ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS’ USE OF ENGLISH INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS: FROM PREPARATION TO IMPLEMENTATION :A Case Study of English Instructional Material Use by English Teachers at STIA LAN Bandung.

i

Table of Contents

Thesis cover…. ... iii Approval Sheet ... iiii Preface ... iiii Statement ... ivi

Acknowledgements ... v

Abstract ... vi

Table of Contents ... vii

List of Tables ... x

List of Figures ... xi

List of Appendices ... xii

Chapter One - Introduction... 1

1.1 Background of the Study... 1

1.2 Research Questions... 3

1.3 Research Goals... 4

1.4 Significance of the Study... 4

1.5 Definitions of the Terms... 4

1.6 Organization of the Study... 5

Chapter Two - Literature Review... 6

2.1 Introduction... 6

2.2. The Concept of Instructional Materials... 6

2.2.1 The Role of Materials in Relation to Other Elements ... 7

2.2.2 Characteristics of Good Materials ... 10

2.3 The Process of the Material Use... 12

2.3.1 Material Preparation... 13

2.3.1.1 Material Provided in the Textbook Unit ………... 14

2.3.1.2 Materials Provided in the Lesson Plan ………... 16

2.3.1.3 Material Modification .……….………... 18

2.3.2 Material Implementation ……... 21

ii

2.3.2.2 Types of Classroom Activities ………..………... 24

2.3.2.3 Types of Classroom Techniques .……….…... 26

2.4 Relevant Research ………..……….... 30

Chapter Three - Research Methodology... 36

3.1 Introduction ………... 36

3.2 Research Site and Participants ... 36

3.3 Research Design ………. ... 37

3.4 Data Collection ………... 38

3.4.1 Document Analysis ... 38

3.4.2 Classroom Observation ... 39

3.4.3 Interviews ... 39

3.4.4 Questionnaires ... 41

3.5 Data Analysis ………... 42

Chapter Four – Data Analysis and Discussion ... 44

4.1 Introduction ………... 44

4.2 The Data from Document Analysis ... 44

4.2.1 The Materials Provided in the Textbook Unit... 45

4.2.2 The Materials Provided in the Lesson Plan ... 48

4.3 The Data from Classroom Observation... 52

4.4 The Data from Teacher’s Interviews…... 55

4.4.1 General Descriptions of the Materials ………... 55

4.4.1.1 Teacher’s Definitions of A Good Material ... 55

4.4.1.2 Teachers’ Evaluation of the Textbook Unit... 57

4.4.2 Material Preparation ………... 61

4.4.2.1 The Sources of Materials ………... 61

4.4.2.2 Material Modification ……….………... 63

4.4.2.2.1 Reason to Modify the Materials ………... 63

4.4.2.2.2 Difficulties during Material Modification ... 67

4.4.2.2.3 The Effects of Material Modification …... 70

4.4.3 Material Implementation .………... 71

4.4.3.1 Implemented Classroom Activities …………... 72

4.4.3.2 Changes of Classroom Activities ………... 74

4.4.3.3 Difficulties in Delivering the Materials……... 76

iii Chapter Five – Conclusions, Limitations, and Suggestions of the Study ... 814

5.1 Introduction ………... 814 5.2 Conclusions ………... 81 5.3 Limitations of the Study ……... 83 5.4 Suggestions for Further Research ... 844 References... 85 Appendices ………... 91

iv

List of Tables

Table 4.1 The contents of the coursebook ……….………….. 44

Table 4.2 Planned Classroom Activities ……….………. 47

Table 4.3 Sources of English Instructional Materials ……….………… 49

Table 4.4 Implemented Classroom Activities ……….………... 72

Table 4.5 Changes of Classroom Activities and Reasons to change ………. 75

Table 4.6 Learning materials ………. 79

v

List of Figures

vi

List of Appendices

1. Appendix A. An Example of Questionnaire Sheet 109 2. Appendix B. An Example of Lesson Plan

3. Appendix C. An Example of Textbook Unit

4. Appendix D. Classroom Observation Procedure Result 116 5. Appendix E. Interview questions 1

1 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Materials have profoundly played important role in English Language Teaching. Materials are seen as an essential component of instructional design and are often viewed as a way of influencing the quality of classroom interaction and language use (Richards and Rodgers, 1986). In similar veins, Richards (2002; 251) sees the instructional materials as “a key component to most language programs” providing that instructional materials give the basis for much of the language input learners receive and the language practice that occurs in the classroom. Richards (1998; 128) even believes that the improvement in the quality of teaching will come about through the use of instructional materials.

Some teachers use instructional materials as their primary teaching resources. The materials provide the basis for the content of lessons, the balance of skills taught, and kinds of language practice students take part in. In other situations, materials serve primarily to supplement the teacher’s instruction. For learners, materials may provide the major source of contact they have with the language apart from the teacher. Hence the role and uses of materials in a language program are a significant aspect of language curriculum development (Richards, 2002; 252).

The effective use of instructional materials in language teaching are shaped by consideration of a number of factors, including teacher, learner, and contextual variables (Richards, 2005; McDonough and Shaw, 1993). Those factors, however, have often been neglected when teachers use the materials (Yan, 2007). This condition will result at the poor use of materials, and accordingly the objective of effective use of materials cannot be achieved.

