i
Chapter Two - Literature Review... 6
2.1 Introduction... 6
2.2. The Concept of Instructional Materials... 6
2.2.1 The Role of Materials in Relation to Other Elements ... 7
2.2.2 Characteristics of Good Materials ... 10
ii
2.3.2.2 Types of Classroom Activities ………..………... 24
2.3.2.3 Types of Classroom Techniques .……….…... 26
2.4 Relevant Research ………..……….... 30
Chapter Three - Research Methodology... 36
3.1 Introduction ………... 36
4.2.1 The Materials Provided in the Textbook Unit... 45
4.2.2 The Materials Provided in the Lesson Plan ... 48
4.3 The Data from Classroom Observation... 52
4.4 The Data from Teacher’s Interviews…... 55
4.4.1 General Descriptions of the Materials ………... 55
4.4.1.1 Teacher’s Definitions of A Good Material ... 55
4.4.1.2 Teachers’ Evaluation of the Textbook Unit... 57
4.4.2 Material Preparation ………... 61
4.4.2.1 The Sources of Materials ………... 61
4.4.2.2 Material Modification ……….………... 63
4.4.2.2.1 Reason to Modify the Materials ………... 63
4.4.2.2.2 Difficulties during Material Modification ... 67
4.4.2.2.3 The Effects of Material Modification …... 70
4.4.3 Material Implementation .………... 71
4.4.3.1 Implemented Classroom Activities …………... 72
4.4.3.2 Changes of Classroom Activities ………... 74
4.4.3.3 Difficulties in Delivering the Materials……... 76
iii Chapter Five – Conclusions, Limitations, and Suggestions of the Study ... 814
5.1 Introduction ………... 814 5.2 Conclusions ………... 81
5.3 Limitations of the Study ……... 83
iv
List of Tables
Table 4.1 The contents of the coursebook ……….………….. 44
Table 4.2 Planned Classroom Activities ……….………. 47
Table 4.3 Sources of English Instructional Materials ……….………… 49
Table 4.4 Implemented Classroom Activities ……….………... 72
Table 4.5 Changes of Classroom Activities and Reasons to change ………. 75
Table 4.6 Learning materials ………. 79
v
List of Figures
vi
List of Appendices
1. Appendix A. An Example of Questionnaire Sheet 109 2. Appendix B. An Example of Lesson Plan
3. Appendix C. An Example of Textbook Unit
4. Appendix D. Classroom Observation Procedure Result 116 5. Appendix E. Interview questions 1
1 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Materials have profoundly played important role in English Language Teaching.
Materials are seen as an essential component of instructional design and are often viewed
as a way of influencing the quality of classroom interaction and language use (Richards
and Rodgers, 1986). In similar veins, Richards (2002; 251) sees the instructional materials
as “a key component to most language programs” providing that instructional materials
give the basis for much of the language input learners receive and the language practice
that occurs in the classroom. Richards (1998; 128) even believes that the improvement in
the quality of teaching will come about through the use of instructional materials.
Some teachers use instructional materials as their primary teaching resources. The
materials provide the basis for the content of lessons, the balance of skills taught, and kinds
of language practice students take part in. In other situations, materials serve primarily to
supplement the teacher’s instruction. For learners, materials may provide the major source
of contact they have with the language apart from the teacher. Hence the role and uses of
materials in a language program are a significant aspect of language curriculum
development (Richards, 2002; 252).
The effective use of instructional materials in language teaching are shaped by
consideration of a number of factors, including teacher, learner, and contextual variables
(Richards, 2005; McDonough and Shaw, 1993). Those factors, however, have often been
neglected when teachers use the materials (Yan, 2007). This condition will result at the
poor use of materials, and accordingly the objective of effective use of materials cannot be
2 In day to day’s use of materials, teachers are characterized in three types of
teachers as described by Grant (1987; 7) as follows
Teacher 1: ‘I don’t use a textbook. I prepare all my own teaching materials. After all, I know my students’ needs better than any coursebook writer does.’
