Issues with the 'Time for English' Textbook Series at Egyptian Primary Schools: An Evaluative Study

        کلیة التربیة

        کلیة معتمدة من الهیئة القومیة لضمان جودة التعلیم

        إدارة: البحوث والنشر العلمی ( المجلة العلمیة)

    =======

Issues with the 'Time for English' Textbook Series at Egyptian Primary Schools: An Evaluative Study

By

Dr Mahmoud M. S. Abdallah

Senior Lecturer of Curriculum & English Language Teaching

College of Education, Assiut University

Egypt

msayed40@yahoo.com

2016

}         المجلد الثانی والثلاثین– العدد الأول  – جزء ثانی – ینایر 2016م  {

http://www.aun.edu.eg/faculty_education/arabic

Abstract

This study mainly aims at evaluating 'Time for English', a new English language-learning (ELL) textbook series currently taught at mainstream Egyptian primary schools. This involves: (1) identifying – from senior and expert language teachers' perspectives – to what extent the textbook series (primary one to six) conform with the national ELL standards issued by MOE in 2003; (2) exploring the advantages and weaknesses of the series as well as the real problems encountered by primary teachers while teaching it; (3) providing some suggestions and guidelines that should help with improving textbooks delivery in the future. To reach these aims, this evaluative study employed: (a) a standards questionnaire administered – both face-to-face and online - to some expert English language teachers (n=55); (b) focus groups (both face-to-face and online) to enable both pre-service (n=50) and in-service (n=300) EFL primary teachers to discuss freely many issues related to the series (i.e. mainly about strengths and weaknesses) as well as the teaching/learning problems encountered in classrooms; and (c) a selective content analysis assisted by computer as a confirmatory procedure for triangulation purposes – to understand and cross-check participants’ accounts based on reviewing all textbooks, and thus provide more accurate and comprehensive results. Findings indicate variability in the achievement of the proposed standards in reality, and present many strengths and weaknesses of textbooks as well as problems related to teaching the series. Finally, based on results, some guidelines for improvement (i.e. improvement framework) are proposed.

Keywords: 'Time for English' series, standard-based evaluation, evaluation research, English Language Learning (ELL), EgyptianPrimary Schools, Textbook Content Analysis, Course Evaluation.

1. Background

1.1 Introduction & Literature Review

For teaching and learning English as a foreign language (EFL), it is drastically important to select the effective medium or means (e.g. materials, textbooks and teaching aids) through which adequate linguistic content can be conveyed to learners. Despite arguments against the use of textbooks alone because they do not admit the winds of change from research and classroom feedback (Sheldon, 1988), or because they encourage stereotyping and include inherent social, cultural, pedagogic and linguistic biases (Allwright, 1982; Carrell & Korwitz, 1994), Hutchinson and Torres (1994: p317) argue for textbooks as 'the most convenient means of providing the structure' required by the teaching-learning system, especially during periods of change. Further, Richards (2001) and Kırkgöz (2009) argue that language textbooks are so critical within English non-speaking communities, mainly because they provide standardised instruction, appropriate linguistic input and effective language models.

More specifically, textbooks are an essential component of a foreign language curriculum, especially in eastern and Arab cultures where they create a clear structure and a visible framework to follow (see also Ur, 1996; Khodabakhshi, 2014), and thus direct the whole teaching-learning process (e.g. by explaining the ELT methods/techniques to be used, and teachers’ and learners’ roles). In these contexts, they act as an embodiment of the aims and methods of the particular teaching/learning situation, and thus provide learners with a sense of security and independence. 

Subsequently, since no textbook is ever perfect, efforts are needed to continuously evaluate them in terms of validity, suitability, and novelness. Such an evaluation, especially by teachers, is always needed to meet both teachers’ and learners’ needs, and thus, maximise learning potentials, and teachers’ reflection and awareness of their teaching (Cunningsworth, 1984; Sheldon, 1988; Hutchinson & Torres, 1994).

Due to vast social, cultural, technological, and ethnographic changes going on, the need to examine textbooks in the practical field (e.g. schools) has become very compulsory and pressing. It is required to identify, for example, particular strengths and weaknesses in textbooks already in use (Cunningsworth, 1995), and check if any revisions, amendments, and/or changes are needed to improve the situation. Hence, as Richards (2001) indicate, if textbooks used in a programme are judged to have shortcomings or negative consequences, remedial action should be taken (e.g. providing appropriate guidance and support for teachers in how to use them properly).

This practice is particularly vital as far as EFL learning is concerned (Sheldon, 1988). Wang (1998) conducted a study to evaluate an English textbook called, 'A New English Course' used by university English majors in China, using both micro and macro perspectives. The paper concludes that even though materials evaluation is a complex issue, it does help us to: (1) learn more about teaching and learning; (2) select good teaching materials; and (3) adapt the unsatisfactory ones.

According to Franke-Wikberg and Lundgren (1980, p148), the course evaluation process aims to: (1) describe what actually happens in that which seems to happen; (2) tell why precisely this happens; and (3) to state the possibilities for something else to happen. Moreover, it can take many forms, such as checklist, framework or evaluation sheet (Dougill, 1987; Wang, 1998), provided that the highest degree of objectivity is realised.

