International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies

ISSN(e): 2306-0646
ISSN(p): 2306-9910
DOI: 10.55493/5019.v11i4.4616
Vol. 11, No. 4, 155-166.
© 2022 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.
URL: www.aessweb.com

ENGLISH TEXTBOOK CHALLENGE IN JORDAN: AN IN-DEPTH

ANALYSIS

Ali Ata Alkhaldi1+

1,2
American University of the Middle East, Liberal Arts Department, Kuwait.
1
Email: Ali.Al-Khaldi@aum.edu.kw
Ulas Kayapinar2 2
Email: Ulas.Kayapinar@aum.edu.kw

(+ Corresponding author)
ABSTRACT
Article History Published textbooks are widely used as a main source for learning English language in
Received: 12 July 2022
Revised: 26 August 2022
countries like Jordan. The Jordanian learners often complain about the difficulty of
Accepted: 9 September 2022 learning English using the textbooks which are changed every few years. Therefore,
Published: 23 September 2022
this study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the textbooks, identify the potential
Keywords problems, go beneath the authors’ claims and their attractive designs, and provide
English textbook
Language learning
insights about the textbook and the analysis process. The researchers analyzed the
Materials development content of the Jordanian textbooks using the in-depth analysis method. A criterion-
Professional development
Textbook analysis based checklist was used to analyze a sample of the published textbook “Action Pack
Textbook evaluation. 12”, and the chosen sample was Unit 6. The study revealed significant findings about
the role of the learners which was to “respond” rather than to “initiate”, and most of
their expected production was based on the word and/or sentence level. Moreover, the
role of the teacher in providing useful, relevant input was not emphasized in the
textbooks. Furthermore, this study guides English textbook writers and publishers on
how to involve useful content in their published language materials, such as extended
discourse, interactive linguistic activities, and interesting activities for creative thinking
and critical thinking skills to enhance the quality of English language learning.

Contribution/ Originality: This study contributes significantly to the field of language material development,
enriching the related literature about the effectiveness of the language teaching and learning theories. The study
with the help of the analysis of textbook activities, would help gain useful insights about the analysis process of
“published textbooks”.

1. INTRODUCTION
English textbooks are used to teach English as a Foreign Language (FL) at Jordanian schools. Students
generally start using textbooks for learning English from elementary school when they are five or six years old
until they finish high school at age of eighteen years old. All Jordanian students must pass all the subjects at high
school, including English, for university admission. The Jordanian Ministry of Education has introduced a series of
textbooks for high schools called Action Pack. This series is a complete series from grade one until grade twelve.
An English textbook may not be satisfactory for successful language learning (McGrath, 2002), and it may not
help the learners develop their communicative competence effectively (Tomlinson, 2011). Textbook publishers try
to achieve financial success (Richards, 2001), and the ministries of education whose students use English as a FL

155
© 2022 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2022, 11(4): 155-166

usually change their textbooks every few years (Alkhaldi & Oshchepkova, 2018). In other words, commercial
considerations and the practice of changing textbooks frequently may result in the textbook not being fit for
effective learning. Therefore, there is a need to analyse it thoroughly to determine its effectiveness and develop it to
meet the learners’ needs and levels.
The process of textbook analysis is an objective description that generates key data about the target textbooks
(McGrath, 2002). There is a need to analyze the textbook closely to help the teachers develop their textbooks
effectively (Littlejohn, 2011). They may also have professional development training in how to develop their
textbooks. Furthermore, there is a need to test the claims of the textbook authors which are made in the teacher’s
guide and/or in the textbooks themselves (Cunningsworth, 1995). This study addresses this need. The textbook is
one of the main sources that is used for language learning in Jordan. This analysis will help the teachers to get
insight about the textbooks, activities, and authors’ objectives.