Teacher 2: ‘I couldn’t teach without a textbook. I use it just like a recipe. Follow it page by page, and you can’t go wrong.’
Teacher 3: ‘I find my coursebook very useful. I use it a lot of the time. But not all the time.’
From the description above, teacher 1 claims to be independent of any textbook
(Grant, 1987; 7) while Prabhu (1987; 96) characterizes Teacher 2 to be ‘tightly
constructed’ where textbooks are indispensable. Prabhu also characterizes teacher 3 as
‘loosely constructed’ where they stick closely to the textbook, but in practice they often
depart from it. In short, these beliefs represented by those three teachers above need to be
carefully recognized as teachers use the materials.
There are three forms of materials used – commercial materials, authentic
materials, and teacher-made materials (Richards, 2002; 251). When these materials are
brought to the classroom use, teachers need to organize them into a meaningful, interesting
sequence of activities (Kitao and Kitao, 1997). In order to achieve this, therefore, Graves
(2003) and Richards (2002) suggest that in using the materials, teachers need to follow the
process of using materials from preparation to implementation.
The present study focuses on how teachers use the materials and how the students
respond to their teachers’ use of the materials. These issues are important among teachers
as Harmer (2002) reminds them to watch their use of materials to be appropriately used.
Otherwise, it will lead to ineffective materials to learn in which the materials do not meet
students’ needs and interests (Gebhard, 2000; 253). Therefore, the study also seeks for the
students’ needs and interests of the materials to improve the learners’ motivation and
3 To support the focus of present study, similar studies have been conducted. Tung
and Ng (1992) cited in Richards (1998; 127) reported that teachers in their practice use
different types of material resources, and these practices varies considerably in which
experienced teachers use textbooks more often than do their novice colleagues (Moulton,
1994) who have adapted the materials to varying degrees (Yan, 2007). Particularly in
Indonesian setting, Huda (1999; 136) reported the repetition of the materials and the dearth
of “local content” in the teaching. Another study revealed that the Indonesian English
teachers also tend to favor English-speaking published materials than locally-published
materials (Zacharias, 2003). From the above studies, Moulton (1994) suggests that we
must know why teachers behave as they do, in terms of their own thinking about
instruction. This study tries to describe teachers’ behavior on how they use the materials
and what pedagogical reasons underlie the decisions.
Considering the facts above, it is worth investigating the use of the materials by the
teachers and how the students respond to it. The study is conducted in an enrichment
English program in STIA LAN Bandung involving eight English teachers. The study
reports how the teachers use the materials and how the students respond to the teachers’
material use. This study can hopefully yield important implications for the practice and
research in ELT, and accordingly the information of the study can lead to the improvement
of English language teaching and learning in Indonesia.
1.2 Research Question
Based on the background mentioned above, research questions are formulated as
follows:
1. How do the teachers use materials?
4 1.3 Research Goals
Research goals of the present study are first to find out the use of instructional materials by the teachers which are essential to document effective ways of using materials
and a record of different sources of materials Richards (2002; 270). Second, the study also
seeks for students’ responses sought to give the information about learning materials and
teachers’ competency in material use. Both research goals are expected to provide a deep
and wide-ranging knowledge of the materials that the teachers can use (Bolitho, 1988;72),
and accordingly make informed teaching decisions for teachers (Gebhard, 2000;15) on
how to use the materials.
1.4Significance of the Study
This study suggests how teachers use the instructional materials in a language
classroom and how the students respond to the teachers’ use of materials. The findings of
the study are expected to be beneficial to the improvement of English language teaching
and learning activities. For the teachers, the study can give information about the use of
instructional materials; while for students, the study can reveal what kind of learning
materials are preferable by the students and thus, provide information on teachers’
competency in material use.
1.5Definitions of the Terms
To the extent of the study, some terms are clarified as follows:
• Instructional materials are “any systematic description of techniques and exercises to
be used in the classroom teaching” (Brown, 1995).
• Coursebook (textbook) is “prepackaged, published books used by the students and
5
• Supplementary materials are books or other non-print materials used within the
context of the instructional program which are not included in the definitions of
textbooks or instructional materials listed above.
