CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
3. The primary school English education syllabus
4.3.1 The Appropriateness of the Textbook with the Objectives of the Course
In this section, the researcher presents the data collected by 3 questions in which teachers were asked to show their feedbacks on the appropriateness of the book-Let’s Go 1A Second Edition under evaluation with the course’s objectives.
Figure 4: Teacher’s Opinions on Objectives of the Book
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Rural Area Urban Area
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree
3. Agree
4. Strongly Agree
Looking at the results of the surveys, the majority of teachers in urban area (76.5%) believe that all the objectives listed in the book generally reflect the objectives of the course required by MOET. However, about 23% doubt that some objectives in book do not match with the course and they are not sufficient enough in comparison to the requirements of the course. A similar pattern of response was recorded from teachers in the rural areas though the rate of agreement was just 60%, or approximately 15% lower than their urban counterparts. Thus, around 40% of the rural teachers thought that the book did not cover all the course requirements prescribed in the curriculum.
4.3.2 The Appropriateness of the Textbook with the Content required by the Course
In terms of topics, Figure 5 reveals that more than 76% of urban teachers agreed that all topics presented in Let’s Go 1A are suitable and similar with the topics defined in the curriculum. Like in 4.3.2, a similar pattern was applied to the responses by the rural teachers (60.3% agreement and 39.7% disagreement). From these figures, there is a gap of opinions between the two areas and it can be concluded that the material has not fully covered the topics or themes. In general urban teachers seemed to be more positive than rural teachers regarding those two areas.
Figure 5: Teacher’s Opinions on the Appropriateness of the Topics in the Material
Figure 6 and Figure 7 will illustrate survey results of 5 questions number 26, 28, 30, 31, 32 for teachers to investigate them on the suitability of the material in terms of language competences (tasks and activities). Teachers of the both 2 areas show an optimistic agreement rate which is 79% in urban area and 68.4% in rural area and only 21% nearly offers suitable tasks and activities which meet the demands of the course. All of the teachers believe that the language competences in the material will completely meet the requirements of the course if the material is added with some more tasks and activities.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Urban Area Rural Area
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
11.20%
20.40%
68.40%
Rural Area
1 2 3
5.70%
15.30%
79%
Urban Area
1 2 3 4
Figure 6: Teacher survey results on the tasks and
activities in the material in Rural Area
Figure 7: Teacher survey results on the tasks and activities in the material in Urban Area
In terms of time-allocation, table 6 provides statistics of teachers’ opinion on the suitability of the time allocated in the material and the syllabus designed by the course. Thanks to a clear syllabus design of the book, most of the teachers in both two areas find it easy to follow. About 86% teachers in cities and towns agree with the time-allocation of the book with different degree of strongly agreement and agreement, while this rate is 78.2% in rural area. The opposite opinions only make 15% in urban area and 21.8% in rural area. In general, the teachers find the book appropriate in terms of time-allocation. The difference rate of disagreement ideas between the two areas can be explained by the fact that Let’s Go 1A Second Edition does not focus on grammar presentations so much and it aims at simplicity and communication skills. Too many letters and dense layout is avoided in this book which challenges the inexperienced teachers and the teachers who are not in favor of CLT and MAT methodology.
Appropriateness of time allocation Urban Area Rural Area
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Disagree 15% 21.8%
Agree 74.8% 68.2%
Strongly agree 11.2% 10%
Table 6: Teacher Survey Results on time allocation of the book
In terms of macro-skills, table 7, table 8 and table 9 manifest the survey results from 5 questions answered by the teachers of the two areas. Analyzing these 3 tables, negative
opinions towards the balance of skills offered in the book is obvious which makes nearly complete rate for the two areas in which 96% (urban area) and 88% (rural area). The results also state that reading and writing skills provided in the book have not satisfied their needs.
The reason to explain is that the book clearly targets communication skills with focus on speaking and listening more than the other rest skills while the course final test is carried out in the type of writing test which focus on grammar structures so this challenges theirs students in general.
Skills are balanced and integrated Urban Area Rural Area
Strongly Disagree 11% 23%
Disagree 85% 75%
Agree 4% 2%
Strongly agree 0% 0%
Table 7: Teacher Survey Results on balance of skills offered in the book
Reading and writing skills meet teachers’ demands Urban Area Rural Area
Strongly Disagree 10% 18%
Disagree 35% 47%
Agree 55% 35%
Strongly agree 0% 0%
Table 8: Teacher Survey Results on reading and writing skills offered in the book
The material focuses on speaking and listening Urban Area Rural Area
Strongly Disagree 0% 0%
Disagree 0% 0%
Agree 65% 76%
Strongly agree 35% 24%
Table 9: Teacher Survey Results on speaking and listening skills offered in the book
To report the results from the survey, table 10 shows teachers’ feedback on the suitability of the material in Terms of Language Points. More than a half of the teachers in urban area
(57%) asked agree that the materials match language points required by the course and 43%
are on the contrary point of view. The others from rural area also reflect a relative rate with 58% of agreement and 52% of disagreement. Basing on the analysis results, it can be concluded that the material does not cover full language points that meet the requirements of the course.
Grammar structures in the material are appropriate for
primary students which satisfy requirements of the course Urban Area Rural Area
Strongly Disagree 6% 8%
Disagree 27% 34%
Agree 67% 58%
Strongly agree 0% 0%
Table 10: Teacher Survey Results on suitability of the Language Points offered in the book.
In terms of Vocabulary, nearly a half of the teachers (45%) in urban area agree and 54 % disagree that vocabulary is enough and appropriately provided in the material, the same trend with the teachers’ results in rural area but with more negative ideas.
