國內(nèi)外“教材評估”研究綜述

1、Overview on Foreign and Domestic Materials Evaluation1. IntroductionThere are numerous studies on materials evaluation abroad and at home, and the number has tended to be on the rise as interest in the area has grown. In the West, Williams (1983), Van Els et al. (1984), Cunningsworth (1984) and Hutc

2、hinson (2002) were the leading pioneers. In China, Qian Yuan (1995) introduced Hutchinson and Waters checklist of materials evaluation, which is the starting point of the discussions on materials, especially on materials evaluation or selection. 2. Features of studies on materials evaluation abroad

3、and at homeCombined with the representatives and the latest among them, the features of these studies may be summarized as follows.2.1 The evaluation process was described as several parts.The materials evaluation process described by McDonough and Shaw (2004) can be charted as follows:Macro-evaluat

4、ioninappropriate / potentially appropriate(External)ExitMicro-evaluationinappropriate / appropriateadopt / select(Internal)ExitFigure 2.1 An overview of the materials evaluation process (McDonough and Shaw 2004: 66)As was illustrated, the process comprised two complementary stages: the external one

5、and the internal one. At each stage, several detailed aspects were designed.The external evaluation stage examined the claims made for the materials by the author/publisher with respect to: the intended audience, the proficiency level, the context and presentation of language items, whether the mate

6、rials are the core or supplementary, the role and availability of a teachers book, the inclusion of a vocabulary list/index, the table of contents, the use of visuals and presentation, and the cultural specificity of the materials, the provision of audio/video material and inclusion of tests. (ibid.

7、)As the central stage of their evaluation model, they claimed that it aimed to offer a general, brief overview of how materials had been organized from the outside (cover, introduction, table of contents) (McDonough and Shaw 2004: 61). After the stage, it was suggested that evaluators should make a

8、decision about the materials appropriateness for adoption/selection purpose. If the materials proved to be potentially appropriate and worthy of a closer and more detailed inspection, then an internal evaluation would be continued. Otherwise, the materials evaluation would come to the end.In the int

9、ernal evaluation stage, evaluators were advised to examine the following points: “the treatment and presentation of the skills, the sequencing and grading of the materials, the type of reading, listening, speaking and writing materials contained in the materials, appropriacy of tests and exercises,

10、self-study provision and teacher-learner balance in use of the materials” (McDonough and Shaw 2004: 70). The essential of this stage was to “analyze the extent to which the aforementioned factors in the external evaluation stage actually match up with the internal consistency and organization of the

11、 materials” (McDonough and Shaw 2004: 67). The internal evaluation was more specific than the external one and it could give a comprehensive description of materials from a deep level.Finally, a comprehensive assessment, which McDonough and Shaw called the overall evaluation, should be made regardin

12、g the suitability of materials and it included four factors: usability, generalizability, adaptability, and flexibility (McDonough and Shaw 2004: 70). Thus, there would be a conclusion about whether materials are suitable for specified groups or individuals.Zhang Xuemei (2001) thought that the whole

13、 evaluation model was overall and clear, and the internal evaluation and the external one were closely related with each other. Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang (2006) argued that the division of the two stages tremendously simplified the whole evaluation process. Consequently, it is quite flexible and c

14、onvenient.Likewise, there were two phases in Breen and Candlins Evaluation Guide (1987).Firstly, some preliminary questions were put forward on the usage of materials, particularly on their objectives and aims, their requirements on learners and teachers, and their functions as a classroom resource.

15、 More detailed questions under the above four items were provided. In the second phase, main questions were about the needs and interest of learners, their language learning methods, and the process of classroom teaching and learning. (quoted in Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang 2006: 42-43)In contrast, C

16、heng Xiaotang (2002) divided the evaluation process into three stages (pre-use evaluation, in-use evaluation, post-use evaluation) and it could be internal or external. An internal evaluation focuses on the internal accountability of the materials, e.g. the theoretical assumptions behind the materia

17、ls; the intended objectives and the extent to which the objectives have been realized; the justification of language selection and grading; the design of activities and tasks. An external evaluation examines the extent to which a set of materials meets the needs of a particular group of learners, th

18、e syllabus, and the examination. (Cheng Xiaotang 2002: 70)From the above, it is seen that they complement one another and both are of interest.Hutchinson and Waters (1987) divided the evaluation process into four major steps:1) Defining criteria;2) Subjective analysis;3) Objective analysis;4) Matchi

19、ng (See Figure 2.2 for detail)Subjective AnalysisWhat realisations of the criteria do you want in your course?Objective AnalysisHow does the material being evaluated realise the criteria?Define CriteriaOn what bases will you judge materials?Which criteria will be more important? MatchingHow far does

20、 the material match your needs?Figure 2.2 Hutchinson and Waters Four Major Steps in Evaluation Process (Hutchinson and Waters 2002: 98)2.2 The evaluation checklist was designed in various ways.A quick-reference checklist for evaluation and selection was given by Cunningsworth, in which eight main it