For course/syllabus evaluation purposes, some previous studies employed many methods, which included: (1) selective content analysis (e.g. Wang, 1994); electronic surveys (e.g. Moss & Hendry, 2002); (2) interviews (e.g. Edström, 2008); (3) an objective criteria-based computer-aided evaluation system (Wang, Yang & Wen, 2009); document analysis and classroom observations (Huệ, 2010); and evaluative checklists (e.g. Ma, 2003; Jahangard, 2007; Abdelwahab, 2013).

Moreover, standards-based evaluation has become a preferred practice in education that should be used when obtaining a comprehensive picture of teaching and learning is the target (Porter, et al., 2001). In particular, it is drastically important to provide policy makers with valid empirical evidence that is justified with some criteria (Milanowski, et al., 2004). In this regard, Hutchinson and Waters (1987) describe course evaluation as a standard-based matching process which should be done as much objectively as possible by starting with defining some criteria. When teachers design standards-based curriculum and assessment, language learning becomes intentional and more purposeful than in most other curricula (NSPP, 2003).

Moreover, aims and standards of the language-learning programme act as a criterion to be used for evaluating textbooks (Cunningsworth, 1995). In this regard, Wang, Yang and Wen (2009) conducted a study to obtain some objective criteria for English textbook evaluation through computer-aided corpus. By analysis of evaluation theory, and based on data from 3 rounds of survey using Delphi Method, they obtained 70 evaluation criteria set out of 127 checklist items.

To ease the textbook evaluation process and to cope with global orientation, there has been a noticeable tendency in Egypt - towards the beginning of the 21^st century - to base course instruction on some already specified standards. This was clearly represented in the learning standards document issued in 2003, and which included ELL standards for all school grades and stages – from primary-one to secondary-three (NSPP, 2003). It is a handbook issued by Egyptian Ministry of Education (MOE) where ELL standards were grouped under four domains that reflected the overarching areas in which learners need to develop competence and proficiency in EFL (see Appendix 1). Each domain consists of standards, which state more specifically, what learners should know and be able to do as a result of instruction. Each standard is composed of some clear indicators, which should identify exactly to what extent that particular standard has been realized. Thus, indicators work as narrow expectations of pupils' performance, and are a reflection of what learners should do in the classroom to show their progress towards meeting a particular standard (Appendix 1).

More recently, this has also become evident in the currently used English language teaching (ELT) methodology called 'Standards-Based Communicative Language Teaching' (see, for example, Bates-Treloar, 2013). This is useful, especially as far as course evaluation is concerned, mainly due to existence of some clear and tangible indicators that should lead to optimum teaching-learning performance. Besides, these standards would establish a common ground or a stable reference nationwide that teachers, learners, policy makers, course evaluators, community leaders and all stake holders can consult (Harris & Carr, 1996).

Standards are important and effective as a good language learning tool because they express clear expectations of what all students should know and be able to do. In this regard, Huệ (2010) conducted a case study to evaluate an English textbook taught at a secondary school in Vietnam in terms of whether it complies with the objectives and standards prescribed by MOE, and to what extent it is suitable for students, teachers (especially in terms of methodology and content), and the target context. The study concludes with suggesting ways of improving the textbook.

The evaluation of EFL courses, especially at the primary stage, within English non-speaking communities was carried out by some studies (e.g. Ma, 2003; Allen, 2008; Kırkgöz, 2009; Khodabakhshi, 2014; Tsagari & Sifakis, 2014). In particular, Ma (2003) conducted an evaluation of the elementary English textbooks of the Nine-Year Integrated Curriculum. She used the ACTFL checklist as well as the Association of Language Testers in Europe as the framework to generate a set of textbook selecting criteria. Findings indicated an unequal distribution of the five Cs--Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons and Communities, and that the textbooks emphasized communication design.

Allen (2008) attempted to identify the ELT problems at primary schools in Tanzania by analysing the obstacles in the way of effective pupil-centred teaching and learning of English, and presented some recommendations. In the same vein, Kırkgöz (2009) conducted an evaluative study to 3 English textbooks within the Turkish context, and offered some useful suggestions for future revision and design of textbooks for young learners of English. In the Iranian EFL context, Khodabakhshi (2014) examined the advantages and disadvantages of 'Skyline', an English textbook series, and concluded some recommendations for improving it. Similarly, Tsagari and Sifakis (2014) attempted to evaluate EFL course book materials by considering their structure and effectiveness through survey questionnaires administered to teachers working in Greek state primary schools (4th and 5th grades) and via in-depth interviews with the book authors. Findings indicate that materials production can be a predominantly top-down process, in which policy makers, materials authors and teachers can draw independent pathways to developing and implementing the final product, i.e. the course book.

Although previous studies highlighted the importance of course evaluation – especially within foreign language-learning contexts, none of them attempted to employ the national language learning standards issued by MOE as assessment criteria to inform an ongoing textbook assessment process. Besides, none of them employed online groups on social media, which involve thousands of language teachers, for data collection purposes (e.g. online interviews or focus groups) to obtain deep and detailed contextual accounts. Besides, no attempts so far have been made to evaluate or improve the Egyptian series 'Time for English'.

1.2 Research Problem

'Time for English' is a quite new English language series that MOE prescribed for the primary stage in Egypt in 2010. Since its implementation, there have been many persistent issues and problems raised by supervisors, teachers, and sometimes pupils. Literature review indicates that no research studies at all were conducted with the purpose of evaluating it. This seems surprising once we consider the various concerns and problematic issues that these new textbooks have raised nationwide.