2 In day to day’s use of materials, teachers are characterized in three types of teachers as described by Grant (1987; 7) as follows

Teacher 1: ‘I don’t use a textbook. I prepare all my own teaching materials. After all, I know my students’ needs better than any coursebook writer does.’

Teacher 2: ‘I couldn’t teach without a textbook. I use it just like a recipe. Follow it page by page, and you can’t go wrong.’

Teacher 3: ‘I find my coursebook very useful. I use it a lot of the time. But not all the time.’

From the description above, teacher 1 claims to be independent of any textbook (Grant, 1987; 7) while Prabhu (1987; 96) characterizes Teacher 2 to be ‘tightly constructed’ where textbooks are indispensable. Prabhu also characterizes teacher 3 as ‘loosely constructed’ where they stick closely to the textbook, but in practice they often depart from it. In short, these beliefs represented by those three teachers above need to be carefully recognized as teachers use the materials.

There are three forms of materials used – commercial materials, authentic materials, and teacher-made materials (Richards, 2002; 251). When these materials are brought to the classroom use, teachers need to organize them into a meaningful, interesting sequence of activities (Kitao and Kitao, 1997). In order to achieve this, therefore, Graves (2003) and Richards (2002) suggest that in using the materials, teachers need to follow the process of using materials from preparation to implementation.

The present study focuses on how teachers use the materials and how the students respond to their teachers’ use of the materials. These issues are important among teachers as Harmer (2002) reminds them to watch their use of materials to be appropriately used. Otherwise, it will lead to ineffective materials to learn in which the materials do not meet students’ needs and interests (Gebhard, 2000; 253). Therefore, the study also seeks for the students’ needs and interests of the materials to improve the learners’ motivation and thereby make learning better and faster (Hutchinson and Waters, 1995; 8).

3 To support the focus of present study, similar studies have been conducted. Tung and Ng (1992) cited in Richards (1998; 127) reported that teachers in their practice use different types of material resources, and these practices varies considerably in which experienced teachers use textbooks more often than do their novice colleagues (Moulton, 1994) who have adapted the materials to varying degrees (Yan, 2007). Particularly in Indonesian setting, Huda (1999; 136) reported the repetition of the materials and the dearth of “local content” in the teaching. Another study revealed that the Indonesian English teachers also tend to favor English-speaking published materials than locally-published materials (Zacharias, 2003). From the above studies, Moulton (1994) suggests that we must know why teachers behave as they do, in terms of their own thinking about instruction. This study tries to describe teachers’ behavior on how they use the materials and what pedagogical reasons underlie the decisions.

Considering the facts above, it is worth investigating the use of the materials by the teachers and how the students respond to it. The study is conducted in an enrichment English program in STIA LAN Bandung involving eight English teachers. The study reports how the teachers use the materials and how the students respond to the teachers’ material use. This study can hopefully yield important implications for the practice and research in ELT, and accordingly the information of the study can lead to the improvement of English language teaching and learning in Indonesia.

1.2 Research Question

Based on the background mentioned above, research questions are formulated as follows:

1. How do the teachers use materials?

4 1.3 Research Goals

Research goals of the present study are first to find out the use of instructional materials by the teachers which are essential to document effective ways of using materials and a record of different sources of materials Richards (2002; 270). Second, the study also seeks for students’ responses sought to give the information about learning materials and teachers’ competency in material use. Both research goals are expected to provide a deep and wide-ranging knowledge of the materials that the teachers can use (Bolitho, 1988;72), and accordingly make informed teaching decisions for teachers (Gebhard, 2000;15) on how to use the materials.

1.4Significance of the Study

This study suggests how teachers use the instructional materials in a language classroom and how the students respond to the teachers’ use of materials. The findings of the study are expected to be beneficial to the improvement of English language teaching and learning activities. For the teachers, the study can give information about the use of instructional materials; while for students, the study can reveal what kind of learning materials are preferable by the students and thus, provide information on teachers’ competency in material use.

1.5Definitions of the Terms

To the extent of the study, some terms are clarified as follows:

• Instructional materials are “any systematic description of techniques and exercises to

be used in the classroom teaching” (Brown, 1995).

• Coursebook (textbook) is “prepackaged, published books used by the students and

5

• Supplementary materials are books or other non-print materials used within the

context of the instructional program which are not included in the definitions of textbooks or instructional materials listed above.

• The use of materials is the way how teachers prepare for the materials and how the

materials are used in practice.

1.6 Organization of the Study

This study is organized in five chapters. Here is the list of the organization.

• Chapter 1 deals with the background, research question, research goals, significance

of the study, clarification of terms used throughout the study, and organization of the study.

• Chapter 2 reviews the relevant literature on instructional materials specifying the

discussion on the concept of the materials. The second discussion centers on the use of materials from the material preparation and material implementation, and the relevant research to the study.

• Chapter 3 describes the methodology that was used to conduct this research. It

presents the subject of the study, research design and procedure of data collection.

• In Chapter 4, the findings are presented to show how the teachers use the materials

and how students respond to it. Then, these findings are discussed to see the implications of the study to the teachers’ material use.

• In Chapter 5, some limitations of the study are discussed, the conclusions of this

36 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses overview of the methodological aspects of the study. The overview begins with the discussion of research site and participants of the study, followed by the procedures of the qualitative method which becomes the research design of the study. The present study obtains research data from interviews, document analysis, classroom observation, and questionnaires. In this study, interviews serve as the main source of data. The data obtained from those data collection techniques are further analyzed to get the findings of the study.

