Textbook Evaluation: Success with BEC Vantage

An Evaluation of Course Materials for Language Examination Purposes

Simona Petrescu 5000 words

Table of Contents I.

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2

II.

Section 1: Overview of Success with BEC Vantage ......................................... 3 1.

Target population ......................................................................................... 3

2.

Pack Components ........................................................................................ 3

3.

View of needs............................................................................................... 4

4.

Syllabus ....................................................................................................... 4

5.

External evaluation ....................................................................................... 5

III.

Micro-analysis and evaluation .......................................................................... 7

1.

Methods of evaluation .................................................................................. 7

2.

Results ......................................................................................................... 8

IV.

Overall evaluation .......................................................................................... 12

V.

Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 14

VI.

APPENDIX 1.................................................................................................. 17

VII.

APPENDIX 2 .............................................................................................. 19

1

I.

Introduction

This paper aims to analyse and evaluate a Business English course pack preparing learners for the Cambridge BEC Vantage examination (CEFR B2). The title in question is Success with BEC Vantage by John Hughes, published by Summertown Publishing in 2008 (ISBN 978-3-526-51335-3). The evaluation outlined in this paper will follow that proposed by McDonough, Shaw, & Masuhara (2013). Thus, the first section will provide an external analysis of the material to determine its intended audience, level, and aims; the course syllabus and the components of the material pack will also be examined. The section will conclude by evaluating its effectiveness and matching its claims to their realisation. The second section of the paper will perform an internal evaluation by focusing on one unit in the textbook. In this micro-evaluation I will examine aspects related to learner needs with respect to exam requirements, e.g. exam training, validity and authenticity of tasks, but also to overall methodological approach. At both internal and external levels, evaluation will be distinguished from analysis (Tomlinson, 2003). I will set out by analysing the features of the materials and will go on to evaluate their effectiveness, by matching them to the materials’ stated aims and claims. Littlejohn’s (2011) evaluation involves matching materials’ features to the target situation in use, while Hutchinson and Waters (1987) propose a match to teacher’s context. Similarly, I will evaluate Success with BEC Vantage by checking whether its claims related to exam preparation are supported, incorporating findings from my actual use of the materials in two exam-preparation courses (2012, 2013). The evaluation process presented in this paper can also be mapped on Cunningsworth’s (1995) pre-, in- and post-use evaluation. Before adopting this material I examined it externally, while the internal evaluation was only possible during, and mostly after, the course. As for the purpose of the evaluation exercise, this paper undertakes what Cunningsworth calls evaluation for suitability, i.e. with a specific course in mind, as opposed to that for potential.

2

II.

Section 1: Overview of Success with BEC Vantage

1. Target population The course materials are designed for adult learners preparing for BEC Vantage, but are also suitable, according to the blurb, for “business people and students wishing to improve their English and job prospects” (Hughes, 2008b). These claims entail a number of further statements about the materials: 

Level: the overall difficulty level is geared at CEFR band B2;



Context of use (McDonough, Shaw, & Masuhara, 2013): Business English classes, business specialist knowledge not required but useful;



Use (McDonough, Shaw, & Masuhara, 2013): core material; selective use depending on course aims; concerning BEC, it claims to provide “a complete preparation” (Hughes, 2008b);



View of needs: apart from language and communication needs, the materials undertake to address exam-specific needs, i.e. coverage of a specific syllabus of items at a specific level of difficulty and complexity, provision of exam information and sample tasks or models, practice of exam tasks.

2. Pack Components The pack also includes a Teacher’s Book (TB), a Workbook (WB) available either with, or without, answers, as well as two audio CD’s for the listening activities in the textbook. The TB features the following: 

reduced Student’s Book pages “for easy reference” (Hughes, 2008a) while teaching,



detailed teaching notes and answer keys,



listening scripts,



extra photocopiable activities with accompanying notes, for each unit.