What is particular about this new series is that it was suddenly stipulated by MOE in the school year 2011/12 at one go to all primary grades (i.e. from one to six all at once). This sudden decision, as many in-service English language teachers and inspectors complained, did not allow for a gradual substitution of 'Hand in Hand', the former series, with this new one.

Normally, at the first year when changing a series takes effect, the new series is first taught to primary-one pupils only, and then proceeds with them in the years to follow till they finish their primary education. This way, the old series stays with those senior pupils who have already started it till they finish school, while the new series gradually goes up with those who have already started studying it in primary one, until it is fully replaced. Unfortunately, this sudden change – as many primary teachers of English reported in the pilot study – had many negative outcomes (e.g. causing confusion to both teachers and pupils; not allowing in-service teachers to receive orientation and training in teaching the new series; and raising many socio-cultural problems).

Therefore, in August, 2014, a group of English language teachers affiliated with an Egyptian teachers' coalition had an official meeting with the MOE English language teaching consultant to suggest some improvements and modifications to be made to the series.

Throughout some informal talks with some senior EFL student teachers (Elementary Education section), many of them reported many difficulties with teaching this new series at Assiut primary schools. In particular, they noticed that some sections were too difficult and advanced for primary-stage pupils, especially the 'Phonic Time' section .

Moreover, a preliminary review of textbooks conducted by the researcher revealed that the series does not adequately reflect the real Egyptian culture. For example, there is a wide gap between the advanced content of the textbooks on one hand, and the poor conditions of many deprived local communities in Assiut, especially in rural areas. This does not help with making language learning more meaningful and relevant. In this regard, some in-service teachers suggested that this series should have been designed to advanced pupils at language schools in Cairo and other big cities in Egypt. Thus, the actual local context and the specific national culture are not highly considered by (or reflected in) this series.

Further, from a curriculum design perspective, in order for any language course or syllabus to be strong and effective, it should meet some criteria (see Stevick, 1971; Allen, 2008), the most important of which are: (1) sustaining learners’ motivation; (2) relevance to pupils’ language needs; (3) completeness (i.e. including all the language necessary for the stated course aims); (4) authenticity (i.e. being realistic and authentic, both linguistically and culturally); (5) satisfaction (i.e. learners should feel that they have benefited from the lesson);                             (6) immediacy (i.e. pupils feel that they can use the studied material straight away).

The textbook review and classroom observations conducted by the researcher indicated inadequate level of those elements. Moreover, observations and informal talks with some Egyptian EFL inspectors, school supervisors, and expert teachers working at Assiut Educational Directorate indicate the existence of a persistent problem that makes things even worse: the majority of primary English language teachers lack the sufficient command of English required for teaching it appropriately and efficiently. In particular, they lack many of the phonological (e.g. pronunciation), communicative and pragmatic competencies and skills required for delivering this advanced series successfully and efficiently.

This research study aims at accomplishing a set of objectives:

1. Obtaining and phrasing a working list of standards of ELL at the primary stage based on official documents issued by Egyptian MOE in 2003;
2. Checking those standards against what goes on in reality by requesting expert and senior primary English-language teachers to state the extent to which each of them applies at schools;
3. Evaluating the new 'Time for English' series textbooks in terms of advantages, disadvantages and problems encountered in the field;
4. Providing some suggestions and guidelines (i.e. improvement framework) into how to improve teaching/learning the series at Egyptian primary schools.

1.3 Research Questions

Subsequently, the study attempts answering the following questions:

1. To what extent does the 'Time for English' series comply with the primary-stage ELL standards defined by the Egyptian MOE?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the 'Time for English' series, and the common problems encountered while teaching/learning these textbooks?
3. Based on obtained data, which suggestions and guidelines - including aspects of improvement - to conclude so as to sustain an optimum language-learning environment while teaching this series?

2. Methodology

This is an evaluative study that belongs to the wide area of 'evaluation research', which Cohen et al. (2007: pp42-47) make a case of as a completely different enterprise where the researcher intends to solve a specific problem, and eventually present solutions/decisions to policy makers.

More specifically, evaluation research seeks findings that focus                 on the strengths and weaknesses of various aspects of innovations                   (e.g. new courses) as well of their overall ‘outcome’. This information is, in turn, used to consider how such interventions might be modified, enhanced or even eliminated in the effort to provide a better service, fulfil a particular need or meet a specific challenge (Silver, 2004). Thus, evaluation research can act as a baseline on which decision-making can be done with the purpose of educational reformation, which might include the improvement of course delivery and the tools used in the teaching-learning process.

Throughout the procedures followed in this evaluative study, the researcher employs an eclectic approach that picks and chooses the best features in many models to provide stronger evidence in an attempt to reach the specified goals (Madaus & Kellaghan, 2000; Silver, 2004). More specifically, the study starts with a piloting stage to formulate the research problem based on literature review, preliminary talks with teachers, and some online interactions (see Figure 1 below). Then, he intervenes by collecting data on how the new 'Time for English' series is being perceived by educators and received at schools, including: (1) the extent to which it complies with the MOE ELL standards; (2) how it is received and implemented by teachers; and (3) whether there are some improvements that could be made on it to be used to inform decision-makers on top of the educational hierarchy in Egypt. This endeavour is mainly motivated by preliminary data collected at the piloting stage, and which indicated the existence of many serious problems with teaching and learning this series at Egyptian primary schools (see Figure 1 below).