1.1. Statement of the Problem

Commercial textbooks are widely used in many countries, so they are changed every few years, that is, they are
replaced by other textbooks (Alkhaldi, 2011; Alkhaldi & Oshchepkova, 2018). The main motive for publishers is
likely to achieve financial benefits (Dat, 2006). Moreover, there is also a research gap between language theories, on
which the language activities of the textbook or the related research findings are based (Alkhaldi, 2014; Saraceni,
2003). The students also struggle and complain about the textbooks and the difficulty of language learning
(Alkhaldi, 2011). Therefore, it is important to analyze and test the effectiveness of the textbooks and the authors’
claims. The strengths and weaknesses of language teaching and learning principles can also be assessed based on
the findings of the related research studies (Alkhaldi, 2010).

1.2. Purpose of the Study

A textbook analysis aims to provide a description which may be used in conjunction with an evaluation or as an
alternative to evaluation (McGrath, 2002). A textbook analysis can assist teachers to find out the strengths and
weaknesses of their language textbooks, scrutinize the claims of the textbook authors carefully, and identify the
mismatch between the levels of FL learners and their textbooks or identify the mismatch between theory and
practice (Alkhaldi, 2011; Saraceni, 2003). A textbook analysis may also be used for selection (Mukundan, 2009)
and/or development purposes. It can also help the teachers and researchers to gain insight about the textbook,
analysis process, and authors’ claims (Alkhaldi, 2011; McGrath, 2002). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
provide insights about the role of the textbook and its effectiveness, the role of teachers, the role of the learners, the
analysis process, content, and activities.

1.3. The Role of the Textbook

The students in Jordan depend on the textbooks and accompanying materials for learning the English
language. The textbook is important since it “fulfils a need, a purpose, it performs a function, conveys meaning….
language and course books do not exist in a vacuum – they exist for and are shaped by a purpose within a particular
context of use, culture and ideology” (Wala, 2003). The use of a textbook for learning English language has the
following potential benefits:
• It guides the Jordanian learners and teachers about the language education process (Timmis, Mukundan, &
Alkhaldi, 2009). It can guide them on how and when to teach and learn the language skills and items
(Crawford, 2002) by presenting the language content, skills, and activities that shape what might happen
inside the schools (Byrd, 2001).
• It standardizes the process of language teaching and learning in Jordan (Richards, 2001). The same
textbooks are used in all schools to ensure that the same content and activities are delivered for all learners

156
© 2022 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2022, 11(4): 155-166

to be tested with the same approach. However, this might be considered as a barrier for language learning
since the textbook may not meet all the needs and levels of learners in all Jordanian schools (Canniveng &
Martinez, 2003).
• It maintains the quality of content and activities (Bell & Gower, 1998). If the Jordanian students use well-
designed textbooks, they may achieve quality language learning in all schools. Nevertheless, this may
affect the teachers’ creativity since they are restricted to specific topics and content, limited time, and same
exam question items (Richards, 2001).
• It includes a useful input for students (Cunningsworth, 1995; Timmis et al., 2009). The textbook provides
useful content which helps students to achieve effective learning, and it saves the teachers’ time and efforts
(Richards, 2001).
• It involves activities and tasks for classroom interaction (Mares, 2003). The interaction between learners
and teachers through the textbooks is crucial for achieving the learning outcomes of language learning
(Crawford, 2002), so the textbook presents activities to promote interaction inside the classroom (Timmis
et al., 2009).
• It helps the teachers in their continuous professional development for teaching the language (Mukundan,
2009). The teacher’s guide may include ideas on how to teach the language skills and aspects (Richards,
2001), and it provides them with the needed support related to language, methodology, and culture
(McGrath, 2002). In other words, the textbook can include linguistic and cultural input which can assist
the teachers to teach professionally (Crawford, 2002).
The textbook is written to assist the teachers and learners to learn the target language effectively in countries
like Jordan through providing them linguistic, cultural, and methodological support at the highest quality
standards. It is also a useful source for a creative classroom interaction.

