DOI:
CC BY-NC 4.0 —Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional
© 2023 Universidad Central del Ecuador
pISSN 12631-2840
eISSN 2631-2859
kronos.idiomas@uce.edu.ec
REVISTA KRONOS
INSITUTO ACADÉMICO DE IDIOMAS REVISTA KRONOS
UNIVERSIDAD CENTRAL DEL ECUADOR 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024, pp. 47-58
Verónica Herrera Caldas | Universidad Nacional de Educación (Ecuador)
Jessica Ochoa | Universidad Nacional de Educación (Ecuador)
Carmen Morales | Universidad Nacional de Educación (Ecuador)
Axel Calle | Universidad Nacional de Educación (Ecuador)
abstract This study aimed to compare three English textbooks to demonstrate their advantages and disadvantages in
an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context and determine the best option to use. The three English textbooks used
were Touchstone, English File, and Headway. The participants were 187 students from the National University of Edu-
cation (UNAE) in Ecuador. This was a quasi experimental study where quantitative and qualitative data were collected.
A pre-test and post-test were administered to the students at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, a survey
was conducted with the students and a checklist was given to the teachers to collect quantitative data. A survey with
open-ended questions was used to gather qualitative data from the teachers. The results suggested that English File was
the best option for our context because the students learned better and increased their English proficiency compared to
the other two textbooks. Furthermore, the teachers agreed that the English File is more useful because it offers a vari-
ety of resources that reduce teachers' planning time..
Key words Textbook, evaluation, EFL, university
fecha de recepción 30/06/2023 fecha de aprobación 23/08/2023
Pilotaje de tres textos de inglés en la Universidad Nacional de Educación
resumen Este estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar tres libros de texto de inglés para demostrar sus ventajas y desven-
tajas en un contexto de inglés como lengua extranjera (EFL) y determinar la mejor opción a utilizar. Los tres libros de
texto de inglés utilizados fueron Touchstone, English File y Headway. Los participantes fueron 187 estudiantes de la
Universidad Nacional de Educación (UNAE) en Ecuador. Este fue un estudio cuasi experimental donde se recopilaron
datos cuantitativos y cualitativos. Se aplicó una prueba previa y una prueba posterior a los estudiantes al inicio y al final
del estudio. Además, se aplicó una encuesta a los estudiantes y una lista de verificación a los profesores para recopilar
datos cuantitativos. Se utilizó una encuesta a los profesores con preguntas abiertas para recopilar los datos cualitativos.
Los resultados sugirieron que English File fue la mejor opción para nuestro contexto porque los estudiantes aprend-
ieron mejor y aumentaron sus conocimientos de inglés en comparación con los otros dos libros de texto. Además, los
profesores estuvieron de acuerdo en que English File es más útil porque tiene una variedad de recursos que reducen el
tiempo de planificación de los profesores.
palabras clave Libro de texto, evaluación, EFL, universidad.
Pilot testing of three English texts
at the National University of Education
48 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Methods, techniques, and strategies to motivate students of English as a foreign language to improve the speaking skill
INTRODUCTION
Selecting the right tools for an English lesson is a significant part of teaching English. One
of the most used tools in an English as a Foreign Language (efl) classroom is the text-
book. According to Hutchinson and Torres (1994), no teaching environment is complete
without a relevant textbook, and both teachers and students tend to acknowledge its use-
fulness, especially if it is presented as a package, namely, it is accompanied by multime-
dia and online resources.
Since 2016 the Universidad Nacional de Educación (unae) has been teaching En-
glish in its Language Center using the Touchstone series. However, not all teachers at the
University were satisfied with the Touchstone course book so they decided to consider
other options for a textbook to use to teach English in their classes. Choosing a book that
matches the teachers and students’ needs was fundamental for the University.
Selecting a textbook is a complex task and over the past decades a number of methods
have been created for their evaluation. Many rubrics have been in circulation, but the way
Chambers (1997) lists down some of the pedagogical factors that need to be considered
still seems to be valid: «suitability for the age group, cultural appropriateness, methodology,
level quality, number and type of exercises, skills, teacher’s book, variety, pace, personal
involvement, and problem solving» (pp. 29-30).