• The use of materials is the way how teachers prepare for the materials and how the
materials are used in practice.
1.6 Organization of the Study
This study is organized in five chapters. Here is the list of the organization.
• Chapter 1 deals with the background, research question, research goals, significance
of the study, clarification of terms used throughout the study, and organization of the
study.
• Chapter 2 reviews the relevant literature on instructional materials specifying the
discussion on the concept of the materials. The second discussion centers on the use of
materials from the material preparation and material implementation, and the relevant
research to the study.
• Chapter 3 describes the methodology that was used to conduct this research. It
presents the subject of the study, research design and procedure of data collection.
• In Chapter 4, the findings are presented to show how the teachers use the materials
and how students respond to it. Then, these findings are discussed to see the
implications of the study to the teachers’ material use.
• In Chapter 5, some limitations of the study are discussed, the conclusions of this
36 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses overview of the methodological aspects of the study. The
overview begins with the discussion of research site and participants of the study, followed
by the procedures of the qualitative method which becomes the research design of the
study. The present study obtains research data from interviews, document analysis,
classroom observation, and questionnaires. In this study, interviews serve as the main
source of data. The data obtained from those data collection techniques are further
analyzed to get the findings of the study.
3.2 Research Site and Participants
The research was conducted in the Language Centre of STIA LAN Bandung (State
School of Administration Sciences) where the researcher is one of teachers. STIA LAN
offers an English enrichment program at the first semester with the aim at providing basic
communication of English. Therefore, by the end of the program, it is hoped the students
will be able to communicate in simple English with friends and lecturers at campus as well
as with their colleagues at work or when they serve the foreign society considering that the
students are government employees and come from different state agencies throughout
Indonesia.
The class meets six sessions with two teaching hours for each session. There are
eight classes taught by eight teachers. In each class, there are around 20 students at the
most with the average age is around 25 years of age. The students are given a coursebook
“New Headway” for pre-intermediate students as the primary workbook the students do in
37 There are 8 (eight) English teachers (referred to here as T) involved in this study
(T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8). There were no specific criteria in the selection of these
teachers, but only those who were teaching on the enrolled term became the subject of the
study. There were five male teachers and three female teachers whose average age is 27
years of age. They had an undergraduate degree of English language and pedagogy, and
have had one or two years of teaching experiences.
3.3 Research Design
The study employed a qualitative approach since it is relevant to the purpose and
research questions of the study that are how teachers use the materials and how the
students respond to it. In line with this, Woods (1999; 2) characterizes the qualitative study
with “life as it is lived, things as they happen, situations as they are constructed in the
day-to-day, moment-to-moment course of events.” This research particularly seeks lived
experiences in real situations and is interested in how materials are used by the teacher.
With an emphasis on process, therefore, this research analyzes the process the teachers use
the materials from the preparation stage to the implementation stage.
Accordingly, a case study was used as the method of the study. Wallace (2000; 47)
defines a case study as the systematic investigation of an individual ‘case’, whether that
refers to one teacher, one learner, one group, one class, or whatever. In this research, a
group of teachers was investigated for their use of materials. In addition, a case study is
also relevant to the research since the researcher gathers evidence from multiple sources
(McKay, 2008; 17). In this study, as will be discussed later, the data for this research were
taken from multiple data collection techniques, namely: interviews, document analysis,
38 3.4 Data Collection
As mentioned earlier, three data collection techniques were used in this study;
interviews, document analysis, classroom observation, and questionnaires. Furthermore,
these multiple methods of data collection were taken into account to triangulate the data.
With this triangulation, it verified the validity of the information being collected (Blaxter et
al., 2006; 86), and therefore the subjectivity of the study can be avoided because according
to Blaxter et al., the findings from one type of data collection can be checked against the
findings deriving from the other types (2006; 85).
In the following section, each of the data collection will be elaborated further.
