THE PROCESS OF WRITING TEXTBOOKS :A case study of two English teachers who write textbooks.

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APROVAL PAGE ... ii

DECLARATION ... iii

PREFACE ... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...v

ABSTRACT ... vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... viii

LIST OF TABLES ... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ... ix

LIST OF APPENDICES ... ix

CHAPTER I ...1

INTRODUCTION ...1

1.1 Introduction ...1

1.2 Background of the study ...1

1.3 Research Questions ...4

1.4 Objectives of the study ...5

1.5 The significance of the study ...5

1.6 The scope of the study ...6

1.7 Organization of the thesis ...6

1.8 Concluding remark ...6

CHAPTER II ...7

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...7

2.1 Introduction ...7

2.2 Writing is a process ...7

2.2.1 Prewriting ...9

2.2.2 Drafting ...13

2.2.3 Revising and editing ...15

2.2.3.1 Revising ...15

2.2.3.2 Editing ...16

2.2.4 Publishing ...18

2.2.5 Response from readers: evaluation ...19

2.3 Textbooks writing: Nature, research, process of writing textbooks, overview Indonesian textbooks writing ...20

2

2.3.1 The Nature of writing textbooks ...20

2.3.2 Research on textbooks writing ...22

2.3.3 The process of writing textbooks ...25

2.3.3.1 Selecting the project team ...27

2.3.3.2 Planning ...28

2.3.3.3 Reviewing ...29

2.3.3.4 Writing development ...30

2.3.3.5 Piloting ...37

2.3.3.6 Designing and production ...38

2.3.4 An overview of textbooks writing in Indonesia ...40

2.4 The benefits and challenges of writing textbooks ...45

2.4.1 The benefits ...45

2.4.2 The challenges ...46

2.5 Concluding remark ...48

CHAPTER III ...49

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...49

3.1 Introduction ...49

3.2 Research design ...49

3.3 Participants ...50

3.4 Data collection ...51

3.4.1 The use of interviews ...51

3.4.2 The use of document analysis ...53

3.5 Data analysis ...54

3.6 Concluding remark ...55

CHAPTER IV ...56

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...56

4.1 Introduction ...56

4.2 Discussion of interview data ...57

4.2.1 The process of writing textbooks ...58

4.2.1.1 Being selected through recommendation ...59

4.2.1.2 Planning: making agreement of the whole steps ...62

4.2.1.3 Drafting: creating a sample unit. ...64

4.2.1.4 Reviewing. ...64

3

4.2.1.5 Designing and art working ...70

4.2.2 The benefits and challenges found in writing textbooks ...72

4.2.2.1 The benefits of writing textbooks ...73

4.2.2.2 The challenges of writing textbooks ...76

4.2.3 Summary of the discussion of interview data ...78

4.3 Discussion of document analysis ...78

4.3.1 The year of publishing the document, 2005: Catching up the KTSP curriculum ...79

4.3.2 The working-team involved in textbooks writing ...80

4.3.3 The legalization of textbook use ...83

4.3.4 Summary of the discussion of document analysis ...83

4.4 Concluding remark ...84

CHAPTER V ...85

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS...85

5.1 Introduction ...85

5.2 Conclusions8 ...85

5.3 Limitations of the study ...86

5.4 Suggestions ...87

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...89

4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 People involved in textbook writing project ... 83

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Writing Cycles in General ... 9

Figure 2 The process of writing textbook ... 26

Figure 3 Course design procedure ... 32

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: Interview guidance ... 96

Appendix 2: Interview data with respondent #1 ... 99

Appendix 3: Interview data with respondent#2 ... 109

Appendix 4: Cover of textbook#1(EIC) ... 115

Appendix 5: People involved in writing textbook#1 (EIC) ... 116

Appendix 6: Legalization of textbook#1 (EIC) ... 117

Appendix 7: Cover of textbook#2 (BIG) ... 118

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

This study is concerned with exploring experience of two English teachers when they were involved in the two projects of writing English textbook. Then, discussion on the researcher’s reasons for exploring the two English teacher’s experience in writing textbook which becomes the focus of study will be presented in this chapter, Section 1.2, i.e. the background of the study.

Next, regarding the focus of study, research questions will be proposed in Section 1.3 and followed by a sequence of sections: the objective of the study, the significance of the study, the scope of the study, and the thesis organization. Each section will be discussed subsequently.

1.2 Background of the study

The important role of textbook for the users in school, i.e. teachers and students is undeniable. Although there are the arguments for and against the use of textbook in learning process, “the most obvious and most common form of materials support for language instructions comes through textbook” (Brown, 2001:136). Indeed, as said by Richards (1998:135), “The extent of English language teaching activities worldwide could hardly be sustained without the kind of teacher-proof textbook currently available”.

In ELT, a textbook, as defined by Harris and Hodges (1995), as “a book used for instructional purposes, especially in schools and colleges”, has functions as: (1) a resource for presentation material (spoken/written), (2) a source of activities for learner practice and communicative interaction, (3) a reference source for learners on grammar, vocabulary,

2

pronunciation, and so on, (4) a syllabus, (5) a resource for directed learning or self-access work, and (6) a support for less experienced teachers (Cunningsworth, 1995:7).

Regarding the evidence of the dominance of commercial textbook these days, Richards (1998:136) argues that there are two factors as main reasons for this condition, i.e. practical factors as well as ideological ones. The practical factors, Richards further argues, constitute the most obvious reasons for the widespread use of commercial textbook. Shortly speaking, textbook practically enable teachers to present materials in classroom without burdening or time-consuming in preparing them.