The WB is claimed to feature “interesting and motivating input and activities” which “consolidate and extend” the main language and skills areas in the SB (Hughes, 2008a). The textbook itself also includes supplementary material at the back, such as activity files for pair work, lists of useful expressions per unit, listening scripts, and brief grammar reference.

3

3. View of needs The SB contents reveal the author’s modular approach. Units are split into three main blocks: business topic, business skill, and exam spotlight (see Appendix 1). This reinforces the statement made about target population and use; namely, that the course book aims to cater for two types of needs – exam preparation and business communication in general. The TB suggests that the SB content should be treated in a differentiated way, as follows: 

learners intending to take the BEC exam should cover the entire book;



learners interested in grammar and vocabulary should only cover the Business Topic sections;



learners particularly interested in business communication should only cover the Business Skills sections;



learners interested in improving their language overall, but with no interest in BEC should cover everything except the Exam Spotlight sections.

The business topics comprise a typical Business English range, from work, recruitment, advertising to management or business ethics. The Business Skills section also covers a typical sample of issues, such as making contact, presenting your company, telephoning, or meetings. It becomes clear, therefore, that the writer considered the needs of a generic business communicator in an international context. Another significant point is that the author chooses to start from typical business topics, breaking them down into various skills and language areas (vocabulary, grammar, reading, speaking etc) while taking care to model tasks on BEC formats throughout the book, not just in the Exam Spotlight sections. This suggests, first, that the author is aiming for broad but systematic coverage of the topics typically encountered in business communication. Secondly, he seems to be concerned with language needs mainly related to accuracy and appropriateness, crucial for language examinations, accounting for the high frequency of exam-type, focused pedagogical tasks, such as lexical clozes, multiple choice, or mini-presentations.

4. Syllabus The textbook is designed on a Type A syllabus (White, as cited in Long and Crookes, 1992) which details what needs to be learned through the authority of the teacher, or in the present context, of the textbook author. Such a syllabus also views success as “achievement or mastery” (p. 29) which ties in with the main goal of Success with BEC Vantage, namely, of paving the way to exam success. Like most ESP materials, as reviewed by McDonough, (2010), this textbook is also designed on a topical syllabus (Richards, 2007). As mentioned above, each lesson starts

4

from a topic, which is then used as a context for a business skill and an exam task. Horizontally, therefore, (Waters, 2009) the syllabus covers a spectrum of topics. Vertically, it systematically packs within each unit a full range of language and business communication skills. Considering the book’s aim to provide exam preparation, the role of the syllabus seems to match Hutchinson and Waters’ (1987) description of a language-centred approach. More specifically, the material was most likely designed setting out from the BEC Vantage specifications, with the activities and texts selected in a subsequent stage. Regarding sequencing and grading, due to its topic-orientation the syllabus does not display a visible grading path (Richards, 2001). The only rationale for the order of the units might be the grading of the grammar structures, as Unit 1 revises present tenses, with Unit 2 looking at past, while lessons in the latter half of the book examine complex syntactic patterns such as relative clauses or indirect questions.

5. External evaluation As I mentioned in the Introduction, my evaluation relates to the use of Success with BEC Vantage as an exam-preparation textbook. That is why the criteria I will consider have been selected with a view to exam needs. Before evaluating a textbook it is essential to decide what aspects of the material we should look at (Littlejohn, 2011), as the numerous checklists proposed or reviewed by researchers such as Tomlinson (2010), Cunningsworth (1995), Hutchinson and Waters (1987), Mukundan and Ahour (2010) are either very general, or have an in-built judgment of what is desirable for the materials to contain (Littlejohn, 2011, p. 181). McGrath (2002), citing Grant, suggests an evaluation procedure starting from categories, to be detailed down to individual criteria. The three categories proposed relate to teacher’s needs, learner’s needs and requirements set by external curricula or examinations (p.41). However, he points out, not all criteria, as well as not all categories will carry equal weight in any given teaching context (p.42). At the level of macro-evaluation in this section, my own categories of criteria are related a) to teacher’s needs and b) to learner needs, both in view of exam preparation. Teacher’s needs Teacher’s needs refer, in this context, to the support teachers expect from a course material. The course pack under examination provides a very helpful TB, with detailed methodological guidance, word lists per unit and supplementary activities. Also, the clear unit structure in the SB enables teachers to plan their lessons quickly, by splitting units in goal-oriented blocks. This matches McGrath’s (2002) requirement of course materials to