3.4.1 Document Analysis
In this study, document analysis tries to depict the evidence of what the teachers do
during the preparation process in a written form. This type of data collection technique,
according to Merriam (1988), is considered as “objective sources of data compared to other
forms”. The document data is also used to triangulate the interview data.
The document data investigated in this study were taken from the materials
provided in the textbook unit and lesson plan. For the purpose of the study, only one unit is
used. The consideration is that the study only limits for one unit teaching process of how
teachers use the material. On the other hand, the lesson plan here is not necessarily a detail
document but a written indication that the teacher has thought in advance about the ‘why’,
‘what’, and ‘how’ of the lesson (Gabrielatos, 2004). In this study, the teachers were
obliged to submit their lesson plans (see an example of lesson plan in Appendix B) to see
the outline of what he/she was going to do in the classroom. From the lesson plan, we will
39 strategies are used, and whether the activities are organized based on certain lesson
structure.
3.4.2 Classroom Observation
Classroom observation was conducted to find how the teachers use the materials in
the implementation process. Observations, according to Merriam (1988), were useful in
such a way that they showed things that had become routines to the participants
themselves, things which may lead to understanding the context. The use of audio or video
recording of lessons also provides a more reliable record of what actually happened in the
classroom (Richards, 1990). During observations, the researcher was an observer and did
not take part in any classroom activity.
The whole processes of classroom activities were recorded through the use of video
recorder. As Merriam (1988) suggests that recording make the data analysis easier. The
video also helps the researcher give the description of the material implementation which
later will be cross checked to the interview result. The study seeks for what activities are
conducted in the classroom. The list of activities as a result of classroom observation data
can be seen in Appendix D. Due to the limitation of the time, the observations were
conducted to the first four teachers (T1, T2, T3, T4).
3.4.3 Interviews
In this study, the main sources of data were the interviews that I undertook with the
eight teachers as the respondents of the study. Merriam (1998) defines interview as “the
person-to-person encounter in which one person gains information from another.” In this
case, interviewing teachers were carried out to get in-depth information (Alwasilah, 2002)
multilingual-40 matters.net/le/012/0229/le0120229.pdf), for this particular study, of how teachers use the
materials.
Therefore, in order to answer the research question, a list of questions (see the
Appendix E) was formulated in a semi-structured interview. In this type of interview, the
interviewer has more freedom to deviate from the set questions (Sproston, 2005) with the
expectation that teachers would account for their answers and that the researcher might
have queried those accounts further (Nicholson, 2002 in
http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/nic02194.htm). This study thus employs semi-structured
interviews to generate teachers' talk about their use of materials in an attempt to make
visible their understandings of the use of materials that they do.
The questions of the interview were generated from four categories – (1) general
questions; (2) material preparation; (3) material implementation; (4) reflection (see the
detail questions in Appendix E). First, general questions ask about the general description
of the materials the teacher used including the objective of the lesson (Q1), the
characteristics of the materials (Q2), and the evaluation of the textbook unit (Q3). Second,
the material preparation seeks for sources of materials (Q4), classroom activities (Q5, Q6),
and material modification ((Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10). Third, material implementation will seek
for classroom activities (Q11, Q12, Q13), and difficulty in delivering the materials (Q14).
The last, the section tries to reflect on the teacher’s material use.
The interview was taken place shortly after the class finished. Then, the teacher
was interviewed around 30 minutes. The interview was recorded using the tape-recorder,
and then transcribed. To reveal the findings, the interview data will be supported by other
data collection techniques.
41 3.4.4 Questionnaires
In this study, questionnaires were used to give the information about the use of the
materials in the written response. Questionnaires, according to Alwasilah (2002; 151),
were argued to know the respondents’ opinion, attitude, and perception. Alwasilah further
contends that questionnaires could be used to judge factual information. In similar veins,
Richards (2001; 60) says that questionnaires can also be used to elicit information about
many different kinds of issues.
Richards (2001; 60) contends that questionnaires have a set structure (in which the
respondents choose from a limited number of responses) or unstructured (in which
open-ended questions are given that the respondent can answer as he or she chooses. For this
study, the study tries to combine both types. Further, in this study, the questionnaires serve
as additional data collection to the interview since this questionnaire was given to the
students to reveal their responses about the materials and the teacher who uses the
materials.