21、ems were aims and approaches, design and organization, language content, skills, topic, methodology, teachers books, and practical considerations (Cunningsworth 2002: 3-4). Each of these items was subdivided into several questions.Hutchinson and Waters elaborate checklist (2002) covered five aspects

22、 (audience, aims, content, methodology, and other criteria) and had twenty-one subjective questions and other twenty-one objective ones. Users demands for materials were identified through subjective questions, and information about materials was collected through objective ones. At last, evaluators

23、 compared the two sides and judged the applicability of materials for a particular purpose. This approach was originally used in ESP course, but because of its easy operation and good validity, it is still widely applied in general language course.Besides, Zhou Xuelin (1996) and McDonough and Shaw (

24、2004) designed their own checklists for materials evaluation, too. No matter which checklist it is, evaluators may refer to materials and answer the specific questions in it. Thus, Hutchinson and Waters (2002) demonstrated materials evaluation is basically a matching process (quoted in Zhao Yong and

25、 Zheng Shutang 2006: 39). 2.3 The evaluation guideline, principle and criterion were discussed.On the one hand, Cunningsworth presented four guidelines for evaluation, which work as a useful guide in approaching any material evaluation exercise. They are:Guideline OneCoursebooks should correspond to

26、 learners needs. They should match the aims and objectives of the language-learning programme.Guideline TwoCoursebooks should reflect the uses (present or future) which learners will make of the language. Select coursebooks which will help to equip students to use language effectively for their own

27、purposes. Guideline ThreeCoursebooks should take account of students needs as learners and should facilitate their learning processes, without dogmatically imposing a rigid method. Guideline FourCoursebooks should have a clear role as a support for learning. Like teachers, they mediate between the t

28、arget language and the learner. (Cunningsworth 2002: 15-17)On the other hand, in the light of domestic specific conditions, Cheng Xiaotang thought materials evaluation should follow two principles: effectiveness and efficiency. The first one is to examine if a textbook is effective in satisfying lea

29、rners needs; the second one is to examine if a textbook is more effective in this aspect than some alternative textbooks (Cheng Xiaotang 2002: 69). In addition, combined with college English teaching in China and Requirements (trial), Xu Zhaoyang and Wang Zhifang (2007) summarized the criteria of te

30、xtbook evaluation considering teaching environment, teaching objectives, learners, and teachers. Zhou Xuelin (1996) put forth a list of materials evaluation from six different aspects: (1) the relation between materials and teaching theories, (2) the relation between materials and syllabuses, (3) th

31、e relation between materials and learners, (4) content, (5) design of exercises and (6) supplementary resources. Other researchers who have made great contribution in such an issue are Liu Daoyi (2004) and Sun Pinhua (2006).2.4 The evaluation type and approach were categorized differently.According

32、to the time that materials evaluation could take place, Cunningsworth (2002) divided it into three types: pre-use evaluation, in-use evaluation and post-use evaluation.McDonough and Shaw (2004) distinguished evaluation for adoption from evaluation for adaptation. The former helped teachers quickly s

33、elect proper materials, whereas the latter intended to encourage teachers to adapt materials so that they met the actual teaching needs.For Cheng Xiaotang (2002), materials evaluation may be either ad hoc impressionistic evaluation or systematic evaluation. Intuitions, impressions and experience of

34、using materials are the basis of an ad hoc impressionistic evaluation. Thus it is hardly scientific and comprehensive. A systematic evaluation, based on “specification of objectives, principles and procedures adopted or embedded in materials” (Cheng Xiaotang 2002: 70), is winning popularity.2.5 It w

35、as proposed that different people participate in the evaluation process.Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang (2006) pointed out different materials evaluation systems focused on different participants. For instance, in Cunningsworths Evaluation Guidelines, the subjective judgment which came from evaluators w

36、as virtually reflected; in McDonough and Shaws Evaluation Model, teachers viewpoints and evaluators ones were combined; in Breen and Candlins Evaluation Guide, the active participation of teachers and learners were welcomed.2.6 It was suggested that materials evaluation combine with materials design

37、.In Breen and Candlins Guide, they listed seven characteristics of materials design in the form of questions. Qiao Ailing (2002) proposed that materials evaluation should be conducted due to the macro-design and micro-design of materials. The macro-design consisted of the guiding principles (syllabu

38、s), the major framework (the internal language and knowledge system and the external information and structure system) and the layout of units. The syllabus must correspond to the objectives of the course and it determined the other two aspects. The micro-design of materials referred to the arrangem

39、ent of every unit, such as contents and exercises.2.7 The theoretical foundation of traditional materials evaluation in the West was traced back to linguistic field.There was a consensus among Zhang Xuemei (2001), Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang (2006) that traditional materials evaluation systems were

40、largely established on some linguistic theories, and they took Cunningsworths Evaluation Guidelines, McDonough and Shaws Evaluation Model and Breen and Candlins Guide as an example. Cunningsworths Evaluation Guidelines hypothesized that the language was a whole system which could be divided into muc