1.3.1. Objectives of Textbooks

The objectives of textbooks are essential for teaching, evaluating and/or developing the textbooks (Graves,
2000; Richards, 2001). The textbooks should meet the objectives of the target language and reflect the learners’
needs, interests, and levels (Cunningsworth, 1995). They should also be clearly stated (Graves, 2000; Richards,
2001). The objectives can provide guidelines for teachers and learners, facilitate planning, and provide the teachers
with measurable outcomes (Richards, 2001). Despite the fact that the objectives are very important, they are not
stated in the textbook or the target Jordanian teacher’s guide. The available sections which are available in the
teacher’s guide are table of content, scope and sequence, introduction about the topics and skills, guidelines about
using and teaching the textbook, features of the textbook, and suggestions for various classroom activities.
The textbook is a key site for studying the authors’ objectives, language content, and language teaching and
learning methodologies (Alkhaldi, 2011; Alkhaldi & Oshchepkova, 2018). The Jordanian textbook authors claim
that the textbook is carefully designed to help students develop the language skills (Pelteret, Kilbey, & Greet,
2015b). This means that the students may be able to develop their language skills by studying their graded
syllabus. The authors also state that their textbooks provide the students with a lot of opportunities for listening to
English native speakers and for practicing speaking in English. However, the teachers who use Action Pack series
for teaching English are not native speakers of English. The recordings are made by native speakers, but the
teachers are not native speakers.
Moreover, the authors also mention that the textbooks provide the students with useful controlled reading
practice through reading passages in modules. They also discuss the importance of critical thinking skills claiming
that they are included in their textbooks. They indicate that “Critical thinking has become a focus in the English
language class along with the other language and study skills such as reading, listening, grammar, planning, and
organizing information in a writing task… classes that involve problem solving and critical thinking are more

157
© 2022 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2022, 11(4): 155-166

interesting” (pp. 12-13). This shows that the authors are aware of the importance of developing language skills and
critical thinking skills through using the textbooks. The objectives are carefully written to satisfy the users.

1.4. The Role of Teachers

The teachers have a significant role in the teaching process, analyzing the textbooks, and developing them
(Canniveng & Martinez, 2003; Tomlinson, 2003). They have different styles for teaching the language by using the
textbook, so the same textbooks are taught differently, and their role is to facilitate, guide or monitor the learning
process (Cunningsworth, 1995). Furthermore, they can know their students’ needs and help them learn the
language based on their levels (Byrd, 2001), so the teachers can be involved in analyzing their textbooks for
development purposes (Graves, 2000).
Tomlinson (1998) indicates that “for any materials to contribute positively to teacher development they must
not be imposed; they must invite and facilitate reflection, evaluation and adaptation by the teachers, and they must
involve teachers in the development and testing of the materials” (p. 343). Moreover, the teacher’s role is not taken
into serious consideration by ministries of education and textbook authors. Masuhara (1998) concludes the
following teachers’ needs:
a- Personal needs: age; sex; cultural background; interests; educational background; teachers’ language
proficiency.
b- Professional needs: preferred teaching styles; teacher training experience; teaching experience. (p.240)
It is argued that argues that identifying the teachers’ needs can provide key information for developing the
teacher’s guide. McDonough and Shaw (2003) argue that the teachers who use the textbooks are keen on analyzing
and developing their textbooks. In other words, the teachers should have a significant role in analyzing, developing
and using the textbook professionally which will reflect positively on learners’ progress.

1.5. The Role of Learners

Learners are the center of the learning process, and the textbooks are written for them. Learners’ needs, levels,
and interests should be taken into consideration in the textbook analysis and evaluation to be developed effectively
(Jolly & Bolitho, 1998). McGrath (2002) indicates that "There needs to be a reasonably good fit between the
material, the learners (age, level and cultural background, including sophistication) and the constraints under which
teaching takes place (length of course, course aims, official syllabus, public examination)" (p. 35). The common
learners’ needs can be summarized as follows:
• Personal needs: age; sex; cultural background; interest; educational background.
• Learning needs: learning styles; previous language learning experiences; gap between the target level and
the present level in terms of knowledge (e.g., target language and its culture; gap between the target level of
proficiency in various competence areas (e.g., skills, strategies); learning goals and expectations for a course.
• Future professional needs: requirement for the future undertakings in terms of: knowledge of language;
knowledge of language use; L2 competence (Masuhara, 1998).
Richards (2001) specifies the learners’ needs with the linguistic needs indicating that it is useful to identify the
learners’ needs to know the language skills and items that the learners need to perform a particular role. The needs
of the Jordanian learners are related to the language skills for lifelong learning and employment purposes.