According to Richards (1998:136) the ideological factors relate to beliefs that teachers and others often hold about commercial materials, which serve to reinforce the status of textbook in teaching. The improvement in the quality of teaching, he further states, is believed to depart from the use of instructional materials that are based on findings of current theory and research. Teachers themselves, it is argued, are likely to be unaware of current research and theory. Publishers, academics and textbook writers are, and hence can incorporate these findings in materials. Therefore, the role of teachers is seen primarily as consumers of materials produced and validated by others (Long and Crookes, 1991 cited in Richards, 1998).

However, according to Masuhara (1998:247) such the condition could carry “the threat of deskilling teachers” by reducing the teachers’ role. Actually, teachers, Masuhara argues, may become potential materials writers due to their experience in teaching fields. It is teachers that become, as Masuhara says, “the central figures in materials development” – for they are the ones who select materials, who actually teach the materials and who sometimes have to rewrite materials.

Concerning the teachers’ opinions about textbook, according to Grant (1982: 7) there are three kinds of teachers’ mind. The first is teachers who say they do not use a

3

textbook in learning; the second is those who admit they could not teach without a textbook; and the last is those who state that they use it a lot of the time, but not all the time. The first teachers, Grant states, are exceptional; perhaps they have plenty of time to prepare their own materials or they are geniuses. The second ones are those who rely wholly on the textbook, and use it as a cook uses a recipe. The third ones are those who are not enslaved by their textbooks as they think they are; they can be flexible in using the textbooks in their classes.

Based on the view above, the second and third types of teachers aforementioned can likely be empowered by knowing ways to use a textbook (Grant, 1987: 7). For that intention, attempts to evaluate, adapt, select, and develop writing materials have been promoted by some experts such as Grant, 1982; Cunningsworth, 1995; Hutchinson and Waters, 1987; Crandall, 1995; Breen and Candlin, 1987; McDonough and Shaw, 1993; Sheldon, 1988, Ferris and Hedgcock, 2005.

Regarding the process of writing, Richards (1998:135) says that the processes of writing a textbook are the same as the process of planning the content of a lesson. Therefore, it is reasonable, as said by Masuhara (1998: 247) that teachers may become potential materials writers. Perhaps through such a notion, teachers in the USA are encouraged to improve their capabilities to create a textbook or at least to write in-house materials, i.e. a textbook for their own classes. It is obvious that the world of textbook writing abroad widely runs, particularly in the USA as reported by Watt (2007 cited in

www.iartem.org).

However, in an Indonesian context, according to Alwasilah (2005, 160), the improvement of textbook writing is still far from expectations. One cause of this condition, Alwasilah argues, is that the study of writing textbook in Indonesia is still rare.

4

In the teacher educational institutions (LPTK), students are offered subject in curriculum and textbook evaluation, but there is seldom courses of how to write textbook.

Moreover at UPI, the study of writing textbook is still rare. Up until now, studies which focus on the textbook are dominated by the evaluation and adaptation of materials. For example, Majid’s (2002), Tahrun’s (2002), Sabir’s (2008) theses focus on the evaluation of EFL Textbook. Meanwhile Yuniarti’s (2002), Syahmadi’s (2004) theses observe the adaptation of textbook. While the most studies of writing processes are dominated by students’ writing, such as Sugaryamah’s (2004), Herdiah’s (2005), and Ansori’s (2007) theses. Their studies focus on the writing process done by students particularly in writing academic tasks, e.g. essays, papers. The study of teachers’ writing only exists in Alwasilah’s (2002) thesis which focuses on the creative process of writing done by three teachers who write in fiction genre. In summary, the results of studies that focus on the textbook writing particularly done by teachers are still hard to find.

Therefore, this condition triggers the researcher to investigate the process of writing textbook and experience done by two English teachers. The results of the study are expected to encourage teachers to learn more in writing textbook, which can eventually empower them.

1.3 Research Questions

As has been explained in the background of the study, this thesis focuses on exploring experience of two English teachers in writing textbook. Therefore, this present study attempts to address the following questions:

1. What processes are involved in writing textbook?

5 1.4 Objectives of the Study

Generally, this study aims to describe the process of writing textbook. Specifically, its objectives are:

1. to explore the process of writing textbook done by two English teachers;

2. to identify benefits and challenges the two English teachers found in writing textbook.

1.5 The Significance of the Study

The study reported here, in the light of the problems reviewed, is expected to have the following significance.

1. Significance to the theory

This study is hoped to enrich the theory of writing, particularly textbook writing. Since this study focuses on the process of writing textbook conducted by English teachers, it is expected to enrich the previous theories of writing, especially writing of English textbook.

2. Significance to the profession

This study is expected to help teachers in developing their professionalism; particularly those want to do it through writing textbook. In addition, the study is hoped to make the teacher aware about the demand to improve their competence and professionalism.

3. Significance to the practice

The results of this study are expected to provide information for teachers on textbook writing explored through the two English teacher participants involved in this study.

6 1.6 The Scope of the Study

In order to narrow the scope of the study, this study focuses on: (1) process of writing textbook carried by two English teachers in order to know the extent of writing stages take place, (2) benefits and challenges found by English teachers in writing textbook.

1.7 Organization of the Thesis

In correspondence with the outline, this thesis is organized into five chapters and formulated as follows:

1. Chapter 1 sets forth the introduction.

2. Chapter 2 clarifies review of related literature and theoretical foundation. 3. Chapter 3 presents the methodology of the research.

4. Chapter 4 reports findings and discussion; and 5. Chapter 5 draws the conclusions and suggestions.

1.8 Concluding remark

This chapter has elaborated the principles that drive this study including the background of present study, the formulation of research questions, the objectives and significance of the study, the scope of the study, and outlines or organization of the thesis. The next chapter will discuss reviews of the relevant literature and the theoretical foundation that underlay this study.