41、h less items; McDonough and Shaws Evaluation Model regarded materials as the medium in learning and it was greatly influenced by the Communicative Approach in language teaching; Breen and Candlins Guide considered materials as the means of promoting teaching and learning.2.8 The flaws of western eva

42、luation theories and their practical application were criticized. For Cunningsworths Evaluation Guidelines, it was considered that they were more comprehensive and systematic, however, to examine linguistic items in materials, as one of the most important tasks, was almost too overcomplicated to car

43、ry out on many occasions (Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang 2006: 41). For McDonough and Shaws Evaluation Model, it overlooked some factors such as self-study, self-test, learning styles and skills, classroom environment (Zhang Xuemei 2001: 63) and its checklist was so long that it wasted time and energy

44、(Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang 2006: 41). In contrast, for Breen and Candlins Guide, it attached importance to the learner-centered learning and evaluation (Zhang Xuemei 2001: 63; Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang 2006: 41). However, this kind of overemphasis may create many problems and moreover, the quest

45、ions in its two phases are sometimes overlapping and easy to mix up if they are improperly used.2.9 Western materials evaluation systems were applied in the practice of college English textbook evaluation at home.Although the current domestic studies of materials evaluation in ELT have been in preli

46、minary phase (Xu Zhaoyang and Wang Zhifang 2007; Zhao Yong and Zheng Shutang 2006; Qian Yuan 1995), there is still much room for development and improvement in the future.After a detailed introduction and analysis about three influential textbook evaluation systems in the West, Zhao Yong and Zheng S

47、hutang (2006) summarized their common problems and advised that a possible solution employing quantitative analysis should be the utilization of computer technology and textbook corpus at home. Relative debates were explicit in the articles of Xia Jimei (2001) and Xu Feng (2004).In the past five yea

48、rs, there were some teachers and postgraduates who wrote their articles or dissertations on college English textbook evaluation such as Bian Shurong (2005), Lenglin (2006), Liu Wei (2006), Tian Juan (2006), Tu Chuane and Wu Xiaoling (2006), Bai Yun (2007), Chi Hongbo (2007), Li Xiuju (2007), Wu Tao

49、(2007), Zeng Rong (2007), Huang Rumin (2008), Wang Xiaoyan (2008), Zhang Fusheng (2008), Zhou Pingdi (2008), Li Aiqin and Ying Yashu (2009). The textbooks they discussed and evaluated are College English (new) by Shanghai Foreign Language Educational Press (2001), NHCE published by Foreign Language

50、Teaching and Research Press (2002), Listening and Speaking Series of Experiencing English by Higher Educational Press (2002), College English-Listening and Speaking Course (Students Book) (New Edition) by Shanghai Foreign Language Educational Press (2002), and New Essential College English by Foreig

51、n Language Teaching and Research Press (2005). The characteristics of their studies may be summarized as follows: (1) In theoretical construction, they all used domestic and foreign achievements for reference. (2) In instrument, questionnaire, interview, class observation and text corpus were encomp

52、assed, in other words, this was the integration of quantitative researches and qualitative researches. (3) In purpose, they were either to evaluate how well the materials correspond with CES (College English Syllabus), or Requirements (trial), or the requirements of HVTE (Higher Vocational-Technical

53、 Education) English Course (trial), or to analyze and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the materials by applying the theoretical results in this field abroad and at home. (4) In essence, their evaluations were all a matching process.3. ConclusionAs is observed, “it is clear that coursebook a

54、ssessment is fundamentally a subjective, rule-of-thumb activity, and that no neat formula, grid or system will ever provide a definite yardstick” (Sheldon 1988: 245). Therefore, the practical operation of college English textbook evaluation has the apparently subjective nature. Bibliography1 Cunning

55、sworth, Alan. Evaluating and Selecting ELT Teaching Materials M. London: Heinemann, 1984.2 Hutchinson, T, and Waters, A. English for Specific Purposes M. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002.3 McDonough, Jo, and Shaw, Christopher. Materials and Methods in ELT M. Beijing: Perking

56、 University Press, 2004.4 Sheldon, Leslie E. Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials J. ELTJ. 1988. 42, 4. pp. 237-246.5 Van Els, Theo et al. Applied Linguistics and the Learning and Teaching of Foreign Languages C. London: Edward Arnold, 1984.6 Williams, David. Developing criteria for textbook evalu

57、ation J. ELTJ. 1983. 37, 3. pp. 251-255.7 卞樹榮. 大學體驗英語教材分析與評估D. 11 Oct. 2005. 中國優(yōu)秀博碩士學位論文數(shù)據(jù)庫. 15 Jul. 2009 <0/kns50/detail.aspx?QueryID=3&CurRec=1>.8 白云. 對大學英語聽說教程（全新版學生用書）聽力部分教學內(nèi)容的評估D. 25 Oct. 2007. 中國優(yōu)秀博碩士學位論文數(shù)據(jù)庫. 15 Jul. 2009 <0/kns50/detail.aspx?QueryID=36&CurRe