Three textbooks were chosen for the evaluation process of this study: Touchstone,
American English File, and American Headway (see the References section for the editions
used). In Ecuador, university students need to reach a B1 level of English in order to grad-
uate (with the exception of those who train to become English teachers, who need to reach
a B2 level); this is stated by the Reglamento de Régimen Académico (2019) (Ecuadorian
Academic Regulation) and in the Ley Orgánica de Educación Superior (2014) (loes -
the Law on Higher Education). Therefore, the aim of the present research project was to
establish which of the three suggested textbooks would fulfill the requirements of creating
the best conditions for our university students to successfully achieve the prescribed level.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The effective evaluation of teaching materials is of paramount importance for efl teachers
(McDonough, Shaw & Masuhara, 2013). The term ‘evaluation’ is best understood as de-
fined by Tomlinson (2003): «Materials evaluation is a procedure that involves measuring
the value (or potential value) of a set of learning materials» (p. 15).
Richards and Renandya (2002) summarize the advantages and disadvantages of
the use of textbooks. Some advantages are: they provide structure and a syllabus for the
program, help standardize instruction, maintain quality, and provide a variety of learn-
ing resources. Furthermore, they are efficient, can provide effective language models and
input, can train teachers, and they are visually appealing. However, there are also some
disadvantages, for example, they may contain inauthentic language, may not meet students’
needs, they can deskill teachers, and are usually expensive (Richards & Renandya, 2002).
The evaluation process usually takes place in two stages. The first is an ‘impression-
istic overview’, while the second is an in-depth evaluation. In McDonough and Shaw’s
interpretation (2003), an external evaluation is based on the overall organization of the
course book as well as the statements that the author makes about it. An internal evalua-
tion involves a deeper analysis of the units and requires the evaluator to reflect on aspects
like the presentation of skills, sequencing and the appropriateness of the texts included.
Course book assessment can be a subjective activity, therefore, Tomlinson (2003) stresses
49REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Herrera et al.
that this element can be reduced by using a principled and systematic process which applies
a criterion-referenced evaluation.
EVALUATIVE CHECKLISTS
Course book evaluation has been going on for decades now; see especially Mukundan and
Ahour’s work (2010), which contains a review of textbook evaluation checklists for nearly
four decades (1970–2008). Cunningsworth (1995) and McDonough and Shaw (2003)
have created checklists which are based on the understanding that course books should
match learners’ needs and help them learn how to use the language effectively.
Mukundan, Hajimohammadi and Nimehchisalem (2011) provide an exhaustive over-
view of how an English language textbook evaluation checklist can be created. They start
out by defining the terms to be applied as follows: pre-use or predictive evaluation, which
«helps teachers in selecting the most appropriate textbook for a given language classroom»;
in-use evaluation, which «aids the teacher to explore the weaknesses or strengths of the
textbook while it is being used»; and finally, «post-use, or retrospective evaluation, which
helps the teacher reflect on the quality of the textbook after it has been used in a particular
learning-teaching situation» (p. 21).
Mukundan et al. (2011) suggest the following criteria: ‘general attributes’ and ‘learn-
ing-teaching content’ with the first category divided into five sub-categories: Relation to
syllabus and curriculum, Methodology, Suitability to learners, Physical and utilitarian at-
tributes, and Supplementary materials. The second category has the following subdivisions:
General (task quality, cultural sensitivity, linguistic and situational realism), Listening,
Speaking, Reading, Writing, Vocabulary, Grammar, Pronunciation, and Exercises.
The authors emphasize that an ideal checklist needs to be economical as they remind
us of Cunningsworth’s warning: «it is important to limit the number of criteria used,
and the number of questions asked to manageable proportions; otherwise, we risk being
swamped in a sea of detail» (1995, p. 5).
RECENT SCHOLARSHIP AND RESEARCH STUDIES
Gutiérrez Bermúdez (2014) carried out an exercise in course book evaluation by look-
ing at the strengths and weaknesses of the course book New English File: Elementary used
in Colombia. He emphasizes that teachers should develop their own evaluation criteria in-
stead of relying on checklists that might have been created for contexts that are different
from theirs (p. 103). He suggests a structured qualitative evaluation arranged under five
headings: book design, curricular and material design, task design, usability and versatility.