The questionnaires in this study (see Appendix A) have two issues to reveal; first,
what they think of learning materials and what responses were made to how teacher uses
the materials. The questionnaire used in the study is modified from WIP (2008). Learning
materials are further jotted down into three questions about the material suitability to the
students’ needs (Q1), the degree of material difficulty (Q2), and materials’ drive to
interaction (Q6). Similar to learning materials, teacher’s use of materials is also broken
down into three questions – teacher’s techniques in delivering materials (3), organizing
42 3.5 Data Analysis
As has been mentioned, the data analysis used the qualitative method by employing
a case study. The analysis of data will be sorted, coded, and formatted into a story or a
picture as what Cresswell (1994; 153) suggested. Therefore the data taken from document
analysis, classroom observation, interview, and questionnaires will be further coded and
categorized to answer the research questions. The data analysis will be organized based on
each data collection technique.
Regarding the data analysis, the study refers to the data analysis given by Miles and
Huberman (1984). Here, the data analysis consists of three concurrent flows of activity:
data reduction, data display, and conclusions: drawing/verifying (Miles and Huberman,
1984; 21). From the existing raw data, the data are reduced and selected based on what the
research requires. The results of the data reduction are then presented in the data display
from which the data will be verified and drawn for the conclusion.
The data taken from the document analysis is based on the textbook unit and the
lesson plan the teacher handed in before the class begins. There are several steps to analyze
the document data. For the analysis of the textbook unit, the analysis will describe the
basic competence of the unit and the material description for each unit. In other words,
facts and feature of textbook units will be described. While for the analysis of the lesson
plan, first, the analysis will seek for the organization of activities based on the teaching
stages. The result of the activities will be provided in the table. Second, the analysis also
seeks for which materials will be used. In this case, the data will be about the information
of materials sources used in the study. Third, the analysis is conducted to reveal what
teaching techniques will be employed.
The analysis for the classroom observation can be done through the use of video
43 classroom activities conducted in the classroom. The data of the observation will be a list
of procedures in conducting classroom activities. The procedures aim at giving general
description of the teachers’ activities with the materials.
The main source of data collection is the interview to the teachers. The rest of data
collection techniques serve as an additional data to the interview. The interview draws
teacher’s process in using the materials from the preparation to the implementation. The
interview itself covers four categories – (1) general questions; (2) material preparation; (3)
material implementation; (4) and reflection.
The analysis of the interview is conducted through several steps. First, the
participant’s voice is recorded. Then, the result of recording is transcribed. The transcript
of the interview will be organized based on four categories mentioned above. The findings
will then be supported by the relevant theories and findings from the previous research.
Previously, three data collection techniques were taken from the teacher. However,
the study also seeks the responses of the students who were also involved in the subject of
the teaching and learning process. Therefore, in order to do so, the students were given the
questionnaires consisting of two categories – learning materials and teacher’s competence
in using the materials. Each category has three questions in the form of multiple choices. In
addition, to each question, the students were given a space if they still have further
responses to write which are not catered in the multiple choices.
The analysis of the questionnaires can be done through tallying for the frequency of
the answers for each category. Then, the tallying result will be converted into percentage
(in number). The findings of the percentage for each category will be elaborated for further
81 CHAPTER 5
THE CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY,
AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of three parts: the first part draws the conclusion of the study
based on the data discussed in the previous chapters. The second part will discuss the
limitations of the study, and the third will discuss the suggestions for future research within
the same study.
5.2 Conclusions
The major conclusion of the study will be outlined below. Based on the theories,
and the analysis described in the previous chapters, the present study arrives at the
conclusions. The first research question concerns with how the teachers use the materials.
The study found that the teachers differently used the materials as Moulton (1994)
similarly found in his study. This finding leads to the fact that the three categories of
teachers in using the materials, as Hutchinson and Waters (1995) and Grant (1987)
suggest, exist in this study.