5

have clear layout and pathways (p. 150), or Hutchinson and Waters’ (1987) criterion of helping to organise the teaching-learning process (p. 107). Apart from the clear structure, it is also the size of the units and modules which helps teachers deliver focused, selfcontained lessons, matching the requirement for manageability and feasibility listed by McGrath (2002, p. 150). Flexibility is a desirable feature present in numerous evaluation checklists, for example in Tomlinson (2010). The bite-size format of the unit blocks makes it easy for teachers to skip, combine or reorder sections in the material depending on the specific students’ needs. On the downside, however, the course pack does not provide sample writing to illustrate the genres relevant for the exam, so that the teacher needs to resort to other sources or invest more classroom time in the discussion of the genre. Also, neither the SB nor the TB provide a full overview of the BEC Vantage examination, which means that teachers with less teaching experience and less familiarity with the exam will need to look elsewhere for this information. Another great deficiency is the absence of any practice tests – with a view to exam preparation – or any progress tests or revisions – with a view to recycling acquired knowledge. Learner needs Learner needs refer to students’ needs as learners (Cunningsworth, 1995, p. 16). Course books cater for such needs by providing learning support and developing learner independence. Success with BEC Vantage does this by means of a clear unit structure and user-friendly layout, as well as by including back-of-the-book sections (grammar reference, useful expressions, listening scripts) or the answer key to the WB. However, some of the useful learning tools (word lists per unit, model answers to writing tasks, BEC Vantage assessment criteria for Speaking and Writing) are only provided in the TB, which hardly fosters learner independence:. Another positive feature is the integrated approach both to communication skills and to exam preparation, through the consistent inclusion of exam-type tasks throughout each unit, covering all skills. On the negative side, also mentioned under teacher’s needs is the absence of an exam overview, which is an even greater disadvantage for learners than for teachers. Students should be in a position to permanently relate what they are studying and practising to the final requirements of the exam; also, they should be able to check at any time their progress against the final goals set by the exam. The Exam Spotlight sections address exam tasks individually, so that the learners are expected to piece up the puzzle at the end. This relates to Long and Crookes’ (1992) analytical syllabuses, which provide the pieces and leave the learners to assemble them for the big picture at the end of the course. 6

Following the initial, pre-use macro-evaluation, the language school delivering the BEC-preparation course that I taught adopted the book. I was also briefly consulted and agreed with their choice; my long experience with BEC helped me minimize the disadvantages of the course pack not providing sufficient exam support. My main reason for adopting the pack was the structured, manageable unit structure.

III.

Micro-analysis and evaluation

1. Methods of evaluation Following Littlejohn’s (2011) framework for materials evaluation, we need first to establish what we are going to examine in or about the materials. As this section deals with a sample unit, in a detailed analysis, we are clearly directing our attention to what Littlejohn calls “Design” (p. 183) features, i.e., to do with the thinking behind the material. But since I am analysing a textbook as an exam-preparation tool, my criteria will need to be specified for such aims. The existing checklists are unsuitable for my purposes not just for the reasons quoted from Littlejohn (2011), but also because exam preparation represents a more specific teaching-learning goal; criteria like appeal, flexibility, cultural appropriateness, or an educational character of the materials are either of secondary importance when working towards a very specific goal such as an exam, or already built-in with the exam syllabus itself. Drawing on McGrath (2002) citing Grant, I am now going to examine the material by considering mainly student needs and exam requirements (p.41). Over the years of teaching exam preparation I have developed an empirical agenda in selecting my course materials, which neatly fit in with Grant’s categories. The items to do with lesson / unit design, relevant for this section, are listed below: i.