As far as curriculum or programme evaluation is concerned, evaluation methods might include obtaining teachers’ and/or students’ feedback on a new course – through questionnaires, interviews and focus groups, for example (Silver, 2004). This can be classified as a 'formative evaluation' procedure that aims at improving something (e.g. a course or a programme) while it is being implemented.

Here the researcher approaches the status-quo with a critical stance in an attempt to see the whole picture, and eventually provide an objective judgement. The main outcome of this evaluative study should take the form of some suggested guidelines/framework informed by the collected data (i.e. improvement plan).

To accomplish the research objectives, some tools were used for collecting data, which include: (1) questionnaires for identifying to what extent the ELL standards comply with reality; (2) focus groups of some pre-service and in-service primary English teachers (5 groups, each consisting of 10 teachers) to evaluate the series in the light of their viewpoints; and (3) selective content analysis of primary-one-to-six textbooks to support and check data obtained from participants in focus groups (see also Figure 1 below).

The main goal of the employed Standards Questionnaire was to assess the degree to which the main ELL standards suggested by Egyptian MOE, Curriculum & Learning Outcomes Committee (NSPP, 2003) – as indicated above – apply to reality. Thus, the questionnaire was designed simply by including indicators (corresponding to underlying standards and domains) as items. For each item (indicator), participants were asked to state – on a 5-point Likert scale – to what extent they would agree or disagree that it was evident or applicable in the new series within ELL contexts at the primary schools they were dealing with (see Appendix 1).

Figure 1: Evaluation Research Framework

Questionnaires were employed in the study as a quantitative method for collecting objective data from some EFL specialists (n=55).To reach a wide scope of audience, two versions of the questionnaire were used: a hardcopy and an online version that was administered through the SurveyMonkey website (see Appendix 1). The 55 Egyptian participants, who were mainly concerned with the new 'Time for English series', included: 6 ELT inspectors or supervisors; 12 experts and senior teachers; and 37 in-service teachers. Thirty of them (54.5%) were affiliated with Assiut Educational Directorate, while the remaining 25 participants (45.5%) were affiliated with MOE, but worked for educational directorates and schools in other Egyptian governorates. As far as number of years of experience in ELT was concerned, 33 participants (60%) reported spending between 10 and 35 years in their teaching and/or supervising career at the primary stage. Novice teachers who spent 5 years or less in teaching were much fewer (15 participants counting as 27.3%).

Focus groups as a qualitative research method is group interview that relies on the interaction within the group who discuss a topic supplied by the researcher yielding a collective rather than an individual view (Morgan, 1988: p9). Thus, a group of people are asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes towards a product, service, concept and/or idea. Questions are asked in an interactive group setting where participants are free to talk with other group members. It is from these interactions of the group that the data emerges (Cohen, et al., 2007).

There were two main reasons for choosing this type of interview: (1) the need to focus on specific themes/issues which would naturally emerge while participants openly and informally discussed together the process of teaching the new series; (2) allowing for a relaxed interactive atmosphere in which participants could easily share ideas and provide useful input while talking together and with the interviewer.

Focus groups were conducted both face-to-face (with pre-service EFL primary teachers), and online (with in-service EFL primary teachers nationwide). In the face-to-face mode, five focus groups were formed, with each consisting of 10 participants of EFL student teachers (primary education section), and who were required to talk about the course based on their ongoing teaching practice sessions at some primary schools in Assiut. In the online mode, some groups of in-service primary English language teachers were approached through their online group pages already formed on Facebook (e.g. around 150 primary English language teachers all over Egypt participated in the online discussions) (see Table 1 below). Teachers contributed with their viewpoints and suggestions throughout online discussions following several posts made by the researcher and the page admins who could pin posts, and thus made them more visible to all group members. Based on each post, discussions were developed by a series of comments added by group members who wanted to share their opinions, experiences, and/or impressions about the new series, especially as far as the topic at hand (tackled in each post) was concerned.

All the data based on these contributions were collected and analysed qualitatively so that themes could freely emerge to fit under three main categories: advantages of the series, disadvantages, and real problems and/or experiences encountered by teachers.

Table 1: Data about Participants in Focus Groups

 A computer-assisted selective content analysis technique was conducted while reviewing the textbooks of the new series. A detailed review of all six textbooks was a daunting task; therefore, it was useful to employ a qualitatively selective form of content analysis to choose specific representative instances and relevant samples to review (Silverman, 2005). Moreover, content analysis can be used if the purpose is to audit or review textbook contents against some specified standards (Cohen, et al. 2007). Hence, for triangulation purposes, selective content analysis was conducted simultaneously while analysing focus group data. More specifically, the researcher employed content analysis assisted by computer software - which facilitated coding and annotating text as well as searching for specific words/phrases - to reinforce and double-check (i.e. conduct cross-checks against) participants' ideas and viewpoints. Therefore, the choice of the minor techniques to use for conducting this selective content analysis process (e.g. drawing comparisons, developing and testing hypotheses, generating themes and categories, identifying frequencies, finding relevance, and synthesising and reporting data) (see also Ezzy, 2002) relied mainly on the emerging objectives and needs that the focus-group data analysis process continuously raised.                         These included:

1. Reviewing course outline and objectives;
2. Understanding sequence and organisation of units;
3. Verifying the language-learning problems reported by participants;
4. Checking contents of textbooks for understanding some socio-   cultural issues;
5. Identifying the nature and weight of the 'Phonic Time' section in          early grades;
6. Reviewing the new 'Reading Time' section in the 5^th and 6^th grades' textbooks.

