that occurs in the program. Therefore, it is rarely to ask about the materials in this kind of evaluation.
The last type suggested by Richard 2001 is summative evaluation. This third type of evaluation is the type with which most teachers and program administrators
are familiar. Summative evaluation concerns on whether a program is effective and efficient and to some extent acceptable. Richard points that this kind of research is
conducted after the program has been implemented. This kind evaluation is also asking whether the materials work well. Brown 1994, related to the material
evaluation, makes an important point that any evaluation can be carried out before the program commences or after and or during the program.
By relying on the above explanation, this present study agrees on what Brown pointed that any evaluation can be carried out before, after or during the program. In
this study, the evaluation is conducted during the program. Another point to reconfirm is that this present study undergoes a material evaluation in form of
textbook evaluation.
c. Check List of Textbook Evaluation
Related to textbook evaluation, McDonough, Shaw Masuhara 2013 give two different stages instead of the type of textbook evaluation. The first stage is a
brief external evaluation. This includes criteria which gives an overview of the organizational foundation of the book. Cunningsworth 1995 give similar ideas with
different term, impressionistic evaluation. In this stage an assessor only does a brief look to textbook to give a brief description about textbook. Following this is an in-
depth internal investigation of textbook, ‘to see how far the materials in question
match up to what the author claims as well as to the aims and objectives of a given teaching program
’ McDonough, Shaw, Masuhara, 2013. In other words, in-depth internal investigation must be done to analyze to which extent result of external
investigation match up with internal investigation. Another criterion is illuminated by McDonough, Shaw Masuhara 2013.
They comprise nine criteria before conducting in-depth internal evaluation. These criteria are usually found at the cover or in the introduction of the book. The criteria
or checklist are in a form of questions that will be answered by evaluators.
In parallel with Shaw 2013 and Rea-Dickins 1992 suggest a checklist in a form of preliminary questions. Then, evaluators answer the questions before
analyzing which teaching and learning materials are suitable. The questions are as follows.
Rea-Dickins 1992 provide these preliminary questions above. Though in the end of the procedure, they point important consideration that since teaching and
learning materials are sensitive to the language process, evaluation criteria should relate not only to the aims and contents of language learning but also to the
procedures of working with texts and performing tasks in the classroom. That is why they give credits to Cunningswor
th’s work since as it can be seen in appendix, the criteria cover Germain have pointed. To compare to the criteria suggested by
McDonough, Shaw Masuhara 2013, what Cunningsworth marked gives more PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
detailed and comprehensive questions related to the methodology in which Rea- Dickins 1992 suggested.
Table 2.2 Checklist Suggested by Rea-Dickins Germaine
A more recent study held by J. Mukundan, 2011 in developing English language textbook evaluation checklist was done in a focus group discussion. Six
participants joined the developers to improve the items of checklist generated by Cunningswor
th’s evaluation checklist 1995 in reference to their clarity and inclusiveness. In this study, researchers successfully developed an evaluation
checklist for ELT textbook. They added, omitted, and revised the Cunningsworth ’s
evaluation checklist. In relation to Indonesian context and considering the above explanation, this
present study sees that Cunningswor th’s evaluation check list will work well to
Criteria 1: What do materials mean for you?
1. Do you refer exclusively to textbooks, or do you include teache rs’
guides, teaching manuals, supplementary units, readers, audio and visual materials, etc?
2. Do you make a distinction between materials designed specifically for first and second language teaching, and also between those targeted
specifically for use in school and materials that are non-pedagogic but authentic?
3. Do you include materials produced by the teachers and the learners?
Criteria 2: What are the roles of material within your teaching and learning context?
1. What roles are they expected to play? 2. What roles are they expected to achieve?
Criteria 3: How are the materials to be used?
1. Are they to be used as the sole source and resource for teaching? 2. Are they one of several available resources?