Each of these criteria is formulated as a question with brief instructions for the evaluators
and a rather detailed description of the considerations that should be considered. The re-
sult is exactly the type of assessment that Mukundan et al. (2011) have warned against: a
rather unwieldy and verbose qualitative description resulting in the verdict that the book
in question «has a very solid and verifiable curricular foundation» (p. 109).
In the Vietnamese context, Tu, Trang and Phuong (2013) carried out an in-use eval-
uation of American English File, which is also one of the course books that was evaluated
by the Ecuadorian English teachers who wrote the present paper. The empirical study
involved asking 14 teachers and 103 students to answer the statements of two checklists
(one for the teachers and another one for the students). The authors used a Likert-type
five-point scale to measure attributes like the match of the course book to the specifica-
tions of the syllabus, the learning-teaching content, the appropriateness of the tasks and
50 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Methods, techniques, and strategies to motivate students of English as a foreign language to improve the speaking skill
the development of various learning styles. Overall, both the teachers and the students of
Ho Chi Minh City University were satisfied with the course book, with the exception of
the development of writing skills, which is, apparently, somewhat neglected.
Shahmohammadi (2018) employed an eclectic checklist to evaluate the textbook
series called Prospect, which is used in junior high schools in Iran. The course book was
written by a team of six Iranian authors: Moghaddam, Khodaparastan, Kheirabadi, Sar-
ab, Foruzndeh and Ghorbani. While Prospect was overall deemed better than the series
used before, the 34 efl teachers gave low marks on many of the 38 items included in the
checklist, such as the authenticity of the materials, the recycling of the vocabulary and the
presentation of pronunciation. A high proportion of the respondents were dissatisfied with
the tasks and activities presented in the course book claiming that they do not sufficiently
motivate and challenge learners.
Lisna (2016) carried out a retrospective (post-use) evaluation of the course book
Speakout Intermediate by creating two questionnaires for four teachers and 21 students,
thereby carrying out a ‘micro-analysis’ based on a fairly small sample of adult learners in
Ukraine. The one for the teachers comprised 30 criteria split into five categories, while
the one for the students was less specific and contained only 15 criteria. Both the teach-
ers’ and the students’ evaluations reflected a high level of satisfaction (no results below
70% agreement). Nevertheless, there was mixed feedback regarding the virtual workbook,
and the criteria related to using the learnt language in real life situations also received a
relatively low score.
Another retrospective evaluation of an elt course book, Fifty-Fifty Book One (Wilson
& Barnard, 2007) was carried out by Jones (2009), who assessed its effectiveness and
appropriacy for a conversation course at a South Korean university. The conversation
program, which is run by native speaker instructors, focused on speaking and listening
skills. Jones adopted McDonough and Shaw’s framework (2003) but eliminated several
criteria that she considered irrelevant. Her main findings are as follows:
- The topics have an appeal to a wide range of learners.
- The material is tailored to the needs of Asian students aspiring to learn American English.
- The dialogues and tasks are culturally Western, owing to a ‘Western’ focus, they need
some adaptation for Asian students.
- The listening scripts are semi-authentic, and mimic possible real-world interactions.
- Active student interaction is encouraged.
The textbook evaluation criteria applied by the researchers for the present study are based
on an adapted version of McDonough and Shaw’s (2003) criteria, which is aimed at ex-
ploring and explaining the weaknesses and strengths of each textbook and selecting the
best option for the university.
METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
The research population of the current study involved all pre-service teachers (who, by
default, take English classes) from the Universidad Nacional de Educación (unae) in Ec-
uador. The sample consisted of 187 students from the different majors, such as early child-
hood education, elementary education, special education, intercultural bilingual education,
51REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Herrera et al.
science education, arts and humanities pedagogy, and national and foreign language ped-
agogy. The students were attending their first level of English classes with four hours of
English every week for 16 weeks. All the participants were Spanish native speakers and
the students from this semester were going to use the textbooks for the first time, which
we hoped would provide a fresh perspective on the advantages and disadvantages of each
textbook.