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This section illustrates the characteristics of the participants, data collection, data analysis, and methods of
textbook analysis. It also presents the checklist and its categories (i.e., Content, Expectations of learners, and
Interaction inside the classroom based on the textbook activities).

158
© 2022 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2022, 11(4): 155-166

2.1. Sample of the study

The researchers selected “Action Pack 12” as a sample of the study, particularly Unit 6. The textbook is used
for teaching English language for 17- or 18-year-old learners. The sampled unit was analyzed around the midpoint
of the target textbook which made up almost 15% of the total textbook as recommended by some studies (e.g.,
(Cunningsworth, 1995; Littlejohn, 2011)). The chosen unit consisted of 6 pages and 27 tasks in total. The
researchers chose the grade 12 textbook because it was the last and top level of the series which was supposed to be
well-designed.

2.2. Data Collection

The data was collected using an adapted framework from Littlejohn (1992); Littlejohn (2011) focusing on three
major categories: 1) content, 2) expectations of learners, and 3) interaction. The first category involved form (input
to learners and output by learners), nature, and source of the content. The second category included turn take,
focus, and operations. It concerned identifying the expectations that the learners have to perform to fulfil the task
requirements. The third category involved individual work, pair work, and group work. It was related to the tasks
that constituted the interaction or the learners’ participation. This categorization helped the researchers to identify
the learners’ classroom participation and calculate the feature percentages (see the analysis in Appendix 1).

2.3. Data Analysis

The following three methods of textbook analysis are widely prevalent and known by different names:
Impressionistic Method, In-depth Method, and the Outcome Method.
• Impressionistic Method: The “impressionistic” method (Cunningsworth, 1995; McGrath, 2002) is also
known as “Level 1 analysis” (Littlejohn, 2011), and “external materials evaluation” (McDonough & Shaw,
2003). This method gives the teachers a general impression about the target textbook. In other words, the
teachers can get a general overview about the textbook description, table of contents, the textbook
organization, topics, and designs (McGrath, 2002). However, this method is not enough to determine the
effectiveness of the textbooks, so there is still a need to analyze the textbook deeply to get further details.
• The In-depth Method: This method has different names such as “internal evaluation” (McDonough &
Shaw, 2003), “in-depth analysis” (Cunningsworth, 1995; McGrath, 2002), and 'Level 2 analysis' (Littlejohn,
1992; Littlejohn, 2011). This method aims at analyzing the textbook in depth and providing details about
the activities of the textbooks. In other words, it helps the teacher to analyze the aims, goals, values in
which the textbook is based, and authors’ claims in depth (McDonough & Shaw, 2003; McGrath, 2002).
This method is significant in obtaining insights and detailed information about the textbook.
• The Outcome: This method has also different names such as “overall evaluation” (McDonough & Shaw,
2003), “conclusion” (Cunningsworth, 1995; McGrath, 2002), and “Level 3 analysis” (Littlejohn, 1992;
Littlejohn, 2011). It is the complement of the previous textbook analysis methods. In other words, it is the
outcome of the analysis process which provides directions to implement the findings and recommendations
of the previous step of in-depth analysis. Based on the findings of the in-depth analysis, the teachers can
decide whether the textbooks are suitable for their learners or not and how to develop them effectively
(outcome).
The teachers may have useful information from the impressionistic approach of textbook analysis, but they
need to get more useful feedback and detailed analysis (Cunningsworth, 1995). Researchers should be able to
scrutinize the textbook implications, content and methodology to decide whether they are appropriate for a certain
context or not (Littlejohn, 2011). It is also argued that there is a need to look “inside the Trojan horse” and develop
a framework to let the textbooks “speak for themselves.” Littlejohn’s analysis framework (Littlejohn, 2011) was
adapted in this study to analyse the target textbook in depth.