50

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Chapter II has discussed literature related to this study, the writing process in general, the process of writing textbooks including textbook writing in Indonesian context, and some possible benefits and challenges of writing textbooks.. Then, this chapter will provide a detailed explanation of the methodology of the study. The discussion will describe the research design, participants, data collection and analyses.

3.2 Research Design

Qualitative research was chosen as a big umbrella of research paradigm because of the purpose of the study, i.e. the hidden phenomena in the writer’s mind, particularly when he or she does writing textbook. This is in line with what Maxwell (1996) says that a qualitative study is aimed at “understanding, or interpreting, in terms of the meanings people bring to the phenomenon under study”. This study allowed the researcher to obtain data that mostly use interviews and documents analysis.

The design of this study constituted a qualitative case study because of three reasons. First, the main characteristic of the study was to concern with “a case or a choice of what is to be studied” (Stake, 1985: 278, 2005: 443), teachers who were involved in textbook writing projects. It “focused on answering how and why questions” (Yin, 2003 cited in Baxter and Jack available at htpp://www.nova.edu/ss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf), in order to know how teachers write textbook and what reason that drive them. Then, this study would be “an intensive description and an analysis of a single unit or bounded system” (Smith, 1978 cited in Merriam, 1998: 19) of those teachers who wrote textbook.

51

Therefore, the type of this study is a descriptive case study. Second, this study employed “multiple source of evidence – converging from the same set of issues” (Yin, 1993 cited in Emilia, 2005: 74) or “multiple data collection and analytic procedure” (Freebody, 2003 cited in Emilia, 2005: 74) as important aspects of a case study. These are aimed at enhancing the construct validity of the study as suggested by Yin in the same source. Third, this study also “mined data from documents” (Merriam, 1998:112) which constitute one of data forms in case study design (Creswell, 1998:113, Alwasilah, 2005: 155).

3.3 Participants

The study involved two participants. The participants are teachers-writers who have a lot of experience in English teaching and have written some English textbooks. The two respondents are described as follows:

1. AH, born in Bandung, West Java. She got her S-1 degree from the English Education of IKIP Bandung. Then, she followed the Graduate School at the same university (UPI Bandung) and got her Master’s degree in 2000. In team work, she has written more than 20 English textbooks published. Now she is registered as a doctoral student of Universitas Langlang Buana Bandung. She has worked as an English teacher for more 30 years in Bandung. Until now, she teaches English at SMA N 8 Bandung.

2. JH, born in Yogyakarta. She got her S-1 degree from the English Education of IKIP Yogyakarta (now UNY). Then, she followed the Graduate School at UPI Bandung through the Department of Religious Affairs (Depag)’s scholarship in 2006 and got her Master’s degree in 2008. In team work, she has written more than 2 published English textbooks and more than 10 books of the English student’s worksheet (LKS/ Lembar Kerja Siswa). She has worked as an English teacher for

52

more 10 years in Boyolali, Central Java. Until now, she teaches English at MAN 1 Boyolali Central Java.

As has been known, respondents are part of the instrument in doing research. Mostly researchers choose respondents in order to meet our purpose in doing research (Alwasilah, 2005). There are several reasons for choosing the two teachers-writers as respondents in this study. The reasons are presented as follows:

1. They have written more than 2 English textbooks.

2. They have experience of teaching English more than 10 years. 3. They are English teachers who write textbooks.

4. They are accessible and well cooperative.

3.4 Data collection

As outlined above, this study used multiple techniques of data collection; they were interview and document analysis. Each method of data collection will be described below.

3.4.1 The use of interviews

The first technique of data collection in this study was interview. An interview constitutes “an interaction between two people, with the interview and the subject acting in relation to each other and reciprocally influencing each other” (Kvale, 1996:35). Thus defined, interviews in this study were an important tool of helping respondents, i.e. two English teachers to bring to consciousness their experience in writing textbook in terms of what processes they had run and what benefits and challenges were gained in that process. Viewed from the researcher’s perspective, this technique enabled him “to understand the world from the subjects’ point of view, to unfold the meaning of people’s experiences, to uncover their lived world prior to scientific explanations”, (Kvale, 1996:1). The

53

experience of writing textbook done by two-teachers was interviewed for attempting to understand the writers’ world as writing textbook.

The reason for choosing this data collection technique was the difficulty of doing direct observation in the process of writing. This argument was based on Patton’s (1990, cited in Merriam, 1998: 72) notion who says:

We interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly observe… We cannot observe feelings, thoughts, and intentions. We cannot observe behavior that took place at some previous point in time. We cannot observe situations that preclude the presence of observer.

A type of interviews applied in this study was individual interview; as defined by Kvale (1996: 4), individual interview constitutes “an inter view, an inter-change of views between two persons conversing about a theme of mutual interest”. Thus, only through individual interviews would this study have possibilities “to allow for greater depth” (Emilia, 2005:81) than is the case with other methods of data collection. Therefore, the researcher’s role to interview the two English teachers was as “a miner”, borrowing Kvale’s (1996:3) metaphoric term, who unearths the valuable metals. The researcher dug nuggets of data or meanings out of the two English teacher’s pure experiences, unpolluted by any leading questions.

Interviews were conducted in the semi structured way mixing between structured and open ended ways which was guided by a list of questions to be explored. This format allowed the researcher to respond the situation at hand, to the emerging the view of the respondents, and to new ideas on topic. Questions asked in individual interviews can be seen in Appendix 1.

Interview data were collected from February to May 2009. Each respondent was interviewed three times along the research in which each interview approximately took 45 minutes. Some interviews were conducted at a senior high school in which a respondent

54

works as a teacher. The others were carried out in their houses. These interviews were conducted in Bahasa Indonesia in order to allow the respondents to express their ideas in a more elaborated way. Before the interview, the researcher informed the interviewees about (i) what was going to be discussed; (ii) the release of pseudonyms in the research report; and (iii) the fact that the conversation would be tape-recorded to avoid the loss of data, and to enable the researcher to transcribe later, enabling an in-depth analysis of the interviewees verbatim statements. Data of interview can completely be seen in Appendix 2 and 3.

