3.3. The Material versus the Course: Methodology Requirement
3.3.2. Survey: Teachers and students’ opinions about the methodology of the material
Kinds of tasks/exercises
Teachers Students
Yes Partly No Yes Partly No Does the material provide a balance of activities…? 25% 75% 0% 15% 80% 5%
Does the material contain a variety of tasks and
activities of speaking skills? 75% 25% 0% 65% 30% 5%
Does the material contain a variety of tasks and
activities of reading skills? 25% 50% 25% 20% 40% 20%
Does the material contain a variety of tasks and
activities of listening skills? 0% 50% 50% 0% 32,5% 67,5
% Does the material contain a variety of tasks of
writing skills? 75% 25% 0% 80% 20% 0%
Table 3.13: Teachers’ and students’ opinion about tasks and exercises.(Q16-20)
The result from table 3.13 indicated that the material provided a balance activities and distribution of free vs. controlled exercises and tasks that focused on both fluent and accurate production. It was shown by the agreement of 75% of teachers and 80% of students.
The table also showed that a majority of teachers and students concurred that the material had sufficient speaking and writing activities for practicing. In contrast, there was the difference in the view of listening tasks; half of teachers and only 32,5% of students partly agreed that the material had a variety of listening activities while the other half and over 67,5% of students shared the same idea that the material did not provide enough. At the same time, half of the teachers and 40% of students were of the same mind that the material contained a variety of tasks and activities for reading skill.
The date analysis from the material and questionnaires indicated that the material could meet methodological requirements of the course in terms of speaking skill and writing skill, partly
Teaching and learning techniques
Teacher Students
Yes Partly No Yes Partly No
Does the material provide activities
incorporating individual, pair and group works? 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Table 3.14: Teachers and students’ opinions about teaching and learning techniques. (Q21)
It could be seen from the table that the material provided enough activities incorporating individual, pair and group – works which satisfied teachers and students, 100% of them are of the same mind about that idea.
Methodology guidance
This question was only distributed to teachers as it related to the methodological issues.
What guidance does the material provide teachers?
Lists of vocabulary and language skill points.
Technical information
Methodological hints
Suggestions for further
work
Tests
100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Table 3.15: Teachers’ opinions about methodology guidance.
The table showed all teachers approved that the material presented the lists of vocabulary and language skill points as well as methodological hints which were helpful for their teaching. In contrast, the results indicated technical information, suggestions for further work and tests were not included in the material as none of teachers affirmed those criteria.
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION AND ADAPTATION
4.1. Discussion on the aim and content requirements of the course in comparison with the material and the opinions from teachers and students.
Language points
The comparison between the course objectives - content requirements and the material as well as the teachers and students’ ideas proved that the material fully matched the basic grammar and vocabulary requirement of the course.
As shown in the two tables 3.1 and 3.2 above, it was obvious that the pronunciation part did not meet the aim and content requirement of the course as material analysis and ideas from most teachers and students disagreed while only a small number of teachers and students partly agreed.
Macro – skills
- Speaking and writing
The tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 revealed that speaking and writing parts of the material fulfilled the aim and content requirements of the course though they still appeared some shortcomings in the writing part. Some interviews which were conducted on teachers and students indicated that the writing part lacked detail instruction of writing a letter or sample of a letter. This was coincident with the material analysis in the writing part. Maybe that was the reason why some students negated that the material helped their writing skill.
- Reading and listening
From the material analysis and survey results, it could be said that the reading and listening parts does not meet teachers and students’ expectations. Many of them affirmed that reading part had too many reading texts in which some texts did not have tasks for practicing. In contrast, exercises for listening were few. This was in the same line with the comparison in the table 3.1, 3.3.
Micro – skills
The micro – skills provided in the material generally met the content requirements though listening and reading skills appeared not really to be up to their expectation.
Text types and Subject matter
The material analysis and teachers and students’ opinions about the text types and subject matter showed that these criteria well met the aim and content requirements of the course as well as teachers and students prospects.
Layout and design
From the result of teachers’ and students’ opinions and the table 3.3 about the layout and design of the material, it can be concluded that the layout and design of the material has partly fulfilled the content requirements of the course because the material does not have a detail overview of each lesson. As a result, both teachers and students cannot know what will be taught or learnt unless turning to the intended lesson.
Sequence of content
The sequence of content of the material went from easy to difficult along with recycling. This was useful for teachers in their teaching and students in their learning, understanding and using the grammar structures and new words. The material analysis and the opinions from teachers and students also shared the same idea about that.
Time allocation
Six periods for each unit seemed not to fulfill teachers and students expectations because only half of the teachers and students agreed that this amount of time was adequate whereas the other half disagreed about that.
4.2. Discussion on the methodology requirements of the course in comparison with the