159
© 2022 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2022, 11(4): 155-166

Level 2 or in-depth analysis has been used as it is applicable for achieving the purpose of this study. Moreover,
it involves a variety of key features to analyze what is exactly required for the learners to do from the textbook
activities. The features and sub-features are categorized to help the analysts to address the target textbooks. The
percentages for features were calculated from the extract. All tasks of the chosen unit were identified and
percentages were recorded on the analysis sheet (see Appendix 1).

3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the findings of textbook analysis. The first category of analysis was the content analysis.
The researchers calculated the percentages of tasks and content items as they were presented in the textbook based
on the checklist criteria Table 1 shows key results about the form, source and nature of the tasks. The form of
content provided to the learners consisted of a variety of features. The input from the textbook is concentrated at
the level of sentences and/or words with a co-occurrence average of 51.85% (written content is 48.15% and oral
content is 3.70% respectively). The average percentage for discourse provided to the learners (“extended discourse:
written” and “extended discourse: oral”) is 37.04% (18.52% each). There is also repetition of the tasks, for example,
the authors asked the students to “read the passage and answer the question”, “read again and/or listen and check
your answers”. The textbook authors relied on repetition of content which may be useful for learning English as a
FL.

Table 1. Content features.

I Content Features
A Form Average (in %)
1 Input to learners
Graphic 11.11
Words/phrases/sentences: written 48.15
Words/phrases/sentences: oral 3.70
Extended discourse: written 18.52
Extended discourse: oral 18.52
2 Expected Output from Learners
Graphic 0
Words/phrases/sentences: written 18.52
Words/phrases/sentences: oral 70.37
Extended discourse: written 11.11
Extended discourse: oral 0
B Source
Materials 77.78
Teacher 0
Learner(s) 22.22
C Nature
Personal opinion/information 40.74
Non-fiction 37.04
Fiction 7.41
Linguistic items 11.11
Metalinguistic knowledge (comment) 3.70

Table 1 exhibits that the expected content from learners is striking where the main output is focused on
sentences and/or words with an average of 88.89% (18.52% for written words/phrases/sentences and 70.37% for
oral words/phrases/sentences). The average of written extended discourse output, expected from the learners, is
seen at 11.11%. The most striking result from the analysis is that there is no expected oral extended discourse from
the learners. This means that the extended discourse is not well-emphasized in the textbook, so the learners may
not be able to develop their communicative competence usefully, especially oral extended discourse.

160
© 2022 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2022, 11(4): 155-166

Regarding the source of content, the results show that the textbook decides the content, and it is the most
dominant source with an average of 77.78%. The learners are partially responsible for generating the content with
an average of 22.22%. Furthermore, there is no role for teachers in generating the content. In other words, the
teachers do not have the opportunity to be autonomous and provide the content for their students, and they have
not been given the opportunities to adapt the textbook and meet their students’ interests and needs as
recommended by some researchers (e.g., (Alkhaldi & Oshchepkova, 2018; Richards, 2001; Tomlinson, 2011)).
Fiction also plays a significant role in developing learners’ creativity and enriching the quality of learning (e.g.,
Maley (2015)), but it has not had much emphasis in the analyzed sample with an average of 7.41%. The nature of
that content is often learners’ personal opinions and information with an average of 40.74% and ‘non-fiction’
content with an average of 37.04%. This shows that students’ personal opinions and information form a big part of
the nature of the content, and fiction has not been encouraged in the textbook which might mean that the textbook
may not promote students’ creativity. In other words, the textbook may not support the teachers in the education
process, and it may not inspire the teachers to teach the language skills and activities creatively in the classroom as
recommended by some studies (e.g., (McGrath, 2002; Mukundan, 2009)).
Regarding the second category of analysis “expectations of learners,” the researchers calculated the percentages
of the tasks as represented in Table 2:

Table 2. Expectations of learners.