The documentation data revealed that the coursebook was considered incomplete to
provide the appropriate and familiar topics for the students; therefore different outside
sources were used, for example other published textbooks, teachers’ create materials, and
the use of authentic materials. From the lesson plan analysis, the planned materials were
described in procedures of activities based on the teaching stages. However, in the
implementation process, the data shows that the teachers did not follow the procedures
82 to show that besides the fact that the unit the teachers use are different from one to another,
other factors found in the study determine the reason for the changes, for example, the
students and the teachers’ teaching style.
The interview data also revealed during the preparation and implementation
process, the teachers experienced having difficulties with material modification due to the
fact mentioned in the study the teachers were lack of course books and other teaching
facilities to find for the appropriate and familiar materials for the students. During the
implementation, the teachers also experienced having changes of activities. The data shows
the changes of activities occurred due to the students’ characteristics and needs. Both data
seem to suggest that students become the teachers’ focus for any changes and difficulties
faced the teachers with the expectation that teachers need to understand learners’ needs and
get data from the learners in order to meet the needs of the students which become the goal
of the program as Lun (2006) argues.
The second research question concerns with how the students respond to learning
materials and their teachers’ material use. The responses the students made to learning
materials revealed that a big number of students agreed that learning materials have met
their needs. This data mean the teachers have been successful to use the materials for the
students. Regarding this, as Ur (1996) and Harmer (2002) suggest, when learners’ needs
are achieved, it will motivate the students to learn. These findings are supported with the
students’ acknowledgement to their teachers’ competency in material delivery. As
Rowntree (1997; 92) cited in Richards (2002; 263) argues, good understanding of subject
matter has been a prerequisite in using effective materials. However, the questionnaire
data also revealed that the teachers were considered failed to give varied activities and
techniques which the students believed through teachers’ different techniques and activities
83 should be creative to their own techniques and make them sure that the techniques are in
accordance with the students’ preferences. As McDonough and Shaw (1993) suggest,
teachers need to see the students when they apply a particular technique. This also seems to
coincide with the suggestion that the activities should be conducted in different ways.
Through applying appropriate techniques and activities, as Grant (1987) suggest, the
students will enjoy learning and become more motivated to learn.
5.3 Limitation of the Study
There are some limitations of the study, and the limitations concern the technical
problems. The major one is the availability for the interview time. As the interview time
was scheduled after the class is over, however, due to the tight schedule of the teachers that
had to go to another class afterwards, the interview time was set up later to meet their
convenient time. However, in order not to forget about the teaching, the video recording
was shown to stimulate their fresh memory of what he/she was doing in the classroom. In
doing so, the researcher also asked for their clarification about unclear instruction or the
purpose of their activities. With these techniques, it is hoped the teachers gave valuable
inputs to enrich the interview data.
The second limitation of the problem was due to limited length of provided
recording cassettes that could not record the whole length of teaching hours. However, to
add the information of the missing part, small notes were taken during the unrecorded time
and later asked about these in the interview time.
84 5.4 Suggestions
Based on the findings of the study, which may not be generalized to other settings,
it is suggested that the study indicates the necessity of the use of the materials in the
teaching of English in Indonesia. The findings of this study confirm the urgency of the use
of the materials by the teachers can help students enhance their learning and enable the
teachers to find and use the appropriate material for the students. From the urgency of the
use of the materials above, therefore, it calls for the reexamination of the use of the
materials by the teachers.
For this research in particular, it is suggested that the teachers should be freed and
given a longer time for the interview session after the class. By doing this, the fresh
memory of the teachers will be expected to contribute much to the interview data. A
greater access to the coursebook facilities should also be given to allow the teachers to find
the supplementary materials to the main coursebook, and the teaching aids such as
listening booths should also be provided. These lacks of facilities, as found in this study,
seem to suggest that it limits the teachers’ material modification as Hutchinson and Waters
(1995) indicate.