3.2 Research Site and Participants

The research was conducted in the Language Centre of STIA LAN Bandung (State School of Administration Sciences) where the researcher is one of teachers. STIA LAN offers an English enrichment program at the first semester with the aim at providing basic communication of English. Therefore, by the end of the program, it is hoped the students will be able to communicate in simple English with friends and lecturers at campus as well as with their colleagues at work or when they serve the foreign society considering that the students are government employees and come from different state agencies throughout Indonesia.

The class meets six sessions with two teaching hours for each session. There are eight classes taught by eight teachers. In each class, there are around 20 students at the most with the average age is around 25 years of age. The students are given a coursebook “New Headway” for pre-intermediate students as the primary workbook the students do in the classroom.

37 There are 8 (eight) English teachers (referred to here as T) involved in this study (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8). There were no specific criteria in the selection of these teachers, but only those who were teaching on the enrolled term became the subject of the study. There were five male teachers and three female teachers whose average age is 27 years of age. They had an undergraduate degree of English language and pedagogy, and have had one or two years of teaching experiences.

3.3 Research Design

The study employed a qualitative approach since it is relevant to the purpose and research questions of the study that are how teachers use the materials and how the students respond to it. In line with this, Woods (1999; 2) characterizes the qualitative study with “life as it is lived, things as they happen, situations as they are constructed in the day-to-day, moment-to-moment course of events.” This research particularly seeks lived experiences in real situations and is interested in how materials are used by the teacher. With an emphasis on process, therefore, this research analyzes the process the teachers use the materials from the preparation stage to the implementation stage.

Accordingly, a case study was used as the method of the study. Wallace (2000; 47) defines a case study as the systematic investigation of an individual ‘case’, whether that refers to one teacher, one learner, one group, one class, or whatever. In this research, a group of teachers was investigated for their use of materials. In addition, a case study is also relevant to the research since the researcher gathers evidence from multiple sources (McKay, 2008; 17). In this study, as will be discussed later, the data for this research were taken from multiple data collection techniques, namely: interviews, document analysis, classroom observation, and questionnaires. Each data collection will be presented below.

38 3.4 Data Collection

As mentioned earlier, three data collection techniques were used in this study; interviews, document analysis, classroom observation, and questionnaires. Furthermore, these multiple methods of data collection were taken into account to triangulate the data. With this triangulation, it verified the validity of the information being collected (Blaxter et al., 2006; 86), and therefore the subjectivity of the study can be avoided because according to Blaxter et al., the findings from one type of data collection can be checked against the findings deriving from the other types (2006; 85).

In the following section, each of the data collection will be elaborated further.

3.4.1 Document Analysis

In this study, document analysis tries to depict the evidence of what the teachers do during the preparation process in a written form. This type of data collection technique, according to Merriam (1988), is considered as “objective sources of data compared to other forms”. The document data is also used to triangulate the interview data.

The document data investigated in this study were taken from the materials provided in the textbook unit and lesson plan. For the purpose of the study, only one unit is used. The consideration is that the study only limits for one unit teaching process of how teachers use the material. On the other hand, the lesson plan here is not necessarily a detail document but a written indication that the teacher has thought in advance about the ‘why’, ‘what’, and ‘how’ of the lesson (Gabrielatos, 2004). In this study, the teachers were obliged to submit their lesson plans (see an example of lesson plan in Appendix B) to see the outline of what he/she was going to do in the classroom. From the lesson plan, we will know which materials are used, whether adaptation to materials takes place, what delivery

39 strategies are used, and whether the activities are organized based on certain lesson structure.

3.4.2 Classroom Observation

Classroom observation was conducted to find how the teachers use the materials in the implementation process. Observations, according to Merriam (1988), were useful in such a way that they showed things that had become routines to the participants themselves, things which may lead to understanding the context. The use of audio or video recording of lessons also provides a more reliable record of what actually happened in the classroom (Richards, 1990). During observations, the researcher was an observer and did

not take part in any classroom activity.

The whole processes of classroom activities were recorded through the use of video

recorder. As Merriam (1988) suggests that recording make the data analysis easier. The

video also helps the researcher give the description of the material implementation which later will be cross checked to the interview result. The study seeks for what activities are conducted in the classroom. The list of activities as a result of classroom observation data can be seen in Appendix D. Due to the limitation of the time, the observations were conducted to the first four teachers (T1, T2, T3, T4).

3.4.3 Interviews

In this study, the main sources of data were the interviews that I undertook with the eight teachers as the respondents of the study. Merriam (1998) defines interview as “the person-to-person encounter in which one person gains information from another.” In this case, interviewing teachers were carried out to get in-depth information (Alwasilah, 2002) of their knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and practices (Baker and Johnson in

multilingual-40 matters.net/le/012/0229/le0120229.pdf), for this particular study, of how teachers use the materials.

Therefore, in order to answer the research question, a list of questions (see the Appendix E) was formulated in a semi-structured interview. In this type of interview, the interviewer has more freedom to deviate from the set questions (Sproston, 2005) with the expectation that teachers would account for their answers and that the researcher might

have queried those accounts further (Nicholson, 2002 in

http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/nic02194.htm). This study thus employs semi-structured interviews to generate teachers' talk about their use of materials in an attempt to make visible their understandings of the use of materials that they do.