II Expectations of learners Average (in %)
A Turn-Take
Initiate 22.22
Respond 77.78
Not required 0
B Focus
Language system (rules or form) 3.70
Meaning 88.89
Meaning/system/form relationship 7.41
C Mental Operation
Repeat identically 11.11
Repeat with substitution 3.70
Repeat with expansion 18.52
Retrieve from Short Term Memory (STM) 25.93
Formulate items into larger unit 3.70
Decode semantic/propositional meaning 22.22
Apply language rule 7.41
Apply general knowledge 3.70
Attend to example, explanation 3.70

Table 2 shows the percentages for the related features in the analyzed unit. The average of the tasks which
require the students to “respond” is 77.78%; however, the tasks that require students to “initiate” is 22.22%. This
shows that the textbook may not help the students to develop their initiative and autonomous learning as
recommended (e.g., (Alkhaldi, 2014; Tomlinson, 2011)). In other words, the textbook often promotes interaction in
the class by asking the students to “respond” orally at the level of words and/or sentences. Furthermore, most of
the tasks plan what the students have to reproduce which is provided by the textbook at a sentence or word level.
Consequently, textbook activities may restrict learners’ creativity and opportunity to initiate interaction.
Regarding “focus,” the averages of the tasks that require students to focus on meaning, meaning/system/form
relationship, and language system are 88.89%, 7.41%, and 3.70% respectively. This shows that the students are
primarily requested to focus on the meaning of the tasks. Regarding “mental operations,” the researchers tried to
record as many of the mental operations as possible, but they were able to record 9 of them within the whole unit

161
© 2022 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2022, 11(4): 155-166

out of the number of operations (see Appendix 1). There are many operations which were not seen in the activities
such as retrieving from intermediate term memory and long-term memory.
Based on the analysis, the dominant tasks were “retrieve from Short Term Memory” and “decode
semantic/propositional meaning” with co-occurrence averages of 25.93% and 22.22% respectively. Repetition is the
most dominant task with a total average of 33.33% for “repeat identically,” “repeat with substitution”, and “repeat
with expansion” (11.11%, 3.70%, and 18.52% respectively). The authors of the textbook claim that “Critical
Thinking has become a focus in the English language class along with the other language and study skills” (Pelteret
et al., 2015b). However, the findings reveal that most of the activities are restricted to a specific range of mental
operations.
The third category was ‘Interaction’ among students to find out whether they could interact individually, in
pairs or in groups. Table 3shows the percentages of the related tasks.

Table 3. Interaction.
III Interaction Average (in %)
Teacher and learner(s) whole class observing 48.15
Learners individually simultaneously 29.63
Learners in pairs 18.52
Learners in groups 3.70

Table 3 presents the results of the task analysis related to the interaction or class collaboration and work. The
“teacher and learner(s) whole class observing” feature is the most prevalent with the highest score of an average of
48.15%. “Learners individually simultaneously” is the second highest with an average of 29.63%. Nevertheless, pair
work is low with an average of 18.52%, and group work scored the lowest with an average of 3.70%. This means
that classroom interaction is generally designed to be between the learners individually and their teachers.
The in-depth analysis helps teachers and researchers to know to what extent the textbook matches the claims
of the authors (McDonough & Shaw, 2003). The textbook authors claim that the textbook activities are to help the
learners develop their writing, practice speaking, and improve reading skill (Pelteret et al., 2015b). The claims are
attractive for customers; however, the analysis shows findings related to the input which is provided by the
textbook to the learners, and the output, which is expected of the learners, as discussed earlier. The language skills
that the students are requested to develop are oral skills more than writing skills at sentence and/or word level.
This shows that writing skills are not given equal attention.
Nunan (1999) argues that it is necessary to provide opportunities to the students to help them give extended
discourse or presentations in an attempt to develop their discourse skills in the class. However, the analysis shows
that the unit analyzed for the study does not provide the students with opportunities to produce oral extended
discourse (oral extended discourse expected as an output from the students).
To sum up, the researchers of this study conducted an in-depth analysis of a unit from a high school English
textbook. The findings revealed that the main role of the students is to “respond” rather than to “initiate”, and the
content, expected from them, is mostly based on words and/or sentences without plenty of opportunities for oral
extended discourse as claimed by the textbook authors. Moreover, the input provided by the textbook involves
extended discourse and sentences with repetition, and the teachers have no role in providing the students with
content. The major source of content is the textbook, and the “students’ personal opinions and information” and
“non-fiction” constitute the nature of the content. Finally, the students are required to produce oral content at the
sentence level more than written content, and the unit did not include fiction to promote learner’s creativity
effectively.