The last suggestion is that the teachers should develop their use of materials by
being given sufficient knowledge of material development by the institution, through for
example, a weekly teacher’s development session, where they are trained to prepare for a
good material and put it into practice within the teachers. Through this activity, it is
expected that the teachers will be more creative in using the materials through the use of
various techniques and activities that may meet students’ preferences. In addition, the
observation to teachers’ use of materials should also be maintained in order to improve
85 REFERENCES
Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. 2002. Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Peneltian Kualitatif. Pustaka Jaya. Jakarta.
Blaxter et al. 2006. How to Research. 3rd ed. Open University. England.
Brown, H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Prentice Hall Regents. New Jersey.
Brown, H. Douglas. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Longman. New York.
Brown, James Dean. (1995). The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to Program Development. Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Boston.
Brumfit, Christopher. (1985). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching: The roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Byrd, Patricia. 2001. Textbooks: Evaluation for Selection and Analysis for Implementation. In Teaching English as A Second or Foreign Language, Marriane Celce- Murcia (Ed.) 3rd. Heinle-Heinle. United States.
Bolitho, Rod. 1988. Language Awareness on Teacher Training Courses. In Explorations in Teacher Training: Problems and Issues, Tony Duff (Ed). Longman. Great Britain.
Baker, Caroline D., and Johnson, Greer. Interview Talk as Professional Practice.
Available [on line] at multilingual-matters.net/le/012/0229/le0120229.pdf
Cameron, Lynne. 2001. Teaching Language to Young Learner.CUP: Cambridge.
Clarke, D. F. (1989). Communicative theory and its influence on materials production. In Kitao, Kenji, and Kitao, S. Kathleen. 1997. Selecting and Developing
Teaching/Learning Materials. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IV, No. 4, April 1997 Available [on line] at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html
86 Cunningsworth, A. 1995. Choosing Your Coursebook. In Richards, Jack. (2001).
Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.
Dudley-Evans, T., and M. St. John. 1998. Development in English for Specific Purposes. In Richards, Jack. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.
Gabrielatos, Costas. 2004. Session Plan: The Coursebook as a Flexible Tool. Available at gabrielatos.com
Gebhard, Jerry G. (2000). Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language – A teacher self-development methodology guide. The University of Michigan Press. Michigan.
Grant, Neville. (1987). Making the Most of Your Textbook. Longman. New York.
Graves, Kathleen. 2003. Coursebooks. In Practical English Language Teaching, David Nunan (Ed). McGraw Hill. New York.
Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A Learning Centered Approach. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education Limited. England.
Harmer, J. (1998). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education Limited. England.
Harmer, J. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching. ELBS. Hongkong.
Huda, N. 1999. Language Learning and Teaching: Issues and Trends. IKIP Malang Publisher. Malang.
Johansson, Therese. 2006. Teaching material in the EFL classroom – teachers’ and students’ perspectives.
87 James, Peter. 2001. Teacher in Action: Task for in-service Language Teacher Education
and Development. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2008. Understanding Language Teaching – From Methods to Post Methods. Lawrence Elbraum Associates Publishers. London.
Kitao, Kenji, and Kitao, S. Kathleen. 1997. Selecting and Developing Teaching/Learning Materials. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IV, No. 4, April 1997 Available [on line] at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html
Litz, David R. 2006. A Textbook Evaluation and ELT Management: A South Korean Case Study. Available [on line] at http://www.asian-efl-journal.com
Liz & John Soars. 2001. New Headway English Course for Pre-intermediate level.
Littlejohn, A., & Windeatt, S. (1989). Beyond language learning: Perspective on materials design. In Kitao, Kenji, and Kitao, S. Kathleen. 1997. Selecting and Developing Teaching/Learning Materials. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IV, No. 4, April 1997 Available [on line] at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html
Lun, Lee Siu. 2006. Matching Teachers’ needs and Students’ needs. The Fifth Annual Conference of NCOLCTL. The Chinese University of Hong Kong
McKay, Sandra Lee. 2008. Researching Second Language Classroom. Lawrence Elbraum Associates Publishers. London.
Maxwell. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. SAGE Publication, Inc. California.
