The Language Teacher
September 2003
L2 Learner Attitudes to EFL Textbooks
Paul Hullah
Okayama Kawasaki Junior College
Background
Recent research has shown that L2 performance is significantly affected by a number of variables, including textbook (Brown, 2000) and study-text genre or type (Hullah & O'Sullivan, 1995; Partridge, 1996; Hullah, 2003). It has also been proposed that textbooks should stimulate the learner's intellectual curiosity, in terms of both linguistic and thematic content (McCarthy & Carter, 1994), while Sims (1995) has demonstrated that students "interested" in the book they are studying outperform those who are not on ability measurement tests. Choice of course textbook is therefore a crucial element of EFL instruction. Pre-course selection of a course textbook which subsequently proves unsuitable to students enrolling in the class (too difficult, too easy, irrelevant or inappropriate to student interests or age-group etc.) can have a negative impact on student (and teacher) motivation. As the textbook forms the mediating link between teacher and learner, and with research on learner autonomy urging us that learners should be allowed to play a more active role in their study, we ought to be involving students in study materials selection. However, in Japan, one of the world's major EFL markets, student opinion itself regarding the usefulness and appropriateness of different textbook types has not yet been formally studied.
Rationale
Tudor (2001) proposes that language teaching methods current in the 1960s and 1970s failed learners because they "did not present language as a communicative tool and provided inadequate practice in the integrated use of the language for communicative purposes" (p.112). In the 1980s Monbusho memorably declared that English tuition in Japan was thenceforward to be a "communicative" procedure, with less emphasis placed upon mechanical translation and grammatical exercises in favor of the promotion of more spoken English in the classroom. For a while, use of the learners' L1 was discouraged in the university classroom (Schmidt, 1995; Uemichi, 1984), and at the high-school level native English speakers, on the JET program for instance, were drafted to give assistance to Japanese English teachers, some of whom were uncomfortable speaking English aloud as a result of themselves having passed through the same education system offering intensive English grammar and translation instruction but devoid of "speaking" or "listening" practice (Reed, 1997). Faced with this move towards "communicative" instruction in the classroom, textbooks followed suit and instead of readers containing extracts from "literary" works or brief essays on geography, culture, science, current affairs, etc., less content-heavy, basic conversation-inducing manuals began to appear. The prime aim of such texts is to provide students with a basic speaking knowledge of functional English as used in "everyday" situations (going to the doctor, going to the bank) and intellectually undemanding conversations (What's your favorite color? What kind of music do you like? Introduce yourself; describe your room, your family, your hometown... and so on). These conversation-oriented manuals appear to have achieved their stated aim, and junior-high and high school classrooms are certainly noisier places than they were in the 1980s. First-year university classrooms, at least at the universities in Japan at which I have been employed, have now less the air of a funeral parlor than they had 10 years ago. Though university entrance exams still dictate that students require a firm grasp of grammar, it has been my experience that learners entering university nowadays generally display a confidence in basic spoken English which their seniors lacked a decade ago.
Today, having entered tertiary education, students continue to learn English from textbooks which they do not choose themselves. Of course, in an ideal world, teachers and learners could get together before the first class of a new course and mutually come to an agreement as to what text would work best. But this is not the case: unknown variables lurking in the background while a teacher pre-selects a course textbook may be class-size, student ability levels, and student major. Due to such significant variables which an EFL teacher must often accommodate in the formulation of a course, and especially as a greater degree of learner autonomy is permitted to enter the classroom and its environs, it seems pertinent and reasonable to invite learners to participate in their own studies as more than passive receptacles. As Tudor (2001) declares: "language learners are thinking human beings who bring with them to the classroom a variety of knowledge, experience, and insights which can allow them to play an active role in their language learning. In other words, language learners have the potential to be active agents in and co-authors (Pennycook, 1997) of their learning." (Tudor, 2001, p. 117).
Aims
I was interested above all in discovering:
- what Japanese tertiary-level students think about the EFL textbooks they are using
- to what extent these students are studying from the type of textbook they themselves believe to be the optimum available teaching aid.
