A Tale of Three Official English Textbooks: An Evaluation of Their Horizontal and Vertical Alignments

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
A. Amiri 1
R. Rezvani 2
1 M.A. of TEFL, Department of English, Faculty of Humanities, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of English, Faculty of Humanities, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran
10.29252/LRR.12.3.3
Abstract
Instructional materials as a basic component of curriculums and a central constituent of standards-based programs play a provisional role in both setting the aims and leading the way. English textbooks in Iran’s public education are officially developed and used nationwide. One recently introduced English textbook series is Prospects (I-III) . It is intended for the the Iranian junior high schools and is normally supposed to guide teachers and provide students with the basic exposure to English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. The textbooks, together with the lessons, have to be aligned in targeting educational objectives given the sequential nature of the intended grades and the serial contents of instruction. This study evaluated the vertical and horizontal alignment among the series’ textbooks and lessons drawing on Bloom’s revised taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The evaluation initially involved descriptive content analysis of the activities within and across the textbooks using a checklist developed based on the taxonomy. Then, the content matrixes were subjected to Porter et al.’s (2007) alignment index for the statistical assessment of lessons and textbooks’ alignment. The findings generally suggested that the lessons were tuned adequately, albeit accommodating mainly lower-order knowledge types and cognitive skills at the cost of discarding the higher-order ones. In addition, the statistically positive and significant PAIs of 0.93, 0.78, and 0.74 between Prospect I & II, Prospect I & III, and Prospect II & III, respectively pointed to a harmony in the series’ content. The paper discusses the findings and implications in the Iranian EFL context

Keywords

Subjects

Authors, (2012).
Authors, (2015).
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Assaly,Ibtihal, R., Smadi, & Oqlah, M. (2015). Using Bloom’s taxonomy to evaluate the cognitive levels of master class textbook’s questions. The Journal of English Language Teaching, 8(5), 100-110.
Bemani, M., & Jahangard, A. (2014). Attitude analysis of teachers: The case of Iranian newly developed EFL textbooks for junior high school. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 7(1), 198 -215.
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longman.
Case, B., & Zucker, S. (2005). Horizontal and vertical alignment. Pearson Education.
Chan, J. (2020). Towards English as an international language: The evolving ELT curricula and textbooks in Hong Kong. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/ijal.12277
Chen, A. C.H. (2016). A critical evaluation of text difficulty development in ELT textbook series: A corpus-based approach using variability neighbor clustering. System, 58, 64-81.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. MacMillan.
Fan, L. (2010). Principles and processes for publishing textbooks and alignment with standards: A case in Singapore [Paper presentation]. The APEC Conference on Replicating Exemplary Practices in Mathematics Education, Koh Samui, Thailand.
Gacel-Ávila, J. (2005). The internationalization of higher education: A paradigm for global
citizenry. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(2), 121–36.
Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 325–338.
Gary, D. P. (1997). Handbook of Academic Learning. Construction of Knowledge. Academic Press.
Gordani, Y. (2010). An analysis of English textbooks used at Iranian guidance schools in terms of Bloom’s taxonomy. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(2), 249-278.
Gotcher, D. (2012). A précis of the taxonomy. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from http://authorityresearch.com/2010.
Grabe, W., Stoller, F., L. (2013). Teaching and researching reading. Longman/Pearson.
Hoeppel, F. (1980). A taxonomy analysis of questions found in aiding skills developmental books used in Maryland Community College. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(12), 1-14.
Joyce, S. (1993). Unintended outcomes: Curriculum and outcome-based education [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, United States.
Kim, D., & Hall, J. K. (2002). The role of an interactive book reading program in the development of second language pragmatic competence. Modern Language Journal, 86, 332-348.
Litz, D. R. A. (2005). Textbook evaluation and ELT management: A South Korean case study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. UAE University Al Ain.
Mizbani, M. & Chalak, A.(2017). Analyzing reading and writing activities of Iranian EFL textbook prospect 3 based on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research,4 (2), 13-27.
Nation, I.S.P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. Routledge.
Nation, I.S.P. & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. Routledge.
Nation, I.S.P. & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. Routledge.
Pally, M. (1997). Critical thinking in ESL: An argument for sustained content. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 6(3), 293–311.
Polikoff, S. M. (2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the common core standard in mathematics?. American Education Research Journal, 52 (6), 1185-1211.
Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.
Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001). Defining, developing, and using curriculum indicators (Report No. 48). Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Porter, A.C., Smithson, J., Blank, R., & Zeindner, T. (2007). Alignment as a teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20 (1), 27-51.
Roohani, A. Jam, B. & Shamsi, A. (2015). Investigating the cognitive processes in the tests of Top-Notch series using the Bloom’s Taxonomy. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 2(10), 10-19.
Saeed, M. & Rashid. S. (2014). Alignment between chemistry curriculum and textbooks at secondary Level. The Sindh University Journal of Education, 43, 29-46.
Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(2), 237- 246.
Sinnema, C. Nieveen, N., & Priestley, M. (2020). Successful futures, successful curriculum: What can Wales learn from international curriculum reforms? The Curriculum Journal, 31(2), 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.17
Ur, P. (1996): A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge University Press.
Webb N.L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states (Report No. 18). Council of Chief State School Officers.
Webb, N. L. (2002). An analysis of the alignment between mathematics standards and assessment for three states [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, United States.
Zareian, G., Davoudi, M., Heshmatifar, Z., & Rahimi, J. (2015). An evaluation of questions in two ESP coursebooks based on Bloom’s new taxonomy of cognitive learning domain. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(8), 313-326.
Language Related Research
Volume 12, Issue 3 - Serial Number 63
July and August 2021
Pages 51-79