The questions of the interview were generated from four categories – (1) general questions; (2) material preparation; (3) material implementation; (4) reflection (see the detail questions in Appendix E). First, general questions ask about the general description of the materials the teacher used including the objective of the lesson (Q1), the characteristics of the materials (Q2), and the evaluation of the textbook unit (Q3). Second, the material preparation seeks for sources of materials (Q4), classroom activities (Q5, Q6), and material modification ((Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10). Third, material implementation will seek for classroom activities (Q11, Q12, Q13), and difficulty in delivering the materials (Q14). The last, the section tries to reflect on the teacher’s material use.

The interview was taken place shortly after the class finished. Then, the teacher was interviewed around 30 minutes. The interview was recorded using the tape-recorder, and then transcribed. To reveal the findings, the interview data will be supported by other data collection techniques.

41 3.4.4 Questionnaires

In this study, questionnaires were used to give the information about the use of the materials in the written response. Questionnaires, according to Alwasilah (2002; 151), were argued to know the respondents’ opinion, attitude, and perception. Alwasilah further contends that questionnaires could be used to judge factual information. In similar veins, Richards (2001; 60) says that questionnaires can also be used to elicit information about many different kinds of issues.

Richards (2001; 60) contends that questionnaires have a set structure (in which the respondents choose from a limited number of responses) or unstructured (in which open-ended questions are given that the respondent can answer as he or she chooses. For this study, the study tries to combine both types. Further, in this study, the questionnaires serve as additional data collection to the interview since this questionnaire was given to the students to reveal their responses about the materials and the teacher who uses the materials.

The questionnaires in this study (see Appendix A) have two issues to reveal; first, what they think of learning materials and what responses were made to how teacher uses the materials. The questionnaire used in the study is modified from WIP (2008). Learning materials are further jotted down into three questions about the material suitability to the students’ needs (Q1), the degree of material difficulty (Q2), and materials’ drive to interaction (Q6). Similar to learning materials, teacher’s use of materials is also broken down into three questions – teacher’s techniques in delivering materials (3), organizing skills in delivering materials (Q4), and teacher’s knowledge of the materials (Q5).

42 3.5 Data Analysis

As has been mentioned, the data analysis used the qualitative method by employing a case study. The analysis of data will be sorted, coded, and formatted into a story or a picture as what Cresswell (1994; 153) suggested. Therefore the data taken from document analysis, classroom observation, interview, and questionnaires will be further coded and categorized to answer the research questions. The data analysis will be organized based on each data collection technique.

Regarding the data analysis, the study refers to the data analysis given by Miles and Huberman (1984). Here, the data analysis consists of three concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and conclusions: drawing/verifying (Miles and Huberman, 1984; 21). From the existing raw data, the data are reduced and selected based on what the research requires. The results of the data reduction are then presented in the data display from which the data will be verified and drawn for the conclusion.

The data taken from the document analysis is based on the textbook unit and the lesson plan the teacher handed in before the class begins. There are several steps to analyze the document data. For the analysis of the textbook unit, the analysis will describe the basic competence of the unit and the material description for each unit. In other words, facts and feature of textbook units will be described. While for the analysis of the lesson plan, first, the analysis will seek for the organization of activities based on the teaching stages. The result of the activities will be provided in the table. Second, the analysis also seeks for which materials will be used. In this case, the data will be about the information of materials sources used in the study. Third, the analysis is conducted to reveal what teaching techniques will be employed.

The analysis for the classroom observation can be done through the use of video recording of the classroom processes. The result of the video recording can yield the

43 classroom activities conducted in the classroom. The data of the observation will be a list of procedures in conducting classroom activities. The procedures aim at giving general description of the teachers’ activities with the materials.

The main source of data collection is the interview to the teachers. The rest of data collection techniques serve as an additional data to the interview. The interview draws teacher’s process in using the materials from the preparation to the implementation. The interview itself covers four categories – (1) general questions; (2) material preparation; (3) material implementation; (4) and reflection.

The analysis of the interview is conducted through several steps. First, the participant’s voice is recorded. Then, the result of recording is transcribed. The transcript of the interview will be organized based on four categories mentioned above. The findings will then be supported by the relevant theories and findings from the previous research.

Previously, three data collection techniques were taken from the teacher. However, the study also seeks the responses of the students who were also involved in the subject of the teaching and learning process. Therefore, in order to do so, the students were given the questionnaires consisting of two categories – learning materials and teacher’s competence in using the materials. Each category has three questions in the form of multiple choices. In addition, to each question, the students were given a space if they still have further responses to write which are not catered in the multiple choices.

The analysis of the questionnaires can be done through tallying for the frequency of the answers for each category. Then, the tallying result will be converted into percentage (in number). The findings of the percentage for each category will be elaborated for further analysis.

81 CHAPTER 5

THE CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY, AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter consists of three parts: the first part draws the conclusion of the study based on the data discussed in the previous chapters. The second part will discuss the limitations of the study, and the third will discuss the suggestions for future research within the same study.

5.2 Conclusions

The major conclusion of the study will be outlined below. Based on the theories, and the analysis described in the previous chapters, the present study arrives at the conclusions. The first research question concerns with how the teachers use the materials. The study found that the teachers differently used the materials as Moulton (1994) similarly found in his study. This finding leads to the fact that the three categories of teachers in using the materials, as Hutchinson and Waters (1995) and Grant (1987) suggest, exist in this study.