As far as I am aware, this is the first survey of its kind that has been attempted in Japan, and the brevity of the literature available is indicative of the lack of research that has been undertaken in this sphere.
The Study
I set out to design a questionnaire which would focus attention on to the above issues, and precisely and effectively elicit responses which could then be presented statistically in order to draw conclusions. Clearly, it was important that questions were a) clearly and unambiguously phrased, b) not loaded or leading in any obvious way, c) as relevant as possible to the cause, and d) quickly answerable.
Pilot versions of the questionnaire were tested over several months. Various versions, initially consisting solely of open questions, were given to university students in and around the Okayama region (none of the people included in pilot groups were asked to complete the final version of the questionnaire). Comments were invited and, based upon the subsequent feedback, questions were dropped, added, or modified. For example, the open-ended questions, "What kind of textbook do you like using in an English class?" and "What should a good English textbook contain?" were both regarded as too vague and thus were abandoned. A statement on the questionnaire which originally read, "I have learned nothing from this textbook" was amended to "I have learned nothing new from this textbook" after a student in the pilot study commented that he had "maybe learned, but not anything new" from a coursebook he was using. A further statement, "I have learned a lot of new English from this textbook" was then added in order to permit respondent clarification as to exactly what had been learned. In this way the contents of the final version of the questionnaire reflected a wide cross-section of student opinion. It has been suggested in the literature that a panel of experts be convened to evaluate the contents of any questionnaire in order to establish one aspect of its content validity, i.e. the extent to which the measurement reflects the specific intended domain of content (Brown, 1988). In this case, content validity was established through a number of procedures. The "expert panel" idea was called upon and a group of five university teachers was asked to comment on the questionnaire at all stages of its development. The panel consisted of men and women from a range of institutions, with a range of experience at this level both in Japan and in other countries. The fact that the whole questionnaire was generated in a collaborative way, by including the views of both students and teachers, added to my conviction that, in this respect, the final version was satisfactory in terms of both face validity (i.e. the extent to which the measurement procedure seems well-designed and reasonable) and content validity.
Once a satisfactory final version of the questionnaire had been produced, over 400 copies were distributed, by post, to native-speaker teachers working all over Japan who had been contacted previously and had agreed to assist with the survey. The questionnaires were distributed to university EFL classes in Tokyo (2 classes), Osaka (2), Okayama (3), Shikoku (1), Shizuoka (1), and Fukuoka (1) (see Appendix A). Classes surveyed all comprised first year students taking the first, compulsory English course of their university career: this was for consistency and to avoid one student's opinion of one textbook being colored by his/her opinion of another book used in a previous tertiary-level English course. The questionnaires were handed out at the end of the final class unit of the course before the final examination, completed "on the spot" and collected without delay. Participating teachers were asked to remind the students that it was the textbook (not the teacher or course as a whole) that they were being asked to assess. Respondents were also told that, if they so wished, they could fill in the open Part 2 of the questionnaire in Japanese, and over 80% of students elected to do so.
The questionnaire did not ask for a respondent's name since it was felt that preservation of anonymity would encourage honesty and freedom of critical expression. However, participants were required to furnish details of their age (mean = 18.885), gender (male = 64%, female = 36%), years of university study (all = 1), title and author of the textbook they were using, and their Major (Environmental Science = 2 classes, Literature = 2, Medicine = 2, Economics = 1, Science = 1, Law = 1, Education = 1). So far, 365 replies have been collected, comprising ten classes of students. Of these ten classes, half (193 students) were using conversation-oriented manuals, while the other five classes (172 students) studied from content-based manuals (see Appendices A and B).
The Instrument
The questionnaire was presented in two sections and will be described accordingly here.
- A list of eight statements regarding the English textbook currently being studied was given. Participants were asked to indicate, by means of circling a figure on a scale of 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree), e.g.,
1. I enjoy using this textbook.
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 - Participants were asked to respond freely (in English or Japanese) to two questions, "What is the best thing about this textbook?" and "What is the worst thing about this textbook?"