3. Results & Discussion

3.1Questionnaire Data Analysis Results

The main goal of the questionnaire was to identify (through expert teachers at the primary stage) to what extent the new 'Time for English' series comply with the EFL learning standards at the primary stage, and thus answer the 1^st research question. To ensure reliability and internal consistency of each set of indicators composing each standard, and of each set of standards composing each domain, Cronbach's Alpha was used, and the following results were obtained:

DOMAIN ONE=0.85 (Standard1=0.81 - Standard2=0.79 - Standard3=0.78);

DOMAIN TWO=0.87 (Standard1=0.83 - Standard2=0.68 - Standard3=0.67 - Standard4=0.89);

DOMAIN THREE=0.90 (Standard1=0.72 - Standard2=0.90 - Standard3=0.82 - Standard4=0.85);

DOMAIN FOUR=0.75 (Standard1=0.69 – Standard2=0.78 – Standard3=0.86).

After calculating the mean of all those domains, the reliability index of the whole questionnaire was found to be 0.84, which is considered a very satisfactory value.

Throughout using SPSS for ranking all indicators representing those standards based on participants’ viewpoints on the survey questionnaire, the following results were obtained:

For the main domains underlying the standards and indicators, results show that Domain 3: LEARNING TO LEARN ENGLISH had the highest means (3.71 with a standard deviation of 0.58). This means that, based on participants’ ratings of all standards and their indicators, Domain 3 was the one that applied most to the series (see Appendix 1).  It was followed by Domain 1: LEARNING TO COMMUNICATE IN ENGLISH with the next highest means (3.68 with standard deviation of 0.55). Then, came Domain 2: LEARNING LANGUAGE SYSTEM  (3.67 with a standard deviation of 0.56); and finally, Domain 4: LEARNING VALUES (3.64 with a standard deviation of 0.55).

For the standards, based on means, the standards were ranked as follows (see Table 2below):

Table 2: Evaluation Standards Ordered by Means

Thus, based on participants' ratings, 'Domain 3: LEARNING TO LEARN ENGLISH' came on top as the most applicable domain within Egyptian schools. This might be attributed to the current concern over giving young learners more opportunities to learn how to learn; memorisation of small linguistic pieces, grammatical points and isolated words has become an obsolete practice. Conversely, 'Domain 4: LEARNING VALUES' came at the bottom, and this indicates very poor national consideration of many social values and cultural issues at primary schools in Egypt. It seems that still there is a weak link between teaching/learning English and the process of reinforcing many values, especially those relating to good citizenship. Also, it seems that ELL has not yet achieved some desired cultural values, such as polite social interaction, collaborative work, and understanding of different and varying cultural norms of both Egypt and English-speaking communities.

The standard with the highest means was 'Standard 2 (Domain 2): Pupils use their knowledge of the phonological system to interpret and communicate messages to others'. This indicates both learners' concern with phonological knowledge in the English language to produce accurate utterances and teachers’ focus on (and worry over) phonological aspects.

This was followed by 'Standard 3 (Domain 1): Learners express facts, opinions and emotions in English.' Although Domain 1 itself came third in the list, this particular standard came as the 2^nd standard in the list. Generally, self-expression in English is a very important skill that needs to be developed in learners as early as possible. Therefore, this high rank is significant as it indicates that the new series considers it     very well.

Then came 'Standard 1 (Domain 3)' which is related to language learning motivation. If students already have positive attitudes towards English and show some enthusiasm while learning it, then it will be easy to adjust the course content in a way that stimulates them to learn and interact in English. This requires revisiting the teaching/learning methods currently used.

Finally, it is important to draw attention to the fact that 'Standard 1 (Domain 2): Learners are aware of the differences between Arabic & English language systems' came at the bottom. This means that learners are not aware of the differences between the two language systems; thus, the series needs to establish a clear focus on this aspect.

3.2 Focus-Groups & Content Analysis Results

Results of the focus groups (both face-to-face and online), triangulated with the content analysis results, indicate the existence of many issues with teaching and learning the 'Time for English' series in reality. These issues can be classified into: advantages, disadvantages and problems, and aspects of improvement and/or change. Therefore, this section answers the 2^nd research question on advantages, disadvantages and encountered problems.

For the advantages/strengths and disadvantages/weaknesses reported by participants in the focus groups, the ideas and issues raised were classified under 6 categories (see Table 3below): (1) Socio-cultural issues; (2) Teacher training; (3) Layout & Sequence; (4) Teaching/Learning methods and techniques; (5) Literacy and main language skills; and (6) Technology, aids and facilities.