After selecting the sample, the three textbooks were examined to decide which gram-
matical structures and vocabulary were going to be taught during the semester so that all
first-level students learned the same grammar and vocabulary. Also, collaborative lesson
planning was used to make sure that the conditions in each classroom were similar.
As for the team working on the evaluation, it included 3 English teacher researchers
who designed the research and taught using the 3 textbooks. The textbooks that were used
during this research were Touchstone 1 (ts), American English File Starter (ef), American
Headway Starter (hs). Teacher researcher 2 (T2) and teacher researcher 3 (T3) used all
three textbooks; however, teacher researcher 1 (T1) only used English File and Headway.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND INSTRUMENTS
The research project adopted a quasi-experimental method approach to accomplish a com-
parative study of the three English textbooks. Data gathering was carried out by adminis-
tering a pre-test, a post-test, and a survey to the students, as well as a textbook checklist
(for quantitative data) and a survey (for qualitative data) for the teachers.
Students took a pre-test and post-test which was an adapted version of the Macmillan
Straightforward beginner and elementary placement test (Kerr, Jones, Clandfield, Norris,
& Scrivener, 2012). The test consisted of thirty multiple-choice questions. The first twen-
ty-five were grammar questions and the final five were vocabulary questions. Students gave
both tests in person, in a hard-copy format. The pre-test was taken at the beginning of
the semester and aimed to identify the students’ English level. The post-test was used to
measure students’ learning at the end of the semester. Applying a pre-test and a post-test
not only allowed teachers to gauge how much students increased their knowledge and
understanding of the English language but also to compare students’ progress in the classes
that were using the three textbooks.
As mentioned above, data collection also included two surveys and a checklist. Firstly,
at the end of the semester, an online survey was administered to the students by google
forms. Students were asked to provide their answers on a scale of four options (1 = stan-
dard, 2 = good, 3 = very good, and 4 = excellent). The survey was given to the students
in their native language (Spanish) so that they could have a better understanding of the
questions. It consisted of three parts with four questions in each. The first part focused
on the content and vocabulary of the textbook. The second part of the survey referred
to the exercises and the physical aspect of the textbook. The last part of the survey asked
students for their opinion about the virtual platform of the textbook that they were using.
The questions of our survey were based on McDonough and Shaw’s (2003) criteria.
A textbook checklist, which was adapted from Mukundan et al. (2011) was ad-
ministered to the teacher researchers. This checklist asked for the evaluation of general
attributes, methodology, suitability for learners, physical and utilitarian attributes, efficient
layout of supplementary materials, and the learning-teaching content. All the teacher re-
searchers filled in the checklist for each of the textbooks they used during the treatment.
Additionally, a survey was filled out by the teacher researchers. The survey consisted
of six open questions about the different English textbooks they were using. These ques-
52 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Methods, techniques, and strategies to motivate students of English as a foreign language to improve the speaking skill
tions were also based on Mukundan et al.’s (2011) checklist. This survey was applied to
gather the teacher researchers’ more in-depth points of view.
RESULTS
A total of n = 187 students participated in the tests and were divided as follows: Touch-
stone 45, English File 73 and Headway 69. Table 1 shows the pretest and posttest rat-
ings of the different texts: Touchstone, English File and Headway. It also shows that there
was a 5.71 improvement in the students that used Touchstone, 6.68 improvement with
English File, and a 5.85 improvement with Headway. Although the differences in the test
results are minimal, students using the English File course book seem to have achieved a
marginally better score.
Table 1 presents relevant results for the pretest analysis, as it shows that the 3 groups
are very similar when comparing their mean and median values. However, a better mode
value in the pretest rating is displayed in the Touchstone group, with a rating of 13,
compared to the other 2 groups with ratings of 9 and 10. The standard deviation values
suggest that the pretest scores are more clustered around the mean in the 3 groups. Addi-
tionally, the pretest rank values are high in the English file and Touchstone groups, with
very low scores of 2 and 4, respectively.