The documentation data revealed that the coursebook was considered incomplete to provide the appropriate and familiar topics for the students; therefore different outside sources were used, for example other published textbooks, teachers’ create materials, and the use of authentic materials. From the lesson plan analysis, the planned materials were described in procedures of activities based on the teaching stages. However, in the implementation process, the data shows that the teachers did not follow the procedures completely and the changes of activities differed from one teacher to another. This appears

82 to show that besides the fact that the unit the teachers use are different from one to another, other factors found in the study determine the reason for the changes, for example, the students and the teachers’ teaching style.

The interview data also revealed during the preparation and implementation process, the teachers experienced having difficulties with material modification due to the fact mentioned in the study the teachers were lack of course books and other teaching facilities to find for the appropriate and familiar materials for the students. During the implementation, the teachers also experienced having changes of activities. The data shows the changes of activities occurred due to the students’ characteristics and needs. Both data seem to suggest that students become the teachers’ focus for any changes and difficulties faced the teachers with the expectation that teachers need to understand learners’ needs and get data from the learners in order to meet the needs of the students which become the goal of the program as Lun (2006) argues.

The second research question concerns with how the students respond to learning materials and their teachers’ material use. The responses the students made to learning materials revealed that a big number of students agreed that learning materials have met their needs. This data mean the teachers have been successful to use the materials for the students. Regarding this, as Ur (1996) and Harmer (2002) suggest, when learners’ needs are achieved, it will motivate the students to learn. These findings are supported with the students’ acknowledgement to their teachers’ competency in material delivery. As Rowntree (1997; 92) cited in Richards (2002; 263) argues, good understanding of subject matter has been a prerequisite in using effective materials. However, the questionnaire data also revealed that the teachers were considered failed to give varied activities and techniques which the students believed through teachers’ different techniques and activities it will promote their communication skills. Therefore, this data further suggest teachers

83 should be creative to their own techniques and make them sure that the techniques are in accordance with the students’ preferences. As McDonough and Shaw (1993) suggest, teachers need to see the students when they apply a particular technique. This also seems to coincide with the suggestion that the activities should be conducted in different ways. Through applying appropriate techniques and activities, as Grant (1987) suggest, the students will enjoy learning and become more motivated to learn.

5.3 Limitation of the Study

There are some limitations of the study, and the limitations concern the technical problems. The major one is the availability for the interview time. As the interview time was scheduled after the class is over, however, due to the tight schedule of the teachers that had to go to another class afterwards, the interview time was set up later to meet their convenient time. However, in order not to forget about the teaching, the video recording was shown to stimulate their fresh memory of what he/she was doing in the classroom. In doing so, the researcher also asked for their clarification about unclear instruction or the purpose of their activities. With these techniques, it is hoped the teachers gave valuable inputs to enrich the interview data.

The second limitation of the problem was due to limited length of provided recording cassettes that could not record the whole length of teaching hours. However, to add the information of the missing part, small notes were taken during the unrecorded time and later asked about these in the interview time.

84 5.4 Suggestions

Based on the findings of the study, which may not be generalized to other settings, it is suggested that the study indicates the necessity of the use of the materials in the teaching of English in Indonesia. The findings of this study confirm the urgency of the use of the materials by the teachers can help students enhance their learning and enable the teachers to find and use the appropriate material for the students. From the urgency of the use of the materials above, therefore, it calls for the reexamination of the use of the materials by the teachers.

For this research in particular, it is suggested that the teachers should be freed and given a longer time for the interview session after the class. By doing this, the fresh memory of the teachers will be expected to contribute much to the interview data. A greater access to the coursebook facilities should also be given to allow the teachers to find the supplementary materials to the main coursebook, and the teaching aids such as listening booths should also be provided. These lacks of facilities, as found in this study, seem to suggest that it limits the teachers’ material modification as Hutchinson and Waters (1995) indicate.

The last suggestion is that the teachers should develop their use of materials by being given sufficient knowledge of material development by the institution, through for example, a weekly teacher’s development session, where they are trained to prepare for a good material and put it into practice within the teachers. Through this activity, it is expected that the teachers will be more creative in using the materials through the use of various techniques and activities that may meet students’ preferences. In addition, the observation to teachers’ use of materials should also be maintained in order to improve their use of materials in the classroom.

85 REFERENCES

Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. 2002. Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Peneltian Kualitatif. Pustaka Jaya. Jakarta.

Blaxter et al. 2006. How to Research. 3rd ed. Open University. England.

Brown, H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Prentice Hall Regents. New Jersey.

Brown, H. Douglas. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Longman. New York.

Brown, James Dean. (1995). The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to Program Development. Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Boston.

Brumfit, Christopher. (1985). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching: The roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Byrd, Patricia. 2001. Textbooks: Evaluation for Selection and Analysis for Implementation. In Teaching English as A Second or Foreign Language, Marriane Celce- Murcia (Ed.) 3rd. Heinle-Heinle. United States.

Bolitho, Rod. 1988. Language Awareness on Teacher Training Courses. In Explorations in Teacher Training: Problems and Issues, Tony Duff (Ed). Longman. Great Britain.

Baker, Caroline D., and Johnson, Greer. Interview Talk as Professional Practice.

Available [on line] at multilingual-matters.net/le/012/0229/le0120229.pdf Cameron, Lynne. 2001. Teaching Language to Young Learner.CUP: Cambridge.