Table 3: Summary of Data Obtained from Focus Groups

In addition, participants in the focus groups reported some problems and difficulties associated with teaching/learning the new series.                 These are:

• Some pre-service and in-service teachers do not follow Teacher’s Guide, and thus teach in a traditional boring way. In spite of the carefully planned steps there, some student teachers do not follow them; they just write new language items on the board with children repeating them, without using any visual aids to attract attention.
• Many novice teachers do not employ (or benefit from) classroom interactions for developing the English language;
• Classrooms lack audio facilities for children to listen to models (e.g. interesting stories and conversations) made by native speakers;
• Pupils’ individual needs – especially in rural and deprived communities – are not highly considered by the series;
• Formal tests are not always consistent with the delivered content; in most cases, there is a wide gap between what pupils study in the textbooks and what the items they are required to answer in the tests/exams;
• Listening materials are not always available for teachers and pupils, and therefore, adequate training in listening comprehension is not always provided;
• Hard copies of the teacher’s guide are not always available; some teachers do not prefer or use soft copies;
• Time for English focuses mainly on pronunciation, and gives little deal in communicative situations; CONVERSATIONS are too short and are related to certain places and situations that pupils are not familiar with.
• The excessive use of Arabic during the English class acts as a real problem with teaching this series. Many teachers and supervisors still insist on translating every word into Arabic. This would not help with establishing an effective language learning environment.

Further, in terms of suitability, many in-service teachers (n=95) reported the convenience of the new series with the target pupils at the primary stage. However, some of them (n=30) reported many cultural problems, and other issues associated with time, training and aids. For example, one of them argued:

The curriculum is suitable, but it should be related to the Egyptian environment in our villages, cities and deserted areas…There should be various teaching aids to be used by the teacher during the lesson…The curriculum is long and needs much time…six units a term. I suggest 6 units a school year…This enables the teacher to teach perfectly and also give the pupils the time to practise what they learn; English teachers should be specialists (FOE graduates), and should attend courses of training once or twice a year to refresh information and get acquainted with modern instructional techniques and strategies…There should be a CD to help the pupils to listen to correct pronunciation…I also suggest that the English subject should be in ONE book, including reading and activity.

Some teachers reported that with time, teachers would get used to the new series as they could do with the previous ones. The main issue, as one of them reported below, lies in two important facts: (1) the large numbers of learners in classrooms, which is a persistent, long-standing problem at Egyptian schools, which would negatively influence instruction, no matter how modern and innovative the employed teaching-learning methods might be; (2) when Egyptian teachers get used to do something in a specific way for a quite long time, it would be hard to change that. Many teachers do not exert the needed effort to reach more learners (especially low achievers), and depend on memorisation. They do not focus on modelling pupils’ pronunciation or devote some time to allow for more elaboration and practice. In this regard, an in-service teacher commented:

I've been working for primary schools for 2 years and half. I taught HAND IN HAND 2 and 3, and HELLO 4, 5, and 6. We used to think that these were the best textbooks. When TIME FOR ENGLISH was introduced into schools to replace those textbooks, teachers kept saying: "It's a hard and bad curriculum!" Well, it's not so bad, but the exam questioning types focus on 'memorisation' except for the dialogue completion question. Usually, teachers don't give due time to the PHONICS section. Also, the lesson structure starts as a mechanical drill in which Ss are pushed to imitate the structure given in the textbook and produce it when provided with pictures presenting the structure…But this results in the Ss memorizing the structure, and later on, forgetting it.

On the other extreme, some few teachers (n=5) were against teaching the 'Time for English' series altogether. They stated many socio-cultural, linguistic and curriculum design-related reasons, such as: (1) being socio-culturally inadequate to the Egyptian context; (2) including advanced and too difficult language; (3) being too demanding and exhausting to both teachers and learners; and (4) imposing much cognitive load on learners. In this regard, a teacher stated:

I think time for English is not suitable for our children; it is complex and has difficult words for learners. The book needs to be revised so as to be more suitable. There are many books which will be more useful; for me, I recommend 'Go Up' as a wonderful series.

Other teachers suggest many ways to improve the situation. This includes: (1) encouraging pupils to interact with English in classroom, and avoid using Arabic during the English class as much as possible; (2) Using ELL sources (e.g. cartoons, films, videos, and programmes), as this would be very essential for language acquisition; (3) using active learning strategies and video resources to make learning more interesting and fun; (4) carrying out continuous in-service teacher training by educational specialists in TEFL. Thus, one of those teachers commented:

The role of educational channels on TV is very vital, particularly in conversations; serials, acting scenes, not just lecturing, should be employed. Activities that activate and refresh Ss language (e.g. making posters, wall charts, sketches, colouring and painting) are very important. Teacher should love his work to create and produce. Teacher training should be done by English education specialists.

These results are consistent with the results of many other evaluative studies conducted in many different educational contexts (e.g. Ma, 2003; Allen, 2008; Kırkgöz, 2009; Khodabakhshi, 2014; Tsagari & Sifakis, 2014). For example, Ma (2003) found out an unequal distribution of the five Cs--Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons and Communities, and that the textbooks emphasized communication design.

Allen (2008) identified some ELT problems at primary schools in Tanzania by analysing the obstacles hindering effective pupil-centred ELT and ELL presenting some recommendations. In Iran, Khodabakhshi (2014) examined the advantages and disadvantages of the 'Skyline' series, and concluded some recommendations for improving it. Similarly, Tsagari and Sifakis (2014) indicated that materials production can be a predominantly top-down process, in which policy makers, materials authors and teachers can draw independent pathways to developing and implementing course books.