162
© 2022 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2022, 11(4): 155-166

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analysis, this study provides key recommendations for the textbook writers, publishers, teachers,
and ministries of education. It is recommended that the textbook should be analyzed and developed effectively by
including more content related to the learners’ needs with a variety of useful written extended discourse. They
should have more useful tasks to help the learners to have the opportunity to initiate interaction rather than being
responsive. Furthermore, the textbooks should include plenty of opportunities for equal oral and written extended
discourse to help the learners use English effectively. They should also include more creative tasks to create an
interactive learning environment for lifelong academic learning purposes. Finally, the teachers should be given a
role in providing the content and adapt their textbooks to meet their students’ needs and interests.
There are also additional recommendations for teachers and ministries of education such as having/offering
professional development training programs for analyzing the textbooks in-depth, adapting the textbooks to meet
the leaners’ needs and interests, and gaining insight about the textbook analysis process and the teaching itself. The
researchers of this study also recommend conducting further research studies on different samples and series to
triangulate or support the research instrument and results of this study.

5. CONCLUSION
This study analyzed one unit from a Jordanian English grade 12 textbook in an attempt to gain insights about
the pedagogical implications and the analysis process, identify potential problems of the textbook, provide
recommendations for professional development for teachers, and to evaluate the claims of the textbook against the
content. In other words, the study has tested some objectives stated in the textbook by the authors and investigated
the textbook in depth. It has also identified the potential strengths and challenges of the textbooks. It has revealed
that there is a mismatch between what is stated in the objectives of the textbook and the content provided in it.
Such insights can be helpful for any future English language materials development and teachers’ professional
development. However, this study is limited to the analyzed sample. With larger samples, researchers can get more
reliable results, so more textbook analysis studies are recommended.
The key findings of the study have revealed that the main role of the students is to “respond” rather than to
“initiate”, and the content which is expected from the students is mostly based on sentences with no oral extended
discourse. Moreover, the findings have revealed that the input which is provided by the textbook involves some
extended discourse and sentences, and the teachers have a limited role in providing the students with appropriate
content. The major source of the content is the textbook, and the “students’ oral personal opinions and information”
and “non-fiction” at the sentence level constitute the nature of the content. It is also evident from findings that the
analyzed sample does not have plenty of opportunities for deep critical thinking and creative thinking. Finally, the
recommendations have been provided to analyze the textbooks in-depth, develop them, enhance their quality, and
help learners achieve effective language learning.

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ Contributions: Both authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.

REFERENCS
Alkhaldi, A. A. (2010). Developing a principled framework for materials evaluation: Some considerations. Advances in Language
and Literary Studies, 1(2), 281-298.Available at: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.1n.2p.281.
Alkhaldi, A. A. (2011). Materials development in Jordan: An applied linguistics challenge. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Leeds
Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK.
Alkhaldi, A. A. (2014). Language theories donation through materials development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and
English Literature, 3(3), 112-123.Available at: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.3p.112.