On the other hand, this chart presents aspects of the posttest that suggest improve-
ment in all groups. The similarity of improvement is on par in the 3 groups, highlighting
the groups that used Headway and Touchstone by the mode value in the posttest with
a rating of 21 equally, and much lower for the English file group with a posttest rating
of 18. The standard deviation values have decreased in the groups, denoting a clustering
closer to the mean compared to the pretest, which was more slightly dispersed, reflecting
the intervention of each of the texts used by the teachers. Overall, it can be said that the
3 groups have improved their English skills, since when analyzing the range of minimum
and maximum scores compared to the pretest and posttest, they have raised their ratings.
In the next section, we will review the online survey filled out by the students. Table
1 and 2 touch upon the topics presented in the three textbooks, and Table 4 presents
questions related to the virtual platform of each textbook.
Let us first look at how students evaluated the topics and content of the textbooks.
The data shown in table 2 demonstrate that students’ level of interest in the topics
presented in each textbook is similar for English File and Touchstone. However, English
File’s content seems to be the most relevant to students’ needs and it also appears to pres-
ent the most adequate amount of vocabulary. Furthermore, when we look at both the Very
Good and Excellent scores, the textbook that contains the easiest topics to understand is
English File.
Table 3 illustrates students’ perspective on the exercises, activities, and presentation
of the textbooks.
As the results of this table show, Touchstone appears to have the right amount of va-
riety of exercises in line with the topics learned. Students can practice exercises that have
clear instructions and require no guidance. It needs to be pointed out that English File has
grammar exercises that are followed by vocabulary and pronunciation activities and every
unit ends with a communicative activity where students apply the content of the whole
unit. The students believe that Headway provides the right amount of practice. Finally,
English File has the highest level of acceptance regarding the presentation of the textbook
because it has some videos with appropriate content to improve English proficiency.
Table 4 presents the data on the virtual platform and multimedia resources of
each textbook.
53REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Herrera et al.
Table 1. Pre- and post-test results
Pretest
Headway
Post test
Headway
Pretest English
file
Post test English
file
Pretest
Touchstone
Post test
Touchstone
Valid N = 69 N = 69 N = 73 N = 73 N = 45 N = 45
Mean 13,90 19,75 13,40 20,08 13,33 19,04
Median 13,00 21,00 13,00 20,00 13,00 19,00
Mode 9,00a 21,00 10,00 18,00 13,00 21,00
Std. Deviation 4,11 4,31 4,38 3,45 5,34 4,03
Range 18,00 18,00 25,00 14,00 21,00 16,00
Minimum 7,00 11,00 2,00 13,00 4,00 10,00
Maximum 25,00 29,00 27,00 27,00 25,00 26,00
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.
Source: Data gathered by the authors
Table 2. Content and topics
categories
stan-
dard
good very
good
ex-
cel-
lent
1. Level of interest
2. Level of relevance
3. Level of comprehension
Table 3. Practice and presentation
categories
ts ef hw ts ef hw ts ef hw ts ef hw
standard (%) good (%) very good (%) excellent (%)
5. Variety of exercises 10 6 9 31 37 33 59 57 58
6. Helpful activities 7 4 4 38 65 51 61 31 44
7. Sufficient practice 3 2 0 3 4 2 41 45 51 52 49 47
8. Textbook presentation 7 0 0 10 4 0 24 29 40 59 67 60
Source: Data gathered by the authors
Table 4. Virtual platform and multimedia resources
categories
ts ef hw ts ef hw ts ef hw ts ef hw
standard (%) good(%) very good (%) excellent (%)
9. Relevance of videos in the textbook 3 0 2 10 8 16 21 37 44 55 49 36
10. Ease of use of the virtual platform 3 10 9 17 10 13 415 31 51 38 49 27
11. Level of practice on the virtual
platform 0 4 4 14 10 9 48 27 47 38 59 40
12. Level of interactive exercises 0 1 0 14 15 7 38 38 7 48 46 40
Source: Data gathered by the authors
54 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Methods, techniques, and strategies to motivate students of English as a foreign language to improve the speaking skill
The results show that Touchstone has the most relevant videos. However, English File is
perceived as the most useful platform where students could learn doing a variety of exer-
cises to improve their English. Also, students viewed the virtual platform of English File
as the one with the most appropriate level of practice, whereas Touchstone provided stu-
dents with the largest number of interactive exercises.