4. Conclusion

Based on the data above, the series needs some improvement in many ways (see Figure 2 below). Therefore, this section answers the 3rd question on suggested improvement plan. First of all, the Time for English series needs to be revised culturally, since some English names have not been changed into Egyptian names. There are some kinds of fruits such as cherry and words such as pies and cookies need to be changed to suit the Egyptian culture, especially in villages. Adaptation already made on some cultural aspects needs to be reviewed.

Figure 2: Improvement Framework

Second, it is strongly suggested that teaching of some lessons or sections (e.g. the Phonics Time lessons) should be done in technology labs or resources halls so that children have more chances to listen to native speakers.

Third, it is important is to change school schedules to increase the number of weekly English periods (lessons) – starting from primary 4 – so that children may have 5 periods a week. Otherwise, content should be reduced so that pupils feel more focused and relaxed during the English class.

Fourth, workshops and seminars are needed to allow teachers to present models of their teaching to encourage competition among teachers to achieve creative teaching of English. In addition, they should train teachers on innovative and interactive methods of teaching grammar and linguistics. Also, training programmes/sessions should be made to train primary English teachers on many aspects and skills, especially on how to teach the 'Phonics Time' lessons.

Fifth, testing and examination techniques need to be revised so as to become consistent with the series, especially in terms of goals, outcomes and contents. Thus, new specifications are needed to make testing items more effective for assessing different language aspects and skills (i.e. phonetics, grammar, vocabulary, listening, speaking, reading and writing).

Sixth, curriculum and course designers and authors should review other series preferred by some participants, such as 'Family and Friends', 'Go Up' and 'Macmillan'. There is a pressing need to know the points/aspects that distinguish those particular courses, and modify and improve 'Time for English' accordingly.

Seventh, the primary-one course should be made easier (e.g. by reducing the amount of new vocabulary) to guarantee gradual exposure to the English language.

Eighth, more authentic materials that reflect actual language use by native speakers need to be included in the textbook series. Pupils need to be involved in a realistic language-learning process that highlight English as used in everyday life. However, much care is needed while selecting material so as not to include much slang and local accents.

Recommendations & Suggestions of Further Research

Based on those results, some recommendations were made:

1. Curriculum and course design processes at the primary stage should be based on a survey of pupils’ real language learning needs, keeping in mind environmental and contextual factors;
2. Language course evaluation should be employed as a continuous, dynamic process to get immediate feedback;
3. English Language courses need always to be revised and updated; a link should be always made with online technologies and outside environment;
4. More active learning strategies are needed for teaching English at the primary stage;
5. Evaluation checklists should be administered to English language teachers on a regular basis to assess the studied courses;
6. Observation notes and reflective diaries should be used by English teachers for reflective teaching purposes; teachers then can share their accounts with each other to build a common ground (knowledge base) that would inform their language teaching practices.
7. Training English language teachers on how to use standards-based evaluation so as to improve their teaching performance and their students’ English language skills.

Also, based on those results, some research topics were suggested:

1. Investigation into reflective teaching practices in English language learning contexts at the primary stage;
2. Evaluating effectiveness of some active learning strategies on primary pupils’ acquisition of English vocabulary;
3. Employing Action Research for solving some socio-cultural issues that would interfere with pupils’ language learning at the primary stage;
4. Effect of reciprocal teaching and info-graphics on developing students' reading comprehension skills at the primary and preparatory stages;
5. Using inversed classroom for improving primary pupils' communicative competencies in English;
6. Employing self-evaluation techniques/strategies with primary English language teachers to improve their teaching performance;
7. Employing a curriculum-enactment perspective to enable English language teachers to evaluate the taught English courses in terms of suitability of content, relevance, validity, etc.
8. Assessing effect of using standards-based language learning on pupils’ written communication.

References

Abdelwahab, M. M. (2013).  Developing an English Language Textbook Evaluative Checklist. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 1, 3, 55-70

Allen, K. (2008). Primary school teachers and the problems faced with teaching the English language: An analysis of the obstacles in the way of effective pupil-centred teaching and learning of the English language in Tanzanian government primary school with recommendations. Paper presented at The Forum on Community of Practice of Learner Centred Learning in Tanzania held at the Tanzanian Episcopal Conference Centre, Kurasini (18th – 19th August 2008)

Allwright, R. (1982). 'What do we want teaching materials for?', ELT Journal, 36, 1, 13-15.

Bates-Treloar, F. (2013). Hello! English for Preparatory Schools: Year One (Teacher’s Guide). Egyptian International Publishing Company, Longman.

Carrell, D., & Korwitz, J. (1994). Using concentrating techniques to study gender stereotyping in ELT textbooks. In J. Sunderland (Ed.), Exploring gender: Questions and implications for English language education (pp.31-44). Prentice Hall International.

Clarke, A. & Dawson, R. (2005). Evaluation research: An introduction to principles, methods and practice. London: Sage

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th Ed.). Routledge: London.

Cunningsworth, A. (1984). Evaluating and selecting EFL teaching materials. Oxford: Heinemann.

Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.

Dougill, J. (1987). Not So Obvious in ELT Textbooks and Materials: Problems in Evaluation and Development. Modern English Publication in Association with the British Council.

