but it is placed in activity number 11. It should be placed in activity 5. Activity 14 and 16 should be placed in activity 9 and 10.
It is proven that actually this book, even the first chapter of this book does not seem well sequenced in term of complexity. Hence the result of the survey for this
statement does not really represent the fact. As Richards 2001 suggested that in developing ELT materials, developers must consider the sequencing of the content.
They must determine which content need to be placed prior to other content. Table 4.5 Complexity Level of the Activity
Another related topic to be discussed is the scope of the content. As Richards 2001 purposed that material developer must consider the scope of content. It means
how many meetings students need to learn a certain topic. Developers must be able to determine such detail. They have to know whether or not the time allocation is
Chapter Activity
Topic Complexity level
1= lowest level, 5= highest level
1 1
How to greet 1
2 3
4 5
How to thank 2
6 7
8 9
How to take leave 3
10 11
How to greet 1
12 How to greet and take
leaver 1 and 3
13 How to thank
2 14
15 How to ask for help favor
5 16
How to thank 2
17 How to apologize
4 18
enough, not enough or too long. In this textbook, it seems that the material developers didn’t really pay attention to the scope of the content of each chapter. In chapter 1 as
explained above, there are 5 activities to learn and practice ‘how to greet’. The fact,
as it is concluded from the teacher ’s manual, 2 activities are taught in one meeting. It
means to learn and practice a simple thing called greeting, students must spend a week. Surprisingly, chapter 1 is created for 4 up to 5 weeks learning. Take a look at
the table. It is obviously seen that the highest level of complexity indeed has only 2 activities and is taught in 1 meeting only.
Table 4.6 Complexity Level and Number of Activity
This section of textbook teaches how to greet and respond the greeting. The respondents also agree that this textbook does not have adequate recycling in it and
respondents give 2.41 to measure the adequateness of recycling in this textbook. It shows half of the respondents agree and another half disagree. Textbook does not
have adequate review either according to the result as it is 2.47. The next item should be paid attention more by the teachers and textbook developer is that the result shows
Complexity level
Content in Chapter 1
number of activity
number of meeting
1 greet
6 2 ½
2 thank
7 3 ½
3 take leave
2 1
4
apologize 2
1
5 ask for help
1 1
there is no reference section of grammar in this book. Almost all respondents agree that this textbook is very poor of reference section of grammar. The result was 2. The
last for this category, respondents do not see that this textbook promote individual study.
4. Content of the textbook
Next result to be elaborated is the result of content of textbook. The result apparently is pretty shocking that mean for all statements in this criterion were rated
at score 2 meaning that the respondents tended to disagree to each statement. As it is seen in the table 4.7 on page 52, most teachers responded almost disagree to each
statement. According to the teachers, this textbook does not cover main grammar item. While Brown 2001 explained in his book that teaching grammar is always
needed since students need to know the correct form and structure of English sentences. Then he proposed judicious question what kind of techniques would be
best for teaching grammar. Then Brown 2001 suggested referring Fotos 1994 and Doughty Williams 1998 who talked about appropriate techniques in teaching
grammar. To be thoughtful responding to the result of the survey, it is better to take a look
at the textbook itself. What is in it? Does this book really not covering the grammar item? If it is not so, then does this book use the techniques proposed by Fotos 1994
and Doughty Williams 1998? This textbook seems to be on track with what both experts suggested about
appropriate teaching grammar techniques. At list the first technique they proposed PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
that it must be embedded in meaningful and communicative context Fotos 1994, Doughty Williams 1998. To be surely informed that this discussion is not
discussing the teaching method. Instead, it is still teaching the material textbook itself, since it seems in this textbook teachers must follow the instruction step by step
told in textbook. Therefore, it is clearly seen in textbook that textbook reflects the teaching techniques should be used in the class.
Table 4.7 Survey Result on the Content of the Textbook
Item Statement
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree
Mean SD
26. Material for
vocabulary teaching is adequate in terms
of quantity. 5.6
55.6 33.3
5.6 2.35
0.680
28. The textbook
includes the material for pronunciation
work. 22.2
50 22.2
5.6 2.05
0.802
30. The material for
pronunciation work covers word stress.
16.7 61.1
11.1 11.1
2.11 0.831
31. The material for 16.7 61.1 11.1 11.1 2.11 0.831
pronunciation work covers intonation.
29. The material for 55.6 55.6 16.7 0 2 0.766
pronunciation covers individual
sounds.
27. Material for 5.6 50 38.9 5.6 2.41 0.691
vocabulary teaching is adequate in terms
of range of vocabulary.
25. The textbook covers 16.7 61.1 22.2 0 2.05 0.638
the main grammar item.
As seen in figure 4.5 on page 40, the grammar item is actually taught embedded in the meaningful and communicative context. Textbook teaches the students how to
construct simple presentence using to be is, am, are and using verb for present tense. This textbook also shows the concept of subject-verb agreement in simple present
sentence. Another appropriate technique to teach grammar used in this textbook is that
this textbook does not use linguistic terminology.
Figure 4.5 Sample of activity found in textbook
Related to the reading skill, teachers from 10 different schools in Special District of Yogyakarta said that this textbook does not provide the students adequate
vocabulary in terms of quantity. Therefore, most of the teachers had to find supplementary materials out of this book to fulfill the need of vocabulary for students
although a textbook supposedly roles to fulfill inadequacy of materials Ur, 1996. Teachers also saw that the vocabulary in terms of range is not adequate either.