TEACHERS’ SURVEY
After the instruction process, the teacher researchers filled in a survey questionnaire con-
taining a series of open-ended questions comparing the three books. The questions were
adapted from McDonough and Shaw (2003) and aimed at collecting the teachers’ im-
pressions and evaluations of the textbooks. The layout of the survey helped the teacher re-
searchers organize their reflections methodically.
English File and Touchstone were considered easy to use by all teachers, as they
contain clear objectives and many different types of activities that are well-linked. The
teachers had more difficulty using Headway as the objectives were not that clear and it
was more difficult to understand the activities. The main characteristics evaluated in the
survey are listed below. For easy reference, the books’ names are abbreviated: English File
(ef), Headway (hw) and Touchstone (ts).
EASE OF USE AND PLANNING LESSONS, ACTIVITIES, AND UNIT OBJECTIVE CLARITY
Teacher researchers 1 and 2 agreed that all three textbooks are easy to follow. Teacher
researcher 3 stated that hw was somewhat harder to handle since the contents were not
well-connected with the grammar points, and some topics were difficult to explain.
All teacher researchers believed ef presents many carefully designed activities that are
easy to understand both for teachers and students. However, the vocabulary and grammar
activities are inconveniently located at the end of the textbook.
Concerning unit objectives, teacher-researchers 2 and 3 found hw’s objectives not as
clear as those of the other two textbooks, while teacher researcher 1 thought that the unit
objectives were very clear in all three textbooks.
PLATFORM USE (USER-FRIENDLY/DIFFICULT/NON-EXISTENT)
Students worked with the virtual platforms that ef and hw provided, whereas teachers de-
cided not to work with the ts platform because of its price and, therefore, students only
worked with the student’s book. The virtual platforms presented several inconveniences:
some students’ grades did not register properly in the teachers’ grade books, and another
issue was that students often forgot their passwords, making it difficult to send them the
activities as homework.
EXTRA PREPARATION NEEDED TO DELIVER LESSONS
All teacher researchers said that ef contains enough materials to deliver the lessons. What is
more, it provides extra materials that are useful for tutorials. As opposed to this, when using
the hw textbook, the teacher researchers were required to find complementary materials to
55REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Herrera et al.
explain grammar and provide extra practice. As for the Touchstone textbook, they agreed
that looking for additional material proved time-consuming. This became necessary be-
cause they had to find different resources to reinforce the grammar presented.
BOOK ORGANIZATION (PICTURE, GRAMMAR PRESENTATION, SKILLS, TOPICS SEQUENCE)
As teacher researcher 1 worked only with ef and hw, she did not comment on ts in the
remaining part of the survey.
All teacher researchers agreed on ef being a textbook that progresses gradually and
presents grammar in chunks in an easy way to teach beginners. Teacher researchers 2 and
3 thought that hw’s main drawback is the way grammar is presented since it is integrated
into the book without any explicit explanation or practice, leading to the opinion that its
contents are not well-organized.
Considering skills, teacher researchers 2 and 3 stated that although hw is communi-
cation-oriented, its tests are grammar-based, which constitutes a contradiction. They also
agreed that the ts textbook is presented in a well-organized fashion. However, one clear
disadvantage is its lack of meaningful listening activities.
The teacher researchers stated that they prefer real images, over cartoons, as used in
hw and ts.
DO THE TOPICS ALIGN WITH STUDENTS’ INTERESTS AND CONTEXT?
All teacher-researchers considered the topics contained in ef and hw suitable for begin-
ners; most of them are interesting and contextualize English culture. TS also has some en-
gaging topics, however, some of them are not relevant for students, because several topics
are probably more appropriate for mature learners.
ACCESS TO THE BOOK’S EVALUATIONS, TESTS, AND QUIZZES
Teacher researchers mentioned that ef has a wide range of evaluation tools available on
the Assessment cd, and these are easy to download and edit. They also agreed on how they
judged hw’s evaluation resources, which are not as vast as ef’s resources and nor are they
editable. ts provides fewer evaluation resources than the other two textbooks, and the Test
Crafter is not user-friendly.