Clarke, D. F. (1989). Communicative theory and its influence on materials production. In Kitao, Kenji, and Kitao, S. Kathleen. 1997. Selecting and Developing

Teaching/Learning Materials. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IV, No. 4, April 1997 Available [on line] at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html

Cresswell, John. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approach. SAGE Publication, Inc. California

86 Cunningsworth, A. 1995. Choosing Your Coursebook. In Richards, Jack. (2001).

Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.

Dudley-Evans, T., and M. St. John. 1998. Development in English for Specific Purposes. In Richards, Jack. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.

Gabrielatos, Costas. 2004. Session Plan: The Coursebook as a Flexible Tool. Available at gabrielatos.com

Gebhard, Jerry G. (2000). Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language – A teacher self-development methodology guide. The University of Michigan Press. Michigan.

Grant, Neville. (1987). Making the Most of Your Textbook. Longman. New York.

Graves, Kathleen. 2003. Coursebooks. In Practical English Language Teaching, David Nunan (Ed). McGraw Hill. New York.

Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A Learning Centered Approach. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education Limited. England.

Harmer, J. (1998). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education Limited. England.

Harmer, J. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching. ELBS. Hongkong.

Huda, N. 1999. Language Learning and Teaching: Issues and Trends. IKIP Malang Publisher. Malang.

Johansson, Therese. 2006. Teaching material in the EFL classroom – teachers’ and students’ perspectives.

Jensen, Linda. 2001. Planning lessons. In Teaching English as A Second or Foreign Language, Marriane Celce- Murcia (Ed.) 3rd. Heinle-Heinle. United States.

87 James, Peter. 2001. Teacher in Action: Task for in-service Language Teacher Education

and Development. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge.

Kumaravadivelu, B. 2008. Understanding Language Teaching – From Methods to Post Methods. Lawrence Elbraum Associates Publishers. London.

Kitao, Kenji, and Kitao, S. Kathleen. 1997. Selecting and Developing Teaching/Learning Materials. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IV, No. 4, April 1997 Available [on line] at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html

Litz, David R. 2006. A Textbook Evaluation and ELT Management: A South Korean Case Study. Available [on line] at http://www.asian-efl-journal.com

Liz & John Soars. 2001. New Headway English Course for Pre-intermediate level.

Littlejohn, A., & Windeatt, S. (1989). Beyond language learning: Perspective on materials design. In Kitao, Kenji, and Kitao, S. Kathleen. 1997. Selecting and Developing Teaching/Learning Materials. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IV, No. 4, April 1997 Available [on line] at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html

Lun, Lee Siu. 2006. Matching Teachers’ needs and Students’ needs. The Fifth Annual Conference of NCOLCTL. The Chinese University of Hong Kong

McKay, Sandra Lee. 2008. Researching Second Language Classroom. Lawrence Elbraum Associates Publishers. London.

Maxwell. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. SAGE Publication, Inc. California.

Merriam, Sharan B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. Jossey-Bass Inc. Publisher. California.

McDonough, Jo. and Shaw, Christopher. (1993). Materials and Methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide. Blackwell. Oxford.

McPherson, Kate. 2005. Maximising student attention to classroom learning materials. CamTESOL Conference on English Language Teaching: Selected Papers, Volume 1, 2005.

Moulton, J. 1994. How Do Teachers Use Textbooks and Other Print Materials? - A Review of the Literature.

88 Miles, Mathew B., and Huberman, A. Michael. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A

Sourcebook of New Methods. Sage Publications. London.

Meisuri. 2009. An Analysis of the Materials of English Subject and Their Relevance to the Students’ needs - A Case Study at a State Institute for Islamic Studies. Unpublished Thesis. Indonesia University of Education.

Muhammad, Razia Fakir., and Kumari, Roshni. 2007.Effective Use of Textbooks: A Neglected Aspect of Education in Pakistan. In Journal of Education for International Development 3:1.

Muller, Theron. 2005. Adding Taks to Textbooks for Beginner Learners. In Teachers exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching, Corrony Edwards and Jane Willis (Ed). Plagrave McMillan. Great Britain.

Nunan. David. (2000). Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Pearson Education Limited.

NCTE guideline. Guidelines for Selection of Materials in English Language Arts Program.Available online at

http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/selectingelamaterial

Nunan, David. 2003. Methodology. In Practical English Language Teaching, David Nunan (Ed). McGraw Hill. New York.

Nunan, David. 1998. Language Teaching Methodology – A Textbook for Teachers. Prentice Hall. Great Britain.

Nicholson, Helen. 2002. Interpreting teacher talk in culturally diverse schools: The significance of critical realist and social constructionist understandings. Available [on line] at http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/nic02194.htm

Peterson, Pat. Wilcox. 1991. A Synthesis for Interactive Listening. In Brown, H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Prentice Hall Regents. New Jersey.

Prabhu, N.S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching – A Description and Analysis. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge.

89 Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. (2002). Approaches and Methods in

Language Teaching – A Description and Analysis. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge.

Richards, Jack. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.

Richards, Jack C. (1998). Beyond Training. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Richards, Jack C. 2000. New Interchange English Course. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Richards, Jack C. (1990). The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. (2002). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Rowntree, D. 1997. Making Materials-based Learning Work. In Richards, Jack. (2001).

Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.

Savignon, Sandra J. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice: Text and Contexts in Second Language Learning. Addison-Wesley Publishing. Reading.