Results
These results strongly suggest that there is a clear division of opinion as to the kind of coursebook which university students feel to be appropriate to their ability and maturity levels as adult learners continuing EFL study. For statements positively praising the virtue or effectiveness of the textbook (statements 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7) the content-based books consistently outperform the practical conversation manuals (the conversation manuals score a 1.88 mean for these statements, whereas the content-based books have a total mean in this area of 3.54). Similarly, statements drawing attention to aspects of the coursebook perceived to be negative (statements 2 and 8) revealed far greater discontent with the basic conversation-style coursebooks than with their content-framing counterparts. It is also interesting that the biggest difference in mean scores for one single statement came with Statement 6. With regard to the conversation manuals, students clearly feel such books to be inappropriate, though they show no corresponding lack of satisfaction with the content-based texts.
Table 1: Results for Part 1 (n = 365)
| Conversation Manual | Content-based Textbook | |||
| Mean/Standard Deviation | Mean/Standard Deviation | |||
| 1. I enjoy using this textbook | 2.8 | 0.83 | 4.3 | 0.77 |
| 2. This textbook's English is too difficult for me | 1.2 | 1.02 | 2.1 | 2.0 |
| 3. This textbook contains interesting topics | 2.1 | 0.81 | 3.9 | 0.57 |
| 4. This textbook contains a lot of useful English | 2.6 | 1.1 | 3.1 | 0.4 |
| 5. I have learned a lot of new English from this textbook | 1.0 | 1.80 | 3.1 | 0.83 |
| 6. This textbook is suitable for someone of my age | 1.3 | 1.25 | 4.2 | 0.95 |
| 7. My English has improved as a result of using this textbook | 0.9 | 1.1 | 3.3 | 1.4 |
| 8. I have learned nothing new from using this textbook | 3.8 | 1.05 | 1.0 | 2.7 |
The first part of the questionnaire was also examined for reliability. The internal consistency of the survey items dealing with dissatisfaction and that of the items dealing with satisfaction were calculated at .86 and .91 respectively. This was judged to be acceptable, and the instrument concluded to be highly reliable.
A look at responses to the second part of the questionnaire may help us to understand the reasoning behind the above sets of responses. Comments regarded as irrelevant to this study (i.e. "Teacher was handsome," "Teacher wears nice dress") were ignored.
Sample comments received from respondents using conversation-oriented manuals (number of times a comment appeared is indicated by a number in parentheses):
- What is the best thing about this textbook?
It's easy (61); lots of speaking (32); lots of pictures (24); low price (5) - What is the worst thing about this textbook?
Too easy (63); not interesting (33); all classes are same (28); boring (14); for children (14); too stupid (3); textbook was easier than high school English, my English got worse this year. I feel sad. (1)
Sample comments received from respondents using content-based texts (number of times a comment appeared is indicated by a number in parentheses):
- What is the best thing about this textbook?
Interesting (73); real English (43); lots of speaking (42); different topics every week (17); learning not only English (17); gives me new ideas (13); low price (2) - 2. What is the worst thing about this textbook?
Nothing (41); sometimes topic is not interesting (10); sometimes English instructions are not clear (7)
Conclusion
The results of this survey have clear implications for language teachers. For optimum success in the classroom, we must be prepared to accommodate student opinion in EFL textbook selection. In my own experience, unlike the situation ten years ago, most students entering university in Japan are more or less proficient in Basic English conversation skills and no longer petrified when confronted by a living and breathing "gaikokujin." A university is a place of intellectual exchange and the intellectually unchallenging content of many current wide used basic conversation manuals, while possibly relevant to beginners or false starters, is no longer suitable for students who have already studied English (properly) for 6 years. It is our duty to offer these young adults something with more intellectual substance of the sort which these young adult learners are clearly craving and eager to tackle. Publishers must provide texts for university-level EFL instruction which not only promote communicative English, but ones that do so by un-childish means, no longer patronizing students by spoon-feeding them the same course content they experienced at high school, allowing their level of comprehension to progress from that of high school learning and challenging them: flagging student enthusiasm can easily trigger a corresponding ebbing of teacher commitment to the cause, resulting in a vicious cycle of negativity which can grind a course to a standstill. Conversation-oriented manuals clearly work well with beginners: they have a time and a place but it is not in the university classroom; expecting a modern-day Japanese university freshman to profit from (re)integration with phrasebook-style conversations regarding his or her room and family members is akin to asking a university Mathematics major to recite the 2x tables. Nunan (1999) notes that, one of the "things that helped most" in second language acquisition when subjected to broad survey was "motivation" whilst, conversely, two of the "things that helped least" were "lack of motivation," and "childish materials, e.g., picture books." We teachers should take note. If textbook content is not appropriate, motivation, thus progress, will dwindle and die.