DISCUSSION
The pre-test and post-test comparative statistics show that students’ initial proficiency
scores were congruent in the three groups with slight variation between them, this means
that the groups’ starting bases were similar. Furthermore, they were evidenced subtle dif-
ferences between data of the three books, the use of English File helped students to make a
marginally greater progress in test performance, ef obtained the highest mean of the three
and the lowest range of variance and standard deviation; however, we cannot claim that
these results in themselves are conclusive evidence to declare that English File is more ef-
fective because of several limitations that will be discussed later on.
56 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Methods, techniques, and strategies to motivate students of English as a foreign language to improve the speaking skill
The results of the students’ survey showed that all three textbooks were generally
well-received. Nevertheless, the English File textbook had the most positive responses
overall, on the grounds that it has the most relevant topics presented in the most appeal-
ing manner. As for the linkages between grammar, vocabulary and exercises, the variety
of exercises and how interactive and interesting the exercises are, the students’ responses
showed that there was little difference between the three books. Even though the students’
opinions are important, since their views are crucial in deciding which textbook would be
most suited to their needs, the students did not have the opportunity to examine and use
all three textbooks. This means that they could not compare the books, since they were
only exposed to the textbook that was assigned to their particular group.
According to the findings of the checklist, the features encountered in English File
stand out over the other textbooks. These results overlap with the students’ choice. We
consider that in the teaching-learning process it is important that, as suggested by Mc-
Donough and Shaw (2003), both students and teachers agree on the textbook that fits
their needs and interests.
Results from the teachers’ survey showed an agreement that English File provided the
largest amount of appropriate material, meaning that it was easier and quicker for teach-
ers to plan classes. At the other end of the scale, Touchstone does not provide enough
communicative activities to use in the class and its topics were deemed more suitable for
mature learners. It needs to be pointed out, though, that, as mentioned earlier, students
were not given either Touchstone’s workbook or its platform, consequently they did not
have the experience of working with the complete Touchstone material. In terms of con-
tent, English File received the most positive responses. The teachers liked the fact that
the grammar was taught in small, manageable chunks and the students were given lots of
practice. English File applies a solid scaffolding process which has proven beneficial to the
students.
From all these findings, it is clear that all three textbooks have their advantages
and disadvantages, and there is no perfect option. However, overall, the students’ online
survey, the teachers’ checklists, and their survey, showed that English File would be the
most suitable textbook at unae. A more recent consideration in favor of ef is that it is also
compatible with the current context of online learning because its lessons have enough ma-
terial that can be adapted to remote lessons. Considering the wide range of resources that
English File provides for students and teachers to contribute to their English instruction
and learning, teachers from unae’s Language Center decided to change the actual textbook
(namely, Touchstone) to English File.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The study had to deal with some drawbacks and limitations. Firstly, the pre-test and post-
test applied were multiple choice and therefore the students’ results were subject to an ele-
ment of luck, although the chance factor would have applied to all learners and could have
distorted the results in equal measure. Secondly, several other factors such as teachers’ ef-
fectiveness and learners’ individual characteristics, for example, motivation and learning
styles can also affect students’ achievements and progress. Furthermore, most students in-
volved in the study were first-semester students that had studied at public high schools
where either no course books or only low-quality textbooks provided by the government
were used. This means that, for the majority of the students, this was their first experi-
ence using an English textbook from a world-renowned publisher (Oxford or Cambridge).
These factors limited the students’ ability to evaluate any of the three textbooks in a so-
phisticated manner.
57REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Herrera et al.
CONCLUSION
Teaching English as a Foreign Language at university level in Ecuador is not an easy task,
students from different ethnic and language backgrounds come together in the first year
of university and working with that wide range of cultures and backgrounds make the ex-
perience challenging. However, standardizing the instruction with the help of high-qual-
ity English textbooks is a possible solution to cope with this challenge. Testing the three
textbooks gave teacher researchers the opportunity to reflect on their own teaching prac-
tices and how textbook contents fulfill learners’ needs and interests.