Two central themes were asked to the respondents to explore their experiences as they were involved in textbook writing projects, including their background and motivation in writing textbook. The first theme focused on the process of writing textbook done by the respondents. Then, the challenges and benefits encountered by two respondents in the writing textbook were the second theme.

3.4.2 The Use of Documents

Besides using interview technique, this study also “mined data from document” (Merriam, 1998:112; see also Alwasilah, 2005: 155) to find out the physical trace material in the process of writing textbook done by the two respondents. Documents in terms of textbooks yielded by the two teachers were “a ready-made source of data which are easily accessible to the imaginative and resourceful” (Merriam, 1998:112) that would be “mute material evidence” (Hodder, 1994 cited In Merriam, 1998; see also in Silverman, 2005: 112). These data were aimed to keep validity of the research as “data source triangulation” (Stake, 1995 cited in Emilia, 2005:86), supporting the data from other collecting method, namely interview.

55

The documents were taken from two textbooks in which the two respondents involved in the writing team. The first book was English in Context for Grade XII

Language Programme SMA/MA published by Grafindo Media Tama, Jakarta 2005. The

second one was Bahasa Inggris untuk SMA/MA Kelas XII Program Bahasa published Tiara Prima Media, Tangerang, 2005. The part of those documents, particularly which related to the focus of the study can be seen in Appendix 4-8.

3.5 Data Analysis

The data from interviews were transcribed and later categorized and interpreted to answer the research questions. During the transcription stage teachers’ name were replaced with pseudonyms; Tini constituted pseudonym for the first respondent (AH) while Hani was for the second one (JH). It was the pseudonyms that would be used in the research report. This was intended to cater the respondent’s requirement before doing interview as explained in Section 3.4.1. Then, the transcription was “sent back” (Kvale, 1996:189) to the respondents to ensure that it was exactly what the respondents said and meant. Two of Tini’s transcriptions were sent to her while the last one was not sent due to the time constraints. However, all of Hani’s transcriptions were not sent back because of the time constraints.

Next, all interview data were analyzed in steps. The first one was to put interview questions into categories; then a thematic analysis (Merriam, 1998) was developed based on the themes that had become the focus the study, i.e. the process of writing textbook and benefits and challenges in writing process. Later, the data were classified in accordance with the central themes and presented in a condensed body of information (Kvale, 1996) as described respectively in Appendix 2 and 3. And in the discussion of these data, as can

56

be found in Chapter IV, respondent’s writing experiences will be interpreted upon the central theme.

The data from documents taken from the two English textbooks above were analyzed in steps. The first step was to find relevant materials from the two textbooks to the research questions of this study. Then, the authenticity and accuracy of documents as part of the research process were determined by the researcher as suggested by Burgess (1982 cited in Merriam 1998) to avoid treating documents in “isolation”. Burgess further warns to consider about the document, its origin and reasons for being written, its author, and context in which it was written (p.121). The discussion of documents analysis will be presented in Chapter IV to complement the discussion of interview findings.

3.6 Concluding remark

This chapter has discussed a detailed methodological description of the conduct of study, including the research design, the participants, data collection techniques, and analyses employed in the study. Then, based on the methodology, the findings of the study will now be presented in Chapter IV

86 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Introduction

This study was aimed at investigating and exploring the experience of two English teachers who had written textbook. The focus of investigation was the process of writing their textbook and their benefits and challenges of writing textbook. As has been stated in Chapter 4, this chapter will present the conclusions of investigation in this research based on two research questions that has been presented in Chapter 1. Then, the limitations of the study and recommendations for further research also will be discussed as closing of this thesis.

5.2 Conclusions

Two main conclusions of the study are: first, despite some limitations, to be explained below, the process of writing textbook done by the two English teachers generally was relevant to theories proposed by experts of materials design; second, the teachers obtained more benefits than challenges when they were writing textbook.

As has been stated in the first conclusion, the process of writing textbook done by two English teachers generally goes with theories of writing textbook suggested by some materials developers. The general processes of writing textbook, as explained by Richards (2001), are selecting the writing team, planning the number of stages involved, reviewing, writing development, piloting the materials, design and production. Meanwhile the teachers run writing textbook through steps, namely: selecting team project, planning, drafting: creating a sample unit, reviewing, writing development, and designing or art working. As has been discussed in Chapter IV, in an Indonesian context, the existence of

87

writing project is essential factor encouraging the writers to create textbooks. Therefore this condition constitutes an entrance of the textbook writing processes.

The absence of piloting the materials is the most conspicuous distinction from the general processes of writing textbook. The shortage of time and the financial limit seem as causal factor of that condition. Perhaps, in the future the researcher hopes, the textbook being studied, English in Context for SMU/MA, would be piloted to bring revised edition.

Then, dealing with the second conclusion, there are more benefits than challenges obtained by teachers who write textbook. The benefits embrace career improvement, professionalism enhancement, financial increase, and psychological advantage while the challenges comprise managing time of collaborative work, writer’s block and seeking for authentic materials. Based on these findings the researcher expects these facts will encourage more teachers to involve in materials development, particularly in writing textbook. The more teachers involve in this field means the more choices of quality textbook exist.

5.3 Limitations of the study

There are some limitations of the study, and the main one is the limitedness of participants. This study only involves textbook writers. As a collaborative process, the study of writing textbooks should involve more participants who can represent each role in writing textbooks particularly the writer and the editor. The limitation of this study may result an incomplete view of writing textbooks.

