conducted in the post-use stage to determine if the materials have actually
worked (Ellis, 1997). The former may be considered as an impressionistic approach,
while the latter an in-depth evaluation (Cunningsworth, 1995). The mere existence of
textbook evaluation is basically to determine a particular books strengths and
weaknesses (Cunningsworth, 1995), since the presence of a book is a sine qua non in
the whole teaching/learning process. It has been argued that without a textbook a
programme may have no impact since it is through the textbook that students receive
similar content , are provided the standards in instruction and thus are evaluated
equally (Richards, 2001), which is indeed psychologically essential for students
(Hycroft, 1998). Since the perfect book does not exist (Grant, 1987, p.8) the role of
textbook evaluation is indeed of paramount significance in order to spot the most
suitable one for our situation so that careful selection is made and the materials
selected closely reflect the needs of the learners and the aims, methods and values of
the teaching program (Cunningsworth, 1995, p.7.). Apart from the aforementioned
practical purposes of evaluation another advantage is that through the whole process
teachers benefit as instructors and facilitators since evaluation plays a critical role in
developing their awareness concerning their own presuppositions and prerequisites
concerning the whole teaching/learning situation (Hutchinson, 1987) which makes
even stronger the argument that evaluation is an intrinsic part of teaching and
learning (Rea-Dickens and Germaine 1994, p.4). However it is a common
assumption by preeminent theorists in ELT that a proviso in order for the whole
evaluation process to be reliable and efficient is the existence of evaluation checklists
with criteria ranging from the layout of the book to methodology, aims of the
curriculum and of course the needs of the students (Williams, 1983, Sheldon, 1988,
Brown, 1995, Cunningsworth, 1995).

2. PRESENTATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF TEXTBOOK EVALUATION

CRITERIA
The process of textbook evaluation involves a set of criteria in order for the whole
endeavour to be trustworthy. These criteria may be categorized as linguistic,
pedagogical, as well as technical (Halliday et al. 1964). The first two take into
consideration up-to-date methodology as well as the needs of the learners whereas the
latter ones deal with the quality of editing and publishing, the availability of
supplementary materials as well as the cost of the text. The next step would be for the
essential criteria to be listed and then checked off, a procedure known as the checklist
method (McGrath 2001). Reliable checklists by eminent linguists already exist, for
instance Williams (1983), Cunningsworth (1984), Sheldon (1988), McDonough and
Shaw (1993). Nonetheless, although they may share some vital points it is preferable
when evaluating a textbook to employ different checklists in order to cover as many
aspects of the material as possible (Cunningsworth, 1995). Furthermore a checklist
with specific criteria to be kept in mind during the evaluation process aids teachers in
moving beyond generalized assessments and obtaining precise and contextual insights
into the overall nature of textbook material (Chambers, 1997) although a global list
of criteria can never really apply in most local environments without considerable
modification (Sheldon, 1988, p.242). What is more, the subjective views of the
evaluator most often determine the criteria that are measured and valued in a textbook
(Tomlinson, 2001).
Criteria to be taken into consideration also include physical characteristics
considering its layout and how appealing the book is, authenticity which examines the
exploitation of language in a communicative real-world so to motivate students and
get them off the learning plateau (Bell & Gower, 1998, p.123), flexibility concerning
practical constraints to be dealt with such as audio-visual equipment and
supplementary aids available as well as guidance that has to do with the help provided
to the teacher for instance explicit notes and advice concerning supplementary
material (Sheldon, 1988). While students needs are definitely considered (Byrd,
2001; Skierso, 1991) another criterion strongly advocated is the teachers needs and
interests (Bell & Gower, 1998) since the best book in the world will not work in the
classroom if the teacher has good reasons for disliking it (Grant quoted in McGrath,
2001, p.41).

In relation to syllabus and curriculum, meeting their aims and specifications is also a
criterion worth mentioning (Richards & Rogers, 1987). Other evaluative criteria
incorporate the way that language skills (reading, writing, speaking, listening) as well
as sub-skills (grammar, vocabulary) are presented (Zabawa, 2001; Ur, 1996;
Cunningsworth, 1995; Harmer, 1991).
All in all, although the predetermination of a set of evaluative criteria may at times
blind the observer from features that may not be included, nevertheless checklists
can act as a basis for the improvement of a course through formative evaluation
(Nation & Macalister, 2010).