The teacher-researchers’ experiences during the carrying out of this study was re-
warding and satisfactory since they had the opportunity to analyze several textbooks and,
therefore, they functioned not just as practitioners but also as curriculum designers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We sincerely acknowledge the help from the three participating teachers, Diana González,
Emily Larke, and Jéssica Ochoa, who delivered the classes and arranged for data collection
from their students. We also thank the Language Center Coordinator, Agnes Orosz for al-
lowing us to accomplish our project. Finally, we appreciate the invaluable help of Eliza-
beth Bekes, who guided our research and supported us in our research work.
REFERENCES
Chambers, F. (1997). Seeking consensus in coursebook evaluation. elt Journal, 51(3),
29-35. Retrieved from https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/ENL264/
textbook%20evaluation.pdf
Consejo de Educación Superior. (2019). Reglamento de Régimen Académico, (111) 80,
1-53.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford, England: Heinemann.
Gutiérrez Bermúdez, J. F. (2014). An exercise in course-book evaluation: Strengths, weak-
nesses and recommendations regarding New English File: Elementary. Latin American
Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 7(1), 98-111.
Retrieved from laclil.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/LACLIL/article/download/3870/pdf
Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. elt Jour-
nal, 48(4), 315-328. Retrieved from http://textbookuse.pbworks.com/f/Text-
books%2Bas%2Bagents%2Bof%2Bchange.pdf
Jones, S. (2009). A retrospective evaluation of a elt coursebook for a Korean university
conversation course. ma tesol / tefl Module 3. Retrieved from https://www.birming-
ham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/cels/essays/sylabusandmaterials/JonesSM.pdf
Latham Koenig, C., Oxenden, C., & Seligson, P. (2012). New English File. Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Ley Orgánica de Educación Superior (2014). Quito, Ecuador. https://www.ikiam.edu.ec/
documentos/normativa_externa/REGLAMENTO%20GENERAL%20A%20LA%20
LEY%20ORGANICA%20DE%20EDUCACION%20SUPERIOR.pdf
Lisna, M. (2016). Retrospective evaluation of elt coursebook effectiveness. Advanced Edu-
cation, 6, (87-92). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b535/ac83fbcdceb-
8678d37621a772d1bcd2c8e9d.pdf?_ga=2.149816566.1166380568.1562450581-
315612324.1562450581
58 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Methods, techniques, and strategies to motivate students of English as a foreign language to improve the speaking skill
McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and methods in elt (2nd ed.). Oxford, En-
gland: Wiley-Blackwell.
McDonough, J., Shaw, C., & Masuhara, H. (2013). Materials and methods in elt: A teacher’s
guide (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mukundan, J., & Ahour, T. (2010). A review of textbook evaluation checklists across four
decades (1970-2007). In B. Tomlinson & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Research for Materials
Development in Language Learning: Evidence for best practice (pp. 336-352). London,
England: Continuum International Publishing
Mukundan, J., Hajimohammadi, R., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2011). Developing an English
Language textbook evaluation checklist. Contemporary Issues in Education Research,
4(6), 21-28. Retrieved from
Mukundan, J., Hajimohammadi, R., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2011). Developing an English
Language textbook evaluation checklist. Contemporary Issues in Education Research,
4(6), 21-28. Retrieved from https://clutejournals.com/index.php/CIER/article/
view/4383/4471
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Syllabus design and instructional materials. In
J. C. Richards & W. A Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology
of current practice (pp. 65-68). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667190.011
Scrivener, J., Norris, R., Kerr, P., Jones, C., & Clandfield, L. (2012). Straightforward. Ox-
ford: Macmillan Education.
Shahmohammadi, S. (2018). Textbook Evaluation: Looking at Prospect Series through
Teachers’ Perspective. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 6(2), 182-204. Retrieved
from http://relp.khuisf.ac.ir/article_542578.html
Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (2003). Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tu, N. T., Trang, B. L., & Phuong, H. T. (2013). An Evaluation of the efl English course-
book: American English File Multipack 2A & 2B. Tạp chí khoa học đhsp.
Wilson, W., & Barnard, R. (2017). Fifty-Fifty, Book 1: A Speaking and Listening Course
(3rd ed.). Person Longman.