Edström, K. (2008). Doing course evaluation as if learning matters most. Higher Education Research & Development, 27, 2, 95-106.

Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. London: Routledge.

Franke-Wikberg, S. & Lundgren, U. P. (1980). Att värdera utbildning. Del 1. En introduktion till pedagogisk utvärdering. [Evaluating Education. Part 1. Introduction to educational evaluation]. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand.

Harris, D. E. & Carr, J. F. (1996). How to use standards in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Huệ,  L. T. (2010). An evaluation of the textbook English 11 taught at PhanDinhPhungSecondary school in Hanoi: A case study. VietnamNationalUniversity, Hanoi

Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48, 4.

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). ESP: A learning-centred approach. CambridgeUniversity Press

Jahangard, A. (2007). Evaluation of the EFL materials taught at Iranian high schools. The Asian EFL Journal, 9, 2, 130- 150.

Khodabakhshi, M. (2014). Choose a proper EFL textbook: Evaluation of "Skyline" series.  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98, 959-967

Kırkgöz, Y. (2009). Evaluating the English textbooks for young learners of English at Turkish primary education. World Conference on Educational Sciences. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1 (2009), 79–83

Ma, L. (2003). Evaluation of current English textbooks for the elementary school: A study of English textbooks designed for the 1st-9th grades curriculum alignment in Taiwan. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Fu-Jen Catholic University, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Madaus, G. F., & Kellaghan, T. (2000). Models, metaphors, and definitions in evaluation. In D. L. Dtufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed., pp. 19-32). Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Milanowski, A. T., Kimball, S. M. & White, B. (2004). The relationship between standards-based teacher evaluation scores and student achievement: Replication and extensions at three sites. Consortium for Policy Research in Education [Online]. (Accessed: 8 June, 2015), from: http://cpre.wceruw.org/papers/3site_long_te_sa_aera04te.pdf

Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Moss, J. & Hendry, G. (2002). Use of electronic surveys in course evaluation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 5, 583-592.

National Standards Preparation Project (NSPP) (2003). Normative Standards and Levels (Grades One to Twelve): Egyptian National Standards for English as a Foreign Language (pp. 142-181), Curriculum & Learning Outcomes Committee, ArabRepublic of Egypt.

Porter, A. C., Youngs, P., and Odden, A. (2001). Advances in teacher assessments and their uses. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, Fourth Edition. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 259-297.

Richards, J. C. (2001). The role of textbooks in a language program [Online]. Available from: http://www.professorjackrichards.com/wp-content/uploads/role-of-textbooks.pdf (Accessed: 5 June, 2015)

Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal 24, 4.

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: A Practical Handbook (2nd ed.), London.

Silver, H. (2004). Evaluation research in education. Faculty of Education, University of Plymouth [Online]. (Accessed: 20 April, 2015). Available from: http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/evaluation/

Stevick, E. (1971). Evaluating and adapting language materials. In: H. Allen, & R. Campbell (Eds.), Teaching English as a second language (pp102-107). New York: McGraw-Hill

Tsagari, D., & Sifakis, N. C. (2014). EFL course book evaluation in Greek primary schools: Views from teachers and authors, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.04.001

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity

Wang, J. (1998). Evaluating an EFL textbook-A new English course. CRILE Working Paper 31. University of Lancaster: Centre for Research in Education.

Wang, X; Yang,  Y. & Wen, X. (2009). Research and design of computer-aided English textbook evaluation system. 2009 First International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science.

Appendix 1

College of Education

Curriculum & Instruction Dept.

Primary English Language Learning Standards Questionnaire

Prepared by

Dr Mahmoud M. S. Abdallah

Lecturer of Curriculum & TESOL/TEFL Methodology

College of Education, Assiut University

Dear respected English Teaching Specialist (supervisor, expert teacher, etc.)

The researcher is currently conducting an evaluative study on the new primary English language textbook 'Time for English' (year one to six). This questionnaire aims at identifying your personal assessment of the extent to which this new course or textbook (Primary-One-to-Six) comply with the national English Language Learning Standards issued by the Egyptian Ministry of Education in 2003. In other words, you will state to what extent you agree (or disagree) that each specific standard or indicator is well-represented in 'Time for English' textbooks (courses) from year one to six. Your viewpoint is extremely important for accomplishing our research objectives. Any information you provide is very confidential and won’t be used for any purposes other than research.

*Please note that

1-This questionnaire is not intended to be a test or exam;

2-There is no right or wrong answer; each response you choose indicate the extent to which the statement applies to 'Time for English' textbooks.

3-You should tick ONE response only for each statement without skipping any;

4-Allocated time ranges between 10-20 minutes;

5-Don’t spend much time on reading each statement. Just answer based on your first impression.

6-You have to answer each item by ticking one of 5 available response options (graded from: 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree), which applies most to you (depending on your personal viewpoint), as shown below:

This above examples means that you DISAGREE that the standard or indicator in focus complies with the 'Time for English' courses currently taught at the primary stage.

Primary English Language Learning Standards Questionnaire

To what extent you agree or disagree that those standards are represented in the new primary English textbooks 'Time for English'?

-The suggested standards and indicators fall under 4 main domains:

1. Communication

2. Language systems

3. Learning to learn; and

4. Learning values.