The second one is the limitation of literature of writing textbook particularly in Indonesia. Generally the study that discusses textbooks only focuses on the ways of adapting, evaluating, and developing the materials. In case of writing textbook in

88

Indonesia, it has been stated by Alwasilah (2005: 162) that such the study seems still to be rare. Therefore, this condition might have a potential loss of deepening this study.

Next, the study of writing process enables to bring a weakness in terms of cognitive processes as stated by Hayes and Flower (1983) because “many cognitive processes are routine and internalized operations in which are often completed without any conscious recognition”. The potential loss of remembering of what the respondents had done during the process of writing textbook enables getting incompletely view of this study. The attempt to overcome this possibility is to trace their experience through document analysis to the textbook created by two respondents.

5.4 Suggestions

Based on the findings of this study, it is suggested that teachers, particularly those of English teachers, should realize that the process of writing a textbook, as stated by Richards (1998:135), is the same processes that a teacher employs in planning the content of a lesson. Actually they subconsciously have written some master plans of a textbook for their students during their teaching career. This condition enables them to be potential materials writers to yield a textbook that is more appropriate to cater need of its users, i.e. teachers and learners, or at least to involve them in a writing team project. The important thing that teachers should have is writing skill “to transform the central acts of teaching into materials writing” (Shulman, 1987). Therefore, teachers may have to practice sharpening their writing skill to lesson plan as clear as possible. Trainings for developing, evaluating, and adapting materials would improve their writing skill. And the great expectation is to empower them to develop materials whether in-house materials or commercial materials, or at least to be capable to adapt materials from textbook, not be slavers of commercial textbook as often complained recently.

89

Recommendation for further research is that study of writing textbook may bring to more advantages if the research focuses on how a textbook manuscript produced beginning from first draft, revised the first draft, second draft, revised the second draft, and to the final manuscript be ready to largely produce through longitudinal case study in which the researcher involved in. Such research enables to complete view of the process of writing textbook. This is similar to Richards’ and Young’ studies conducted in USA. Of course, in case of an Indonesian context, this would enlarge the horizon of researcher’s thoughts, and exemplify practical experience of how textbooks are written. Besides, in order to obtain a complete view of writing textbook, such the research should not only involve textbook writers but also the editor as participants of the study.

For the teacher educational institutions (LPTK), particularly language educational faculties, it is important to offer their students with textbook writing course in order to empower them to have capability in creating textbooks. If up until now, there are still few of faculties of language education that teach writing textbook in their lecture, so now it is the right time to do it. Perhaps, this constitutes one way to challenge the negative effect of the excessively commercial textbook use which could result the deskilling of teachers by which happens reduction in the teacher’s role and reduction in the quality of teacher’s decision making and pedagogical reasoning.

90

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alwasilah, A. C. (2002). Language, Culture, and Education: A portrait of

Contemporary Indonesia. Bandung: Andira.

Alwasilah, A. C. (2002). Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan

Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.

Alwasilah, A. C., & Alwasilah, S. S. (2005). Pokoknya Menulis: Cara Baru Menulis

dengan Metode Kolaborasi . Bandung: PT Kiblat Buku Utama .

Alwasilah, S. (2002). The Creative Process of Writing: A Casestudy of Three

Indonesian Fiction Writers. Bandung: Unpublished Thesis, Graduate School,

Indonesia University of Education UPI.

Amin, H. (. (1997). Pedoman Pengembangan Perbukuan. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Ansori, A. (2007). The Process of Writing Academic Essay: A Case Study of Students

of Graduate Studies in English of UPI Enrolled in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 Academic Years. Bandung: Unpublished Thesis UPI.

Bachman, L. F. (1997). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, Volume 13

Number 4 December 2008 available at www.nova.edu/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf ,

544-559.

Bell, J., & Gower, R. (1998). Writing course materials for the world: a great

compromise. In B. Tomlinson, Materials Development in Language Teaching (pp. 116-129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Britton, J. (1979). The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan Education Ltd.

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

Pedagogy (2 ed.). New York: A Pearson Education Company.

Brown, J. D. (1995). The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to

Program Development. Boston: Heinle & Heinlei Publisher.

Byrne, D. (1995). Teaching Writing Skills (7 ed.). England: Longman Group UK Limited.

Cambourne, B. (1988). The Whole Story: Natural Learning and the Acquisition of

91

Christie, F. (1987). Genre as choice. In I. Rein, The place of genre in learning: Current

debates (pp. 22-34). Deakin: Centre for Studies in Literary Education Deakin

University.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Researchs Methods in Education (4th ed.). London: Routledge.

Collerson, J. (1989). Writing for Life. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association. Cousin, P. (2000). Content Area Textbooks: Friends or Foes? ERIC Digest. ED321249

.

Crandall, J. (1995). The why, what, and how of ESL reading instructions: Some guidelines for writers of ESL reading textbooks. In P. Byrd, Materials writer's

guide (pp. 79-94). New York: Heinlei and Heinlei.

Crawford, J. (2002). The Role of Materials in the Language Classroom: Finding the Balance. In J. C. Richards, & W. A. Renandya, Methodology in Language

Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice (pp. 80-91). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Cresswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitaitive & Quantitative Approaches. London: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among

Five Traditions. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing Your Coursebook. Oxford: Heinemman. Depdiknas. (2007). Instrumen Penilaian Buku Teks Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris

SMA/MA. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Depdiknas. (2006). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional No.22 Tahun 2006 tentang

Standar Isi. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Donovan, P. (1998). Piloting - a publisher's view. In B. Tomlinson, Materials

development in language teaching (pp. 149-189). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Droukis, D., & Yukitoki, K. (2006). The first publishing experience. Matsda Folio, Vol

10/2, January 2006 .

Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Emilia, E. (2005). A Critical Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in

a Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. Melbourne: Unpublished dissertation, The

University of Melbourne.

92

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL Composition (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Gebhard, J. G. (1996). Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

Goldberg, N. (1986). Writing Down the Bones: Freeing the Writer Within. Boston: Shambala Publications.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Grant, N. (1987). Making the most of your Textbook. London: Longman. Graves, D. H. (1994). A Fresh Look at Writing. Portsmouth: Heinemann .

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and Children at Work. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Graves, K. (1996). A framework of course development process. In K. Graves, & J. C. Richards, Teachers as course developers (pp. 12-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hacker, D. (2003). A Writer's Reference (5 ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's. Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. England: Pearson Education Limited. Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching (3 ed.). England:

Pearson Education Limited.

Harris, T., & Hodges, R. (1995). The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading

and Writing. Newark: International.

Harwood, N. (2005). What do we want EAP teaching materials for? Journal of Englsih

for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) , 149-161.

Herdiah, S. I. (2005). The Process of Writing: How Students Write an Academic

Writing Task: A Case Study of First Year Students of Graduate Studies in English of UPI . Bandung: Unpublished Thesis UPI.

Hewitt, G. (1995). A Portfolio Primer: Teaching, Collecting, and Assessing Student

Writing. Pourstmouth, NH: Heinemman.

Heyland, K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Writing. England: Longman Pearson Education Limited.

Holliday, A. (2007). Doing and Writing Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Hornby, A. (2002). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.

93

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

learning-centred approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Writing. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Johnson, K. (2001). An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Johnson, R. (. (1989). The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jolly, D., & Rod, B. (1998). A framework for materials writing. In B. Tomlinson,

Materials developmetn in language teaching (pp. 90-115). Cambridge :

Cambridge University Press.

Jordan, R. (1998). English for Academic Purpose: A guide and resource book for

teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kamler, B. (1993). The construction of gender in process writing classrooms . In P. Gilbert, Gender Stories and the Language Classroom (p. 41). Deakin: Deakin University.

Kardjono, Sularto, Supardjo, & Junainah, H. (2005). Bahasa Inggris untuk SMA dan

MA kelas XII. Tangerang: Tiara Prima Media.

Kitao, K., & Kitao, S. (1997). Selecting and Developing Teaching/Learning Materials.

The Internet TESL Journal. Vol IV. No.4 .

Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Lami, J. M. (1999). Making the Textbook More Communicative. The Internet TESL

Journal, Vol. V, No. 1, January 1999 .

Lepionka, M. E. (2008). Writing and developing your college textbook: A

comprehensive guide to textbook authorship and higher education publishing.

Journal of book reviews, December 2008 available at http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev754.htm .

Littlejohn, A., & Windeat, S. (1995). Beyond language learning: perspectives on materials design. In R. K. Johnson, The Second Language Curriculum (pp. 155-175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

94

Low, G. (1989). Appropriate design: the internal organisation of course units. In R. K. Johnson, The Second (pp. 136-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Majid, A. (2002). EFL Textbook Evaluation: A Study of Senior High School English

Textbooks by State and Non-State Run Publishers . Bandung: Unpublished

Thesis UPI.

Mansoor, S. (1999). Pengantar penerbitan (2nd ed.). Bandung: ITB Bandung. Marbun, A. (2008). 101 Penulis Kaya 100% Asli Indonesia. Semarang: Ide Media. Masuhara, H. (1998). What do teachers really want from coursebooks? In B.

Tomlinson, Materials development in language teaching (pp. 239-260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCrimmon, J. M. (1984). Writing With a Purpose (8 ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Merriam, & Webster. (1975). Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Massachucetts: G. & C. Merriam Company.

Merriam, B. S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Application In Education. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher.

Murray, D. M. (1985). A Writer Teaches Writing (2 ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Murray, D. M. (1982). Learning by Teaching: Selected Articles on Writing and

Teaching. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.

Newkirk, T. (1990). More than Stories: The Range of Children's Writing. Pourtsmouth NH: Heinemman Educational Books, Inc.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology: A handbook for teachers (1 ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

Nunan, D. (1988b). Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nunan, D. (1988a.). The Learner-Centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (1999). Writing Academic English . London: Longman. Paembonan, T. (1990). Penerbitan dan Pengembangan Buku Pelajaran di Indonesia.

Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Parry, J.-A., & Hornsby, D. (1988). Write On: A Conference Approach to Writing. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.

95

Prowse, P. (1998). How writers write: testimony from authors. In B. Tomlinson,

Materials Development in Language Teaching (pp. 130-145). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Richard, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (1993). Beyond the textbook: The role of commercial materials in language teaching. RELC Journa, Vol 24, No.1, June 1993 , 1-14.

Richards, J. C. (1993). Beyond the Textbook: The Role of Commercial Materials in Language Teaching. RELC Journal, Vol. 24. No 1 DOI:

10.1177/003368829302400101 , 1-14.

Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. (2006). Materials Development and Research-Making the Connection.

RELC Journal, Vol.37(1) , 5-26.

Richards, J. (1990). The Language Teaching Matrix. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sabir. (2008). The Adequacy of English Textbook at Madrasah Aliyah Negeri (MAN)

Bau-Bau Southeast Sulawesi. Bandung: Unpublished Thesis UPI.

Sheldon, E. L. (1987). ELT Textbooks and Materials: Problem in Evaluation and

Development. London: Motdern English Publications.

Sheldon, E. L. (1988). Evaluating ELT Textbooks and Materials. English Language

Teaching Journal (ELTL) 42/4, October 1988 .