Coverage of topic: the lesson must equip the learners with the relevant vocabulary, appropriate to the level, but also with the related conceptual input that they might be expected to address in the exam, e.g. in Speaking;

ii.

Appropriate frequency of exam-type practice activities: exam tasks (or similar) need to be embedded throughout the lesson;

iii.

Task validity and authenticity: exam-type activities must have a sound design and should be accurately modelled on live exam tasks;

iv.

Exam training: the material should provide sufficient tips and models, and should develop exam strategies and familiarity with exam requirements;

v.

Suitable teaching methodology: the material should be designed on a methodological approach mirroring the exam’s (Tomlinson, 2010, p. 95). In this case, a communicative methodology, matching the design of Cambridge 7

exams, grounded on principles such as language-in-context, holistic approach anchored in meaning, learners involvement, integrated skills.

The criteria listed above will be detailed in the following section, where I am examining unit 7 from Success with BEC Vantage. A scanned copy of this unit is available in Appendix 2.

2. Results i.

Coverage of topic

The overarching topic in unit 7 is “sales”. The first unit block is dedicated to the topic itself; the second (“Business Skills”) addresses the related skill of selling, while the final block (“Exam Spotlight”) looks at the BEC Vantage Reading Part 1, which is exemplified by a suite of short job adverts. From this first glance doubts can arise as to the thematic link of the Exam Spotlight section to the rest of the unit. At a closer examination, the first unit block, claiming to address Sales, sets out from a reading activity based on a text pointing out how wrongly a career in sales is perceived. The lead-in speaking task focuses in fact on comparing jobs. The focus-on-form rounding up this reading is done by a short vocabulary matching exercise which is entitled “Sales terms”. However, the vocabulary extracted from the text is not necessarily a set of “sales terms”, as words like “buzz”, “myth”, “air” or “jollies” appear in a multitude of other contexts. In Figure 3 you can see, for example, a screenshot from the results displayed by Just the Word, a free corpus listing BNC content, for “get a buzz”. The lesson moves on to a second reading, making up the rest of the Business Topic block in unit 7. This text is also about jobs, this time not remotely linked with the topic of sales. The focus-on-form is done through vocabulary (words to describe jobs) and grammar (comparisons), rounded up by an over-to-you type of speaking task, entitled “comparing jobs”. The second module of the lesson consistently deals with selling, first as a professional and interpersonal skill (p. 70-71) and then as a writing skill, focusing on proposals, which are sales-related documents. However, the last module of the unit, introducing part 1 of the BEC Vantage Reading paper, is again disconnected from the unit topic. In fact, it seems to aim towards some thematic coherence with the first module of the lesson, in that they are both related to jobs, but in this way the Sales topic of the lesson has been for the best part hijacked. ii.

Exam-type practice

8

The unit offers plenty of exam-like tasks, such as the reading and writing ones. Speaking and listening are also practised in similar patterns of design as in the BEC exam, for instance matching speaker to main idea (listening), or compare and contrast jobs (speaking). iii.