Shulman, L. 1987. Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. In Richards, Jack. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.

Smith, Larry E. 1981. English for Cross-Cultural Understanding. In Brumfit, Christopher. (1985). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching: The roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Sproston, Carlyn. 2005. When Students Negotiate: an action research case study of a year 8 English class in a Catholic secondary college. Unpublished Dissertation.

Australian Catholic University.

Studolsky, S. 1989. Is teaching really by the book? in Richard, Jack C. (1998). Beyond Training. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

90 Tomlinson, B. 1998. Materials Development in Language Teaching. In Richards, Jack.

(2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.

Tung, P. and Ng, P. 1992. The Culture of the English Language Teacher. In Richard, Jack C. (1998). Beyond Training. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Ur, Penny. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Yan, Chanmei. 2001. Investigating English Teachers’ Materials Adaptation. Chinese EFL Journal. Vol. 1 Issue 1. March 2001. Available [on line] at http://www.chinese-efl-journal.com

Wallace, Michael J. 2000. Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge Univ Press. Cambridge.

White. 1991. In McDonough, Jo. and Shaw, Christopher. (1993). Materials and Methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide. Blackwell. Oxford.

Woods, Peter. 1999. Successful Writing for Qualitative Researchers. Routledge. New York.

Woodward, A. 1993. Introduction: Learning from Textbooks. In Richards, Jack C. (1998).

Beyond Training. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Wikipedia.com.

WIP. 2008. Assessment Weekly Report. Unpublished Report. Sorrowako.

Zacharias, Nugrahenny T. 2003. A Survey of Tertiary Teachers’ beliefs about English Language Teaching in Indonesia with Regard to the Role of English as a Global Language. Unpublished MA-ELT THESIS. Assumption University of Thailand.

Zacharias, Nugrahenny T. 2005. Teachers’ beliefs about Internationally Published Materials: A Survey of Tertiary English Teachers in Indonesia. RELC Journal. Available on line at http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/36/1/23

85 REFERENCES

Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. 2002. Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan

Melakukan Peneltian Kualitatif. Pustaka Jaya. Jakarta.

Blaxter et al. 2006. How to Research. 3rd ed. Open University. England.

Brown, H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy. Prentice Hall Regents. New Jersey.

Brown, H. Douglas. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy. Longman. New York.

Brown, James Dean. (1995). The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic

Approach to Program Development. Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Boston.

Brumfit, Christopher. (1985). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching: The

roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Byrd, Patricia. 2001. Textbooks: Evaluation for Selection and Analysis for Implementation. In Teaching English as A Second or Foreign Language, Marriane Celce- Murcia (Ed.) 3rd. Heinle-Heinle. United States.

Bolitho, Rod. 1988. Language Awareness on Teacher Training Courses. In Explorations in Teacher Training: Problems and Issues, Tony Duff (Ed). Longman. Great Britain.

Baker, Caroline D., and Johnson, Greer. Interview Talk as Professional Practice. Available [on line] at multilingual-matters.net/le/012/0229/le0120229.pdf Cameron, Lynne. 2001. Teaching Language to Young Learner.CUP: Cambridge.

Clarke, D. F. (1989). Communicative theory and its influence on materials production. In Kitao, Kenji, and Kitao, S. Kathleen. 1997. Selecting and Developing

Teaching/Learning Materials. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IV, No. 4, April

1997 Available [on line] at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html

Cresswell, John. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approach. SAGE Publication, Inc. California

86 Cunningsworth, A. 1995. Choosing Your Coursebook. In Richards, Jack. (2001).

Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.

New York.

Dudley-Evans, T., and M. St. John. 1998. Development in English for Specific Purposes. In Richards, Jack. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.

Gabrielatos, Costas. 2004. Session Plan: The Coursebook as a Flexible Tool. Available at gabrielatos.com

Gebhard, Jerry G. (2000). Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language – A

teacher self-development methodology guide. The University of Michigan Press.

Michigan.

Grant, Neville. (1987). Making the Most of Your Textbook. Longman. New York.

Graves, Kathleen. 2003. Coursebooks. In Practical English Language Teaching, David Nunan (Ed). McGraw Hill. New York.

Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A Learning

Centered Approach. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education Limited. England.

Harmer, J. (1998). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education Limited. England.

Harmer, J. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching. ELBS. Hongkong.

Huda, N. 1999. Language Learning and Teaching: Issues and Trends. IKIP Malang Publisher. Malang.

Johansson, Therese. 2006. Teaching material in the EFL classroom – teachers’ and

students’ perspectives.

Jensen, Linda. 2001. Planning lessons. In Teaching English as A Second or Foreign Language, Marriane Celce- Murcia (Ed.) 3rd. Heinle-Heinle. United States.

87 James, Peter. 2001. Teacher in Action: Task for in-service Language Teacher Education

and Development. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge.

Kumaravadivelu, B. 2008. Understanding Language Teaching – From Methods to Post

Methods. Lawrence Elbraum Associates Publishers. London.

Kitao, Kenji, and Kitao, S. Kathleen. 1997. Selecting and Developing Teaching/Learning

Materials. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IV, No. 4, April 1997 Available [on

line] at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html

Litz, David R. 2006. A Textbook Evaluation and ELT Management: A South Korean Case

Study. Available [on line] at http://www.asian-efl-journal.com

Liz & John Soars. 2001. New Headway English Course for Pre-intermediate level.

