英语教学术语选摘
（一百一十）本刊编辑部
【Problems 】Whether to ttle on qualitative or quantitative evaluation of materials is a question basically unanswerable in the abstract,though there are evidently differing views here.Much will depend upon the complexity of a particular evaluation task,and what can be demanded of evaluators.The advantages of the qualitative approach are that evaluators enjoy free expression and may volunteer
information of a type not predicted by the designer of an evaluation instrument;the disadvantages,that potential respondents may feel that the writing involved is likely to be inordinately timeconsuming and that,where veral evaluators are involved,it
may prove impossible to locate comparative opinions expresd in pro by different individuals.The advantages of the quantitative approach are that checklists answered numerically are often quickly dealt with and allow easy comparison of the answers
of different evaluators;the disadvantages,that they may stifle unpredicted but valuable reactions,that it is not,in the end,clear that one evaluator ’s ‘3’is to be interpreted as significantly divergent from another ’s ‘4’,and that they can all too easily convey
a spurious ‘objectivity ’.Furthermore,the margins between the qualitative and the quantitative are blurred.It is not clear whether an evaluator who writes:‘This book is exactly right for my students ’has in fact taken time to consider the issues,neither
is it clear that someone who gives a rating of ‘5’to a textbook has not spent hours brooding over this respon.What is clear,by contrast,is the connsus
that evaluation is about judgement,however elicited.
Any compiler of a checklist,qualitative or
quantitative,exercis judgement in lecting the parameters to ask about (and not to ask about),and the checklists referred to above demonstrate
sometimes wide divergencies in this respect.Whatever the means of elicitation adopted,judgement is again being invited.Perhaps becau ‘judgement ’sometimes appears synonymous with ‘subjectivity
’or even ‘arcaneness ’,a point on which the literature does not always supply reassurance,Low (1989:153)
remarks:‘The asssment of language teaching materials,even when supplemented,as it should be,by empirical studies,remains ...something of a ‘black art.’It is true that it is not an exact science,becau the variables it must encompass involve
human values.However,this is far from saying it is impossible or uninformative,providing its purpo,scope and limitations are not misconstrued.One step which might be helpful would be to abandon anxiety about universals:cf.Sheldon (1988:
246):‘we need to discover whether or not a de facto evaluative connsus exists at all,and whether there is any foundation upon which universal criteria could be erected.’Possibly,the only true universal criteria which can figure in any checklist are theoretically
he cost,availability and durability of materials.More interesting criteria,such as cultural bias,will obviously have different exponents,depending upon the tting in which given materials might be employed.Thus,starting out from the
tting or ‘local ’context is likely to be the most productive solution,since designers of evaluation instruments and evaluators working together can
arrive through dialogue at connsual judgements,can establish that they ‘speak the same language ’and can ensure that when criteria are enshrined within a checklist,all concerned share an understanding of what tho criteria mean.A
possible model for the dialogue or ‘brain-storming ’which might precede the production of a definitive checklist is offered (albeit with reference to teacher training)by R.Williams (1981).Conquently,checklists and other propod evaluative procedures appearing in the literature are unlikely to be suitable for wholesale adoption,but rve best in an illustrative and suggestive capacity.
Notwithstanding the above remarks,any evaluation procedure will need to relate materials to at least the criteria listed below,though the weight and value placed on the individually will vary:
Learners:age,stage in learning,enabling and disabling factors,interests and motivation,preferred learning styles;
Teachers:teaching competence and experience,competence in the language,preferred teaching styles;
Aims:of the cour and of the learners;
Syllabus and (if any)prescribed methods:constraints impod;
Examinations and/or tests:constraints impod and WASHBACK EFFECT;
Cultural and related factors:acceptability or non -acceptability of the values conveyed in materials in given cultural and social contexts;
Practical factors:time available for teaching,prence or abnce of homework,size of class,availability of hardware to implement materials,the teaching and learning environment,etc.
Two final points:(1)In the interests of efficiency,computer technology has an increasing role to play in materials evaluation.For example,databas of ‘master ’checklists can be generated,subctions of which can be extracted for particular purpos.(2)It is a question of relevance within educational philosophy,with obvious conquences for materials evaluation,to what extent materials should always be lected as compatible with the classroom status quo,and to what extent and in what circumstances they might be viewed as ‘political ’tools,such that the lection of this or that t of materials might influence change.
Bibliography
Allwright,R.L.(1981).What do we want teaching materials for?English Language Teaching
Journal ,36/1,517.
Breen,M.and Candlin,C.(1987).Which materials?A consumer ’s and designer ’s guide.English Language Teaching Documents ,126,1328.
Cunningsworth,A.(1989).Evaluating and Selecting EFL Teaching Materials .London:Heinemann.
Goodman,P.and Takahashi,S.(1987).The ESL textbooks explosion:a publisher profile.TESOL Newsle
tter ,4,4951.
Jones,F.R.(1993).Beyond the fringe:a framework for asssing teach-yourlf materials for ab initio English -speaking learners.System ,21/4,45369
Low,G.(1989).Appropriate design:the internal organisation of cour units.In R.K.Johnson (ed.),The Second Language Curriculum .Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,13654.
McDonough,J.and Shaw,C.(1993).Materials and Methods in ELT:A teacher 蒺s guide .Oxford:Blackwell.*
Matthews,A.(1985).Choosing the best available textbook.In A.Matthews,M.Spratt and L.Dangerfield (eds),A t the Chalkface .London:Edward Arnold,2026.
Messih Daoud,A.(1977).Evaluating an English language textbook.W orkpapers in Teaching English as a Second Language ,11,11317.
O ’Neill,R.(1982).Why u textbooks?English Language Teaching Journal ,36/2,10411.
Sheldon,L.(1988).Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials.English Language Teaching Journal ,42/4,23746.
Tucker,C.A.(1975).Evaluating beginning courbooks.English Language Teaching Forum ,13/34,35561.
Williams,D.(1983).Developing criteria for textbook evaluation.English Language Teaching Journal ,37/3,2515.
Williams,R.(1981).A procedure for ESP textbook analysis and evaluation on teacher education cours.ESP Journal ,1/2,15562.
(An Excerpt from Encyclopedic Dictionary of A pplied Linguistics:A Handbook for Language Teaching ,Keith Johnson &Helen Johnson,p.124,1998)