Task validity and authenticity

Tasks are here discussed in the meaning of pedagogical tasks (Long & Crookes, 1992). I am using the term task validity to describe a task that is designed so that the rubric, the input, and the expected output do not conflict with each other. For example, if a multiplechoice reading a) rubric specifies that there is only one answer possible, b) the TB key indicates one, but c) the input text leaves room for several answers, there is obviously a conflict and I call this problem task invalidity. Task authenticity, echoing for example Waters’ (2009) discussion of authenticity, refers, in my evaluation, to a pedagogical task that replicates the task in the context of language use envisaged; in my case, a task that faithfully replicates the parameters of BEC exam tasks. I will not expect every pedagogical task to be authentic in this sense; but I will check task authenticity for those pedagogical tasks that adopt the format of BEC tasks, thus claiming to replicate them. My in-use, micro-evaluation has revealed that all reading tasks in the unit have at least one questionable answer. Multiple-choice questions 1 and 3 for the comprehension task on pages 66-67, for example, have two possible answers; it is very difficult for the teacher to advocate the suitability of only one answer, provided by the key. On page 68, the reading task attempts to replicate part 1 of BEC Vantage Reading, with fewer items, but for question 1 answer B relies on matching “the same every day” to “boring”, which is hardly suitable for a B2 level. Also, for the answer to question 2 there is no evidence in any of the extracts, which is not merely questionable under validity concerns, but also under authenticity with respect to BEC Vantage Reading part 1. According to the BEC Handbook for Teachers (2008), part 1 is a matching exercise focusing mostly on “the identification of specific information and detail, although some questions may focus on gist” (p. 53), which means that the answers to the items must be retrievable from the text itself. According to the preparation advice supplied further on by the Handbook, this is an exercise where paraphrasing is crucial (p. 54). By contrast, question 2 requires learners to interpret the information and make inferences beyond the text itself. Finally, for question 2 in the Exam Spotlight reading students may well decide in the end that D is a safer choice, but doubts may persist as to why the job in A does not also answer the question, since its creation is due to a recently-built conference centre. The formulation of item 6 might have also been less ambiguous; a degree is indeed explicitly required in only one extract (B), but the wording leaves room for the students’ own

9

interpretation, so that they might argue that one must also have a degree (in Finance) for the job in D. Turning to the listening task on page 71, we notice that it also aims to provide listening practice within a BEC format (matching) and for an exam-relevant skill (identifying gist). The scripts are provided here. It could be argued that item 1 is extremely easy, since the word advertising itself is explicit, surrounded also by an easily identifiable semantic field (radio, mailshots). But the more problematic aspects arise with items 3, 4 and 5. The answer to Item 3 (stationery) depends on catching and understanding one single word, letterheads. Item 4 is about a product that is practically outdated in the digital era, so validity might be a problem here, as learners are expected not just to understand the gist, but to possess certain knowledge of the world. Item 5 has no clear answer, as the script does not provide sufficient, and sufficiently specific, clues. The answer provided in the key, home improvements / insulation, either requires learners to catch a single phrase (as for item 3) or to make guesses and inferences beyond the text itself, which might also lead them to vocabulary problems or face them with the same issue of possessing the right knowledge of the world. What are home improvements – insulation?, interior design? Etc. This raises questions on the item’s validity, but also implicitly on the item’s authenticity, as the corresponding BEC listening task tests this skill by a) having candidates match, not generate by themselves, the gist, and b) excluding the possibility of finding the answer by simple “word match” (BEC Handbook for teachers, 2008, p. 70). There are further problems with this listening task. It requires learners to match extracts to the steps mentioned in the text on page 70, but the text includes two “steps” that cannot be followed or failed, because they are not actually steps, i.e. tips, rather general statements about selling. Further, the second listening is performed on a gap-fill exercise which is extremely easy. Answers are provided in a straightforward manner and it is only hearing ability that is required. Although I cannot support my statement with assessment data, I have found in class that such an exercise is too easy for level B2. It is also hardly motivating to listen to the extracts for a third time only to extract the functional language in exercise 5. iv.

Exam training

The unit gives practice in a variety of skills and the tasks are mostly modelled on BEC formats, providing ample opportunity for students to become familiar with the exam, although the quality of the individual tasks is not consistent, as I explained above. There are two sections in the unit where exam training is particularly necessary. First, in the Exam Spotlight section. Apart from a small advice box and a brief description of the exam task, there is little further guidance as to the procedure and strategies needed to deal with this task effectively. This is one of the trickiest reading tasks in Cambridge exams, as it 10