Littlejohn, A., & Windeatt, S. (1989). Beyond language learning: Perspective on materials

design. In Kitao, Kenji, and Kitao, S. Kathleen. 1997. Selecting and Developing

Teaching/Learning Materials. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IV, No. 4, April

1997 Available [on line] at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html

Lun, Lee Siu. 2006. Matching Teachers’ needs and Students’ needs. The Fifth Annual Conference of NCOLCTL. The Chinese University of Hong Kong

McKay, Sandra Lee. 2008. Researching Second Language Classroom. Lawrence Elbraum Associates Publishers. London.

Maxwell. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. SAGE Publication, Inc. California.

Merriam, Sharan B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. Jossey-Bass Inc. Publisher. California.

McDonough, Jo. and Shaw, Christopher. (1993). Materials and Methods in ELT: A

teacher’s guide. Blackwell. Oxford.

McPherson, Kate. 2005. Maximising student attention to classroom learning materials. CamTESOL Conference on English Language Teaching: Selected Papers, Volume 1, 2005.

Moulton, J. 1994. How Do Teachers Use Textbooks and Other Print Materials? - A Review of the Literature.

88 Miles, Mathew B., and Huberman, A. Michael. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A

Sourcebook of New Methods. Sage Publications. London.

Meisuri. 2009. An Analysis of the Materials of English Subject and Their Relevance to the

Students’ needs - A Case Study at a State Institute for Islamic Studies. Unpublished

Thesis. Indonesia University of Education.

Muhammad, Razia Fakir., and Kumari, Roshni. 2007. Effective Use of Textbooks: A

Neglected Aspect of Education in Pakistan. In Journal of Education for

International Development 3:1.

Muller, Theron. 2005. Adding Taks to Textbooks for Beginner Learners. In Teachers exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching, Corrony Edwards and Jane Willis (Ed). Plagrave McMillan. Great Britain.

Nunan. David. (2000). Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Pearson Education Limited.

NCTE guideline. Guidelines for Selection of Materials in English Language Arts

Program.Available online at

http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/selectingelamaterial

Nunan, David. 2003. Methodology. In Practical English Language Teaching, David Nunan (Ed). McGraw Hill. New York.

Nunan, David. 1998. Language Teaching Methodology – A Textbook for Teachers. Prentice Hall. Great Britain.

Nicholson, Helen. 2002. Interpreting teacher talk in culturally diverse schools: The

significance of critical realist and social constructionist understandings. Available

[on line] at http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/nic02194.htm

Peterson, Pat. Wilcox. 1991. A Synthesis for Interactive Listening. In Brown, H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Prentice Hall Regents. New Jersey.

Prabhu, N.S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. (1986). Approaches and Methods in

Language Teaching – A Description and Analysis. Cambridge Univ. Press.

89 Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. (2002). Approaches and Methods in

Language Teaching – A Description and Analysis. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Cambridge.

Richards, Jack. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.

Richards, Jack C. (1998). Beyond Training. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Richards, Jack C. 2000. New Interchange English Course. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Richards, Jack C. (1990). The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. (2002). Approaches and Methods in

Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Rowntree, D. 1997. Making Materials-based Learning Work. In Richards, Jack. (2001).

Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.

New York.

Savignon, Sandra J. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom

Practice: Text and Contexts in Second Language Learning. Addison-Wesley

Publishing. Reading.

Shulman, L. 1987. Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. In Richards, Jack. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.

Smith, Larry E. 1981. English for Cross-Cultural Understanding. In Brumfit, Christopher. (1985). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching: The roles of fluency

and accuracy. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Sproston, Carlyn. 2005. When Students Negotiate: an action research case study of a year

8 English class in a Catholic secondary college. Unpublished Dissertation.

Australian Catholic University.

Studolsky, S. 1989. Is teaching really by the book? in Richard, Jack C. (1998). Beyond

90 Tomlinson, B. 1998. Materials Development in Language Teaching. In Richards, Jack.

(2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. New York.

Tung, P. and Ng, P. 1992. The Culture of the English Language Teacher. In Richard, Jack C. (1998). Beyond Training. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Ur, Penny. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Yan, Chanmei. 2001. Investigating English Teachers’ Materials Adaptation. Chinese EFL Journal. Vol. 1 Issue 1. March 2001. Available [on line] at http://www.chinese-efl-journal.com

Wallace, Michael J. 2000. Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge Univ Press. Cambridge.

White. 1991. In McDonough, Jo. and Shaw, Christopher. (1993). Materials and Methods

in ELT: A teacher’s guide. Blackwell. Oxford.

Woods, Peter. 1999. Successful Writing for Qualitative Researchers. Routledge. New York.

Woodward, A. 1993. Introduction: Learning from Textbooks. In Richards, Jack C. (1998).

Beyond Training. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Wikipedia.com.

WIP. 2008. Assessment Weekly Report. Unpublished Report. Sorrowako.

Zacharias, Nugrahenny T. 2003. A Survey of Tertiary Teachers’ beliefs about English Language Teaching in Indonesia with Regard to the Role of English as a Global

Language. Unpublished MA-ELT THESIS. Assumption University of Thailand.

Zacharias, Nugrahenny T. 2005. Teachers’ beliefs about Internationally Published

Materials: A Survey of Tertiary English Teachers in Indonesia. RELC Journal.