Vocabulary offered in the material is suitable and enough for grade 3 Urban Area Rural Area
Strongly Disagree 11% 19%
Disagree 44% 53.8%
Agree 45% 27.2%
Strongly agree 0% 0%
Table 11: Teacher Opinions on Vocabulary offered in the book.
According to the survey results, teachers in both rural and urban area agree that pronunciation offered in Let’s Go 1A Second Edition is appropriate with their objectives and it is particularly good at phonics material.
Phonics is a strong point of this material Urban Area Rural Area
Strongly Disagree 0% 0%
Disagree 0% 0%
Agree 53% 46%
Strongly agree 47% 53%
Table 12: Teacher Survey Results on Pronunciation provided by the material The social and cultural contexts in the book are
comprehensible for teachers and students. Urban Area Rural Area
Strongly Disagree 4% 8%
Disagree 26.5% 46%
Agree 68.4% 56%
Strongly agree 2.1% 0%
Table 13: Teachers’ opinions on the suitability of culture elements in the material
Question 18 investigates teacher’s ideas on the appropriate of culture elements in the book.
Looking on table 13, nearly three five of the teachers in big cities and town find the social and cultural contexts in the book are comprehensible for themselves and for their students while only a half of the teachers in the rural area agree with that and 54% are on the ideas that culture is a barrier of the book Let’s Go 1A for the Vietnamese teachers and students.
The variance between the results of the two areas can be explained by the difference and gap of teaching and learning context of these two areas. In more developed area, teachers and students have more chance to update culture of the other countries by many sources for example: the internet, newspaper, travel.., while these things are strange and nearly impossible with the ones in rural area.
The book offers rich values for students (shares, love for animals,
family, friendship…) Urban Area Rural Area
Strongly Disagree 0% 0%
Disagree 15% 26%
Agree 80% 74%
Strongly agree 5% 0%
Table 14: Teachers’ opinions on the values hint by the material.
Inferring from the table 14, the results show that a majority of the teachers in both two areas highly appreciate Let’s Go 1A Second Edition in terms of teaching values for the students.
In terms of the accompanying supplementary materials and the general look of the book, both of the table 15 and table 16 reveal positive results of the teachers’ satisfaction, especially about the book general look. About accompanying material of Let’s Go 1A Second Edition, the negative feedbacks only makes from 7% up to 25% in the two areas and the positive feedbacks make nearly complete rate of 83% up to above 90%. Higher rate of the disagreement ideas in rural area about the usefulness of the supplementary is due to many factors involving the experience, teaching ability of the teachers in the rural area.
There are varied and useful supplementary
materials for both teachers and students. Urban Area Rural Area
Strongly Disagree 0% 0%
Disagree 7% 25%
Agree 64% 65%
Strongly agree 29% 10%
Table 15: Teachers’ opinions on the supplementary materials of the book.
Students find the book fun, eye-catching and
interesting Urban Area Rural Area
Strongly Disagree 0% 0%
Disagree 7% 0%
Agree 81% 97%
Strongly agree 12% 3%
Table 16: Teachers’ opinions on the general look of the material
Looking at table 17, we can understand that the matter of price is on hot topic, when most of the teachers (87%) in urban area believe that price of the book is accessible for the students while teachers in rural area do not support that idea. They (40%) even strongly disagree and 30% disagree with the price of the book. In this aspect, the material generally has not met the common economic ability for the most parts of Vietnam.
Price of the book is accessible to the most students. Urban Area Rural Area
Strongly Disagree 2% 40%
Disagree 11% 30%
Agree 72% 30%
Strongly agree 15% 0%
Table 17: Teachers’ opinions on the accessibility of the book’s price 4.3.4 The Appropriateness of the Textbook with Teaching Methods applied
TPR and MAT, the lasted methods in the field, is suitable with primary English teaching in Vietnam and they help improve students’ learning results.
Urban Area
Rural Area
Strongly Disagree 0% 5%
Disagree 12% 28%
Agree 73% 65%
Strongly agree 15% 2%
Table 18: Teachers’ opinions on the methodology applied in the material
Seeing at the table 18, 88% of teachers in urban area and 67% of rural area teachers find teaching methodologies applied in the book are suitable and helpful for their teaching which brings effective results for student’s English learning at grade 3. Teachers’ opposite pinions of the disagreement (12% in urban area and 33% in rural area) shows the big gap of background and ability in updating new teaching methodologies in the field by the teachers in these two areas.
Discussion
The survey results indicate that Let’s Go 1A (2nd Ed.) has basically meets the objectives prescribed in the course document. There was also a good match between what the textbook provides and what is required by the curriculum regarding linguistic input including vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation as well as communicative functions. However, the topical area of the textbook is slightly more limited than the topics listed in the curriculum. In terms of language skills, Let’s Go 1A emphasizes more speaking and listening while the curriculum requires a balance of all four skills, i.e., speaking, listening, reading and writing.
Regarding the teaching methodology, while Let’s Go 1A promotes a more communicative methodology, this methodology, for many reasons, is a challenge to many teachers using the textbook.
The most problematic mismatch between the textbook and the course prescriptions lies in the way linguistic input is presented. Because of a focus on communication, the textbook book is and communicative functions are intertwined because communication is primacy while grammar is presented and practiced through communicative activities. This may lead to confusion about the role of grammar reflected in the textbook by the teachers. In addition, the textbook is based on an emphasis on communication, it writers deliberately avoided presenting grammar explicitly. Therefore, grammar items are not presented by using metalanguage such as quantifier, a half number of possessive pronouns and adjectives, yes/no questions. This is likely to make teachers think that these grammar items were not provided in the textbook.
Finally, there is a fact that the teachers in urban area show a more optimistic feedback on using this book than the ones in rural area. This can be explained by the fact that there is a gap of teaching ability between these two areas. Obviously, teachers in urban area have more chance to enhance new, updated-teaching methodology than those in rural area.