requires candidates to skim and scan, which are techniques that learners need to become aware of and perform with confidence. Also, in the economy of the Reading paper, this task is supposed take the shortest time, as the following tasks will require more attention to detail. The material on pages 74-75 provides very little support both regarding reading techniques and the issue of timing. This is a disadvantage for learners, but also points to a lack of consideration of the teachers’ different degrees of familiarity with the exam, or their overall teaching experience. Secondly, pages 72-73 introduce a genre (proposal) that candidates may be required to produce in the Writing paper. Students are offered a model on page 72, but there is no minimal genre analysis to assist learners in understanding and subsequently reproducing the genre. What is more confusing is that the proposal is presented in a fax format; professionally less experienced learners, such as pre-service trainees, may not distinguish features of a fax from those of a proposal. With no writing file section at the back of the book (see my macro-evaluation), it is again up to the teacher to select a sample proposal, suitable for BEC, to discuss and examine in class.

v.

Methodology

The material design is clearly grounded on a communicative view of language teaching and learning. It meets most relevant criteria proposed, e.g. by Tomlinson (2010): activities are fully contextualised (p. 94), learners are involved holistically (p. 93) and are provided with opportunities to use the target language (p. 96). The unit offers great variety of activities and a balanced weight of skills. The reading on pages 66-67 is sequenced from a lead-in involving the learners and encouraging their output, moving on to a holistic initial approach to the text, followed by detailed reading and concluded by a focus on language. Similarly, the grammar on page 69 emerges from the previous discussion of jobs and the preceding vocabulary, is then practised in a contextualised way, i.e. within a text, concluded by an oral output task. It is also a good example of integrating skills and of anchoring grammar practice in a meaning-oriented activity, by working on a text describing exam conditions.

vi.

Micro-evaluation: Unit 7

Overall, unit 7 is designed on a sound communicative approach, involving learners, providing variety, integrating skills and making language work meaningful. The material offers plenty of exam practice, covering all four skills in exam-similar formats. However, exam training, in the form of explicit guidance as to models, strategies and techniques, is minimal and the validity and exam-referenced authenticity of individual tasks leave to be

11

desired. Finally, the topic itself (sales) is hijacked, which means that the exam syllabus is not fully covered; this amounts, firstly, to vocabulary deficiencies and, secondly, to insufficient exposure of learners to content issues, potentially leading to inadequate performance in the exam, be it in receptive, or in productive, skills. A final remark is that jobs is a topic partly addressed also in units 1, 2 and 6, which makes it redundant in unit 7. One solution to drawbacks of course materials is obviously to adapt them. In my first course on this book I left, for example, the Reading on page 68 as homework, I skipped activities 5, 6 and 7 on page 71, and I photocopied and discussed in class the sample proposal from the TB instead of asking students to write it. In the second course on this book I decided to replace unit 7 with my own materials covering sales concepts, vocabulary and typical discussion points. However, the book’s poor design as a learning tool towards BEC outweighs its userfriendly, communicative qualities if it is used in exam courses. That is why my decision, based on such a micro-evaluation, is to stop using it again in the future for exam-preparation purposes. I should mention here that the objections I have made in this paper to unit 7 draw on actual difficulties that arose in class, e.g. from students’ queries, confusion or boredom, and therefore do not reflect any conceivable attempt to find fault with the material.

IV.

Overall evaluation

The findings of my macro- and micro-, as well as of the in-use evaluation are summarized in the diagrams below. Some of the criteria for in-use evaluation draw on Tomlinson (2003).