Siahaan, B. A. (1987). Pengembangan Materi Pengajaran Bahasa FPS 626. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in ESL . In B. Kroll, Second Language Writing: Research insights for

the classroom (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Stainback, S., & William, S. (1988). Understanding & Conducting Qualitative

Research. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Stake, E. (1985). Case Study. In J. Nisbet, J. Mergary, & S. Nisbet, World yearbook in

education 1985 (p. 278). London: Nicholas Publishing Company.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, The

Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 443-465). California: Sage

96

Sugaryamah, D. (2004). Thesis Writing: Issues, Problems & Possible Solutions: A Case

Study on Graduates of English Education Program, Graduate School of UPI .

Bandung: Unpublished Thesis.

Sundayana, W., Hartati, A., Sofyanda, A., Kurnia, R., & Marsongko, E. (2005). English

in Context for Grade XII Language Programme SMA/MA. Bandung: Grafindo

Media Pratama.

Surianto, T. (1999). Potret Distribusi Buku di Indonesia. In A. Taryadi, Buku dalam

Indonesia Baru (pp. 220-237). Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia (YOI).

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students . Ann Abror: University of Michigan Press.

Syahmadi, H. (2004). The Use of Culture-Based English for College Students Textbook

in EFL Classrooms: Multi-Case Studies at the university of National Bandung and the Pajajaran Polytechnic in the Academic Year 2003-2004. Bandung:

Unpublished Thesis UPI.

Tahrun. (2002). Readibility Analysis of EFL-Package Books for General Senior High

School Student. Bandung: Unpublished Thesis UPI.

UPI. (2007). Pedoman penulisan karya ilmiah. Bandung: Universitas Pendididikan Indonesia UPI.

Walshe, R. D. (1984). Donald Graves in Australia. Australia: PETA. Walshe, R. D. (1990). Every Child Can Write! Australia: PETA.

Watt, M. G. (2007). Research on the textbook publishing industry in the United States of America. IARTEM e-Journal, 1:1 (August 2007) available at

www.iartem.com , 1-17.

Weaver, C. (1990). Understanding Whole Language: From Principles to Practice. Pourtsmouth NH: Heinemman.

Winarno, B. (1999). Proyek Pengembangan Buku dan Kebiasaan Membaca dengan Pinjaman Bank Dunia. In A. Taryadi, Buku dalam Indonesia Baru (pp. 167-182). Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia (YOI).

Yuniarti. (2002). English Instruction in EFL Classroom. Bandung: Unpublished Thesis UPI.

91

Christie, F. (1987). Genre as choice. In I. Rein, The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 22-34). Deakin: Centre for Studies in Literary Education Deakin University.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Researchs Methods in Education (4th ed.). London: Routledge.

Collerson, J. (1989). Writing for Life. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association. Cousin, P. (2000). Content Area Textbooks: Friends or Foes? ERIC Digest. ED321249

.

Crandall, J. (1995). The why, what, and how of ESL reading instructions: Some guidelines for writers of ESL reading textbooks. In P. Byrd, Materials writer's guide (pp. 79-94). New York: Heinlei and Heinlei.

Crawford, J. (2002). The Role of Materials in the Language Classroom: Finding the Balance. In J. C. Richards, & W. A. Renandya, Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice (pp. 80-91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cresswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitaitive & Quantitative Approaches. London: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing Your Coursebook. Oxford: Heinemman. Depdiknas. (2007). Instrumen Penilaian Buku Teks Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris

SMA/MA. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Depdiknas. (2006). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional No.22 Tahun 2006 tentang Standar Isi. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Donovan, P. (1998). Piloting - a publisher's view. In B. Tomlinson, Materials development in language teaching (pp. 149-189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Droukis, D., & Yukitoki, K. (2006). The first publishing experience. Matsda Folio, Vol 10/2, January 2006 .

Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Emilia, E. (2005). A Critical Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in

a Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. Melbourne: Unpublished dissertation, The University of Melbourne.

92

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL Composition (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Gebhard, J. G. (1996). Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

Goldberg, N. (1986). Writing Down the Bones: Freeing the Writer Within. Boston: Shambala Publications.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Grant, N. (1987). Making the most of your Textbook. London: Longman. Graves, D. H. (1994). A Fresh Look at Writing. Portsmouth: Heinemann .

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and Children at Work. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Graves, K. (1996). A framework of course development process. In K. Graves, & J. C. Richards, Teachers as course developers (pp. 12-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hacker, D. (2003). A Writer's Reference (5 ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's. Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. England: Pearson Education Limited. Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching (3 ed.). England:

Pearson Education Limited.

Harris, T., & Hodges, R. (1995). The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. Newark: International.

Harwood, N. (2005). What do we want EAP teaching materials for? Journal of Englsih for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) , 149-161.

Herdiah, S. I. (2005). The Process of Writing: How Students Write an Academic Writing Task: A Case Study of First Year Students of Graduate Studies in English of UPI . Bandung: Unpublished Thesis UPI.

Hewitt, G. (1995). A Portfolio Primer: Teaching, Collecting, and Assessing Student Writing. Pourstmouth, NH: Heinemman.

Heyland, K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Writing. England: Longman Pearson Education Limited.

Holliday, A. (2007). Doing and Writing Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Hornby, A. (2002). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.

93

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centred approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Writing. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Johnson, K. (2001). An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Johnson, R. (. (1989). The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jolly, D., & Rod, B. (1998). A framework for materials writing. In B. Tomlinson, Materials developmetn in language teaching (pp. 90-115). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Jordan, R. (1998). English for Academic Purpose: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kamler, B. (1993). The construction of gender in process writing classrooms . In P. Gilbert, Gender Stories and the Language Classroom (p. 41). Deakin: Deakin University.

Kardjono, Sularto, Supardjo, & Junainah, H. (2005). Bahasa Inggris untuk SMA dan MA kelas XII. Tangerang: Tiara Prima Media.