Acknowledgements
My warm thanks go to the teachers and students who generously assisted me with this research project, and to John Lowe of Thomson Learning and Steven Maginn of Macmillan Education who both offered insightful critical commentary on an early draft of this paper. I also owe gratitude to Nigel Henry and two anonymous TLT reviewers who gave sound advice to me at the editing stage.
References
Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language acquisition research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, K. J. (2000). What kind of text, for whom and when? textual scaffolding for beginning readers. Reading Teacher, 53(4), 292-307.
Hullah, P. (2003). Is L2 oral test performance affected by audio stimulus genre? Paper presented at JALT Regional Seminar, Okayama, Japan.
Hullah, P., & O'Sullivan, B. (1995). The effect of text type on learner written performance. Paper presented at the RELC International Seminar, Singapore.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse. London: Addison Wesley Longman.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Partridge, B. (1996). Genre, text type, and the language learning classroom. ELT Journal, 50(3), 237-43.
Pennycook, A. (1997). Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 35-53). London: Addison Wesley Longman.
Reed, H. (1997). American teachers working with Japanese teachers of English in Japanese schools: an American view of educational contradictions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, USA.
Schmidt, K. (1995). Use of Japanese in the EFL classroom: Which way to go? ETAPS Journal, 1995, 63-79.
Sims, J. (1995). Extensive reading for pleasure vs. skill-based instruction. Paper presented at the RELC International Seminar, Singapore.
Tudor, I. (2001). The dynamics of the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uemichi, I. (1984). No Japanese is necessary for teaching English in Japan. Paper presented at JALT Regional Seminar, Osaka, Japan.
Paul Hullah (MA, PhD) has taught at national and private universities in Western Japan since 1992. He is interested in content-based teaching and the influence of study text-type on L2 performance. He has written a series of successful EFL textbooks using "literary" texts (prose, poetry, and song) to promote communicative comprehension and self-expression among Japanese university students. He has also published and presented widely in TEFL and literary critical areas, and an award-winning collection of his own poetry appeared in Britain in 2000. He can be reached at paulhullah@hotmail.com.
Appendix A
Breakdown of classes surveyed by region, major, size, and study text used.
| Region | Major | Class Size | Study Text |
| Tokyo | Environmental Science | 37 | Kick Off |
| Tokyo | Literature | 30 | A Window on Literature |
| Osaka | Medicine | 32 | About Britain |
| Osaka | Economics | 36 | Main Street 3 |
| Okayama | Environmental Science | 29 | Changes 1 |
| Okayama | Literature | 36 | Poem into Poem |
| Okayama | Medicine | 31 | Face the Issues |
| Shikoku | Science | 46 | Atlas 2 |
| Shizuoka | Law | 43 | Personal Themes in Literature |
| Fukuoka | Education | 45 | Airwaves |
Appendix B
Books used as part of this survey:
1) Conversation-oriented manuals
Bunday, D., & Randell, N. (1996). Kick-off. London: Macmillan LanguageHouse.
Fuller. D., & Grimm, C. W. (1995). Airwaves. London: Macmillan LanguageHouse.
Nunan, D. (1995). Atlas 2. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Richards, J. C. (1994). Changes 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Viney, P., Viney, K., & Rein, D. P. (1994). Main street 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2) Content-based texts
Geddes, M. (1989). About Britain. London: Macmillan LanguageHouse.
Jorgensen, S., & Whiteson, V. (1993). Personal themes in literature. New York: Prentice Hall Regents.
Lazar, G. (1999). A window on literature Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maley, A., & Moulding, S. (1997). Poem into poem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Numrich, C. (1997). Face the issues. London: Addison Wesley Longman.
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website