12

Figure 1

Figure 2

On balance, my macro-evaluation procedure, mostly a pre-use procedure in my case, concluded by adopting Success with BEC Vantage, while the micro-evaluation pointed to the opposite decision. Similarly, the pre-use evaluation led to adopting the book and using it for two consecutive courses (2012 and 2013), while the in-use evaluation gradually steered towards a negative stance. 13

In particular, the micro-evaluation revealed a host of negative aspects to do with the book’s adequacy regarding exam preparation. Moreover, one of the in-use findings after the coverage of about 50% of the book pointed to an inappropriate difficulty level of the material. While the students (in two different courses) were facing no challenge solving the exercises in SB or WB, with occasional yawns, they scored only a statistical mean of 50-60% in their first BEC Vantage mock test based on past papers. Their exam results, too, at the end of the course, failed to match their confident performance in the classroom activities. In systematizing in-use data, McGrath (2002) suggests three main aspects to consider: the amount of the material that was usable without adaptation, whether such sections worked well, as well as the changes that were, or would be, required in future (p. 181). In my overall, post-use evaluation, going back to Grant’s (1987, as cited in McGrath, 2002, p.41) three categories of needs, I consider the learner’s needs with respect to exam requirements to be central. That is why the negative features highlighted in the in-use evaluation, correlated with the amount of material that I have had to adapt or replace altogether, as well as with the students’ final results in BEC Vantage, call upon a withdrawal of the materials from the future course curriculum.

V.

Conclusion

In this paper I have evaluated Success with BEC Vantage (2008). My evaluation procedure went from a macro- to a micro-examination of the materials and was performed, as a real-life process, before, during and after using the course pack in class. Moreover, my post-use conclusions are based on two different courses taught with these materials. I have tried to demonstrate in this paper that the pack is not suitable as an exam-preparation material, although it may be quite a stimulating book for general Business English classes. I have found it difficult, in searching for a suitable evaluation tool, to relate to existing checklists proposed both from a researcher’s and a teacher’s perspective (Gilmore, 2012). There were two main reasons for this. First, the length and with it the generalization level made the checklists hardly practical: either short but very vague, or specific but very long and detailed. Second, the relevance of such checklists was very low, considering the fact that I was examining a textbook for very specific purposes. Learning goals to do with real-life language use are centred on language development, while learning goals to do with exam preparation have more immediate concerns and may prioritise the development of certain skills within certain formats, at a pace often dictated by practical aspects external to learning itself. The framework proposed by McGrath (2002), drawing on Grant, enabled me to integrate my empirical criteria within a set of principles which connected teaching, learning and external requirements such as exams. 14

References Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann. Gilmore, A. (2012). Comparative Book Review: Materials evaluation and design in language teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 250-262. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000607 Hughes, J. (2008a). Success with BEC Vantage. Student’s Book. Summertown Publishing. Hughes, J. (2008b). Success with BEC Vantage. Teacher’s Book. Summertown Publishing. Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A Learning-Centred Approach. Cambridge University Press. Littlejohn, A. (2011). The analysis of language teaching materials: inside the Trojan Horse. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching (pp.179-211). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 28 December 2013, from http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=305509. Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27-56. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587368 McDonough, J. (2010). English for specific purposes: a survey review of current materials. ELT journal, 64(4), 462-477. Doi:10.1093/elt/ccq060 McDonough, J., Shaw, C., & Masuhara, H. (2013). Materials and Methods in ELT. A Teacher’s Guide. Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved 14 January 2014, from http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=447050 . McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mukundan, J., & Ahour, T. (2010). A Review of Textbook Evaluation Checklists across Four Decades (1970-2008). In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Research for Materials Development in Language Learning: Evidence for Best Practice (pp. 336-352). Continuum. Retrieved 29 December 2013, from http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=291251. Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Tomlinson, B. (2010). Principles of effective materials development. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice (pp.81-108). Cambridge University Press.

15

Tomlinson, B. (Ed). (2003). Developing materials for language teaching. London: Continuum. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations (2008). BEC. Business English Certificates: Handbook for teachers. Waters, A. (2009). Advances in materials design. In M. H. Long, & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 311-326). Doi:10.1002/9781444315783.ch18/pdf

16

VI.

APPENDIX 1

17

Back

18

VII.

APPENDIX 2

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Back

28

Figure 3: Concordancer results for “get a buzz”

Figure 3

Back

29

Audio script for listening Unit 7 page 71

Back

30