Kitao, K., & Kitao, S. (1997). Selecting and Developing Teaching/Learning Materials. The Internet TESL Journal. Vol IV. No.4 .

Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Lami, J. M. (1999). Making the Textbook More Communicative. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. V, No. 1, January 1999 .

Lepionka, M. E. (2008). Writing and developing your college textbook: A

comprehensive guide to textbook authorship and higher education publishing. Journal of book reviews, December 2008 available at

http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev754.htm .

Littlejohn, A., & Windeat, S. (1995). Beyond language learning: perspectives on materials design. In R. K. Johnson, The Second Language Curriculum (pp. 155-175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

94

Low, G. (1989). Appropriate design: the internal organisation of course units. In R. K. Johnson, The Second (pp. 136-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Majid, A. (2002). EFL Textbook Evaluation: A Study of Senior High School English

Textbooks by State and Non-State Run Publishers . Bandung: Unpublished Thesis UPI.

Mansoor, S. (1999). Pengantar penerbitan (2nd ed.). Bandung: ITB Bandung. Marbun, A. (2008). 101 Penulis Kaya 100% Asli Indonesia. Semarang: Ide Media. Masuhara, H. (1998). What do teachers really want from coursebooks? In B.

Tomlinson, Materials development in language teaching (pp. 239-260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCrimmon, J. M. (1984). Writing With a Purpose (8 ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Merriam, & Webster. (1975). Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Massachucetts: G. & C. Merriam Company.

Merriam, B. S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Application In Education. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher.

Murray, D. M. (1985). A Writer Teaches Writing (2 ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Murray, D. M. (1982). Learning by Teaching: Selected Articles on Writing and Teaching. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.

Newkirk, T. (1990). More than Stories: The Range of Children's Writing. Pourtsmouth NH: Heinemman Educational Books, Inc.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology: A handbook for teachers (1 ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

Nunan, D. (1988b). Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nunan, D. (1988a.). The Learner-Centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (1999). Writing Academic English . London: Longman. Paembonan, T. (1990). Penerbitan dan Pengembangan Buku Pelajaran di Indonesia.

Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Parry, J.-A., & Hornsby, D. (1988). Write On: A Conference Approach to Writing. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.

95

Prowse, P. (1998). How writers write: testimony from authors. In B. Tomlinson, Materials Development in Language Teaching (pp. 130-145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richard, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (1993). Beyond the textbook: The role of commercial materials in language teaching. RELC Journa, Vol 24, No.1, June 1993 , 1-14.

Richards, J. C. (1993). Beyond the Textbook: The Role of Commercial Materials in Language Teaching. RELC Journal, Vol. 24. No 1 DOI:

10.1177/003368829302400101 , 1-14.

Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. (2006). Materials Development and Research-Making the Connection.

RELC Journal, Vol.37(1) , 5-26.

Richards, J. (1990). The Language Teaching Matrix. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sabir. (2008). The Adequacy of English Textbook at Madrasah Aliyah Negeri (MAN) Bau-Bau Southeast Sulawesi. Bandung: Unpublished Thesis UPI.

Sheldon, E. L. (1987). ELT Textbooks and Materials: Problem in Evaluation and Development. London: Motdern English Publications.

Sheldon, E. L. (1988). Evaluating ELT Textbooks and Materials. English Language Teaching Journal (ELTL) 42/4, October 1988 .

Siahaan, B. A. (1987). Pengembangan Materi Pengajaran Bahasa FPS 626. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in ESL . In B. Kroll, Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Stainback, S., & William, S. (1988). Understanding & Conducting Qualitative Research. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Stake, E. (1985). Case Study. In J. Nisbet, J. Mergary, & S. Nisbet, World yearbook in education 1985 (p. 278). London: Nicholas Publishing Company.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 443-465). California: Sage Publications, Inc.

96

Sugaryamah, D. (2004). Thesis Writing: Issues, Problems & Possible Solutions: A Case Study on Graduates of English Education Program, Graduate School of UPI . Bandung: Unpublished Thesis.

Sundayana, W., Hartati, A., Sofyanda, A., Kurnia, R., & Marsongko, E. (2005). English in Context for Grade XII Language Programme SMA/MA. Bandung: Grafindo Media Pratama.

Surianto, T. (1999). Potret Distribusi Buku di Indonesia. In A. Taryadi, Buku dalam Indonesia Baru (pp. 220-237). Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia (YOI). Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students . Ann

Abror: University of Michigan Press.

Syahmadi, H. (2004). The Use of Culture-Based English for College Students Textbook in EFL Classrooms: Multi-Case Studies at the university of National Bandung and the Pajajaran Polytechnic in the Academic Year 2003-2004. Bandung: Unpublished Thesis UPI.

Tahrun. (2002). Readibility Analysis of EFL-Package Books for General Senior High School Student. Bandung: Unpublished Thesis UPI.

UPI. (2007). Pedoman penulisan karya ilmiah. Bandung: Universitas Pendididikan Indonesia UPI.

Walshe, R. D. (1984). Donald Graves in Australia. Australia: PETA. Walshe, R. D. (1990). Every Child Can Write! Australia: PETA.

Watt, M. G. (2007). Research on the textbook publishing industry in the United States of America. IARTEM e-Journal, 1:1 (August 2007) available at

www.iartem.com , 1-17.

Weaver, C. (1990). Understanding Whole Language: From Principles to Practice. Pourtsmouth NH: Heinemman.

Winarno, B. (1999). Proyek Pengembangan Buku dan Kebiasaan Membaca dengan Pinjaman Bank Dunia. In A. Taryadi, Buku dalam Indonesia Baru (pp. 167-182). Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia (YOI).

Yuniarti. (2002). English Instruction in EFL Classroom. Bandung: Unpublished Thesis UPI.