Merriam, Sharan B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. Jossey-Bass Inc. Publisher. California.
McDonough, Jo. and Shaw, Christopher. (1993). Materials and Methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide. Blackwell. Oxford.
McPherson, Kate. 2005. Maximising student attention to classroom learning materials. CamTESOL Conference on English Language Teaching: Selected Papers, Volume 1, 2005.
88 Miles, Mathew B., and Huberman, A. Michael. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A
Sourcebook of New Methods. Sage Publications. London.
Meisuri. 2009. An Analysis of the Materials of English Subject and Their Relevance to the Students’ needs - A Case Study at a State Institute for Islamic Studies. Unpublished Thesis. Indonesia University of Education.
Muhammad, Razia Fakir., and Kumari, Roshni. 2007.Effective Use of Textbooks: A Neglected Aspect of Education in Pakistan. In Journal of Education for International Development 3:1.
Muller, Theron. 2005. Adding Taks to Textbooks for Beginner Learners. In Teachers exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching, Corrony Edwards and Jane Willis (Ed). Plagrave McMillan. Great Britain.
Nunan. David. (2000). Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Pearson Education Limited.
NCTE guideline. Guidelines for Selection of Materials in English Language Arts Program.Available online at
http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/selectingelamaterial
Nunan, David. 2003. Methodology. In Practical English Language Teaching, David Nunan (Ed). McGraw Hill. New York.
Nunan, David. 1998. Language Teaching Methodology – A Textbook for Teachers. Prentice Hall. Great Britain.
Nicholson, Helen. 2002. Interpreting teacher talk in culturally diverse schools: The significance of critical realist and social constructionist understandings. Available [on line] at http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/nic02194.htm
Peterson, Pat. Wilcox. 1991. A Synthesis for Interactive Listening. In Brown, H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Prentice Hall Regents. New Jersey.
Prabhu, N.S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
89 Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. (2002). Approaches and Methods in
Language Teaching – A Description and Analysis. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge.
Richards, Jack. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.
Richards, Jack C. (1998). Beyond Training. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Richards, Jack C. 2000. New Interchange English Course. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Richards, Jack C. (1990). The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. (2002). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Rowntree, D. 1997. Making Materials-based Learning Work. In Richards, Jack. (2001).
Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.
Savignon, Sandra J. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice: Text and Contexts in Second Language Learning. Addison-Wesley Publishing. Reading.
Shulman, L. 1987. Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. In Richards, Jack. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.
Smith, Larry E. 1981. English for Cross-Cultural Understanding. In Brumfit, Christopher. (1985). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching: The roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Sproston, Carlyn. 2005. When Students Negotiate: an action research case study of a year 8 English class in a Catholic secondary college. Unpublished Dissertation.
Australian Catholic University.
90 Tomlinson, B. 1998. Materials Development in Language Teaching. In Richards, Jack.
(2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.
Tung, P. and Ng, P. 1992. The Culture of the English Language Teacher. In Richard, Jack C. (1998). Beyond Training. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Ur, Penny. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Yan, Chanmei. 2001. Investigating English Teachers’ Materials Adaptation. Chinese EFL Journal. Vol. 1 Issue 1. March 2001. Available [on line] at http://www.chinese-efl-journal.com
Wallace, Michael J. 2000. Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge Univ Press. Cambridge.
White. 1991. In McDonough, Jo. and Shaw, Christopher. (1993). Materials and Methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide. Blackwell. Oxford.
Woods, Peter. 1999. Successful Writing for Qualitative Researchers. Routledge. New York.
Woodward, A. 1993. Introduction: Learning from Textbooks. In Richards, Jack C. (1998).
Beyond Training. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Wikipedia.com.
WIP. 2008. Assessment Weekly Report. Unpublished Report. Sorrowako.
Zacharias, Nugrahenny T. 2003. A Survey of Tertiary Teachers’ beliefs about English Language Teaching in Indonesia with Regard to the Role of English as a Global Language. Unpublished MA-ELT THESIS. Assumption University of Thailand.