163
© 2022 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2022, 11(4): 155-166

Alkhaldi, A. A., & Oshchepkova, T. (2018). An analysis of English language theories: A case study. Advances in Language and
Literary Studies, 9(4), 227-236.Available at: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.4p.227.
Bell, J., & Gower, R. (1998). Writing course materials for the world: a great compromise. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials
development in language teaching (pp. 116-129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byrd, P. (2001). Textbooks: Evaluation for selection and analysis for implementation. In M. Celce-Murcia, (Ed.), Teaching
English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 415-427). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Canniveng, C., & Martinez, M. (2003). Materials development and teacher training. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.). Developing Materials
for Language Teaching (pp. 479-489). London: Continuum Press.
Crawford, J. (2002). The role of materials in the language classroom: Finding the balance. In J. Richards & W. Renandya, (Eds.),
Methodology in language Teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 80-90). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.
Dat, B. (2006). Developing EFL materials for local markets: Issues and considerations. In J. Mukundan (Ed.), Focus on ELT
materials (pp. 52-76). Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia.
Graves, K. (2000). Designing language course: A guide for teachers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Jolly, D., & Bolitho, R. (1998). A framework for writing materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language
teaching (pp. 90-115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Littlejohn, A. (1992). Why are English language teaching materials the way they are? , Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Lancaster
University, Lancaster, UK.
Littlejohn, A. (2011). The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan Horse. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials
development in language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 179-211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maley, A. (2015). Overview: Creativity - the what, the why and the how. In A. Maley & N. Peachey (Eds.), Creativity in the
English language classroom (pp. 6-13). London: British Council.
Mares, C. (2003). Writing a coursebook. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development for language teaching (pp. 130-140).
London: Continuum Press.
Masuhara, H. (1998). What do teachers really want from coursebooks? In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in
language teaching (pp. 239-260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher's guide. Oxford: Blackwell.
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Mukundan, J. (2009). ESL textbook evaluation: A composite framework. Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing AG and Co. KG.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Pelteret., C., Kilbey, L., & Greet, J. (2015b). Action pack twelfth grade, Teacher’s Book. England: Pearson Education Ltd.
Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saraceni, C. (2003). Adapting courses: A critical view. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development for language teaching. London:
Continuum Press.
Timmis, I., Mukundan, J., & Alkhaldi, A. A. (2009). Coursebooks: Soft or fair targets? Folio, 13(2), 11-13.
Tomlinson, B. (1998). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B. (2003). Materials development for language teaching. London: Continuum Press.
Tomlinson, B. (2011). Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wala, D. A. S. (2003). A coursebook is what it is because of what it has to do: An editor’s perspective. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.),
Materials development for language teaching (pp. 58-71). London: Continuum Press.

164
© 2022 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2022, 11(4): 155-166

Appendix 1. Textbook analysis sheet.

Task Analysis: Unit 6
I Content
A Form
1 Input To Learners
Task number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Graphic / / /
Words/phrases/sentences: written / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Words/phrases/sentences: oral /
Extended discourse: written / / / / /
Extended discourse: oral / / / / /
2 Expected Output From Learners
Graphic
Words/phrases/sentences: written / / / / /

Words/phrases/sentences: oral / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Extended discourse: written / / /

Extended discourse: oral
B Source
Materials / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Teacher
learner(s) / / / / / /
C Nature
Personal opinion/information / / / / / / / / / / /
Fact (non-fiction) / / / / / / / / / /
Fiction / /
Linguistic items / / /
Metalinguistic knowledge (comment) /
II Expectations from Learners
A Turn-Take
Initiate / / / / / /
Respond / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Not required
B Focus On
Language system (rules or form) /
Meaning / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Meaning/system relationship / /
C Mental Operation
Repeat identically / / /
Repeat with substitution /
Repeat with transformation

165
© 2022 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2022, 11(4): 155-166

Repeat with expansion / / / / /

Retrieve from STM / / / / / / /
Formulate items into larger unit /
Decode semantic/propositional meaning

/ / / / / /
Apply language rule / /
Apply general knowledge
/
Attend to example, explanation /
III Interaction
Teacher and learner(s) whole class / /
observing / / / / / / / / / / /
Learners individually simultaneously /
/ / / / / / /
Learners in pairs / / / / /
Learners in groups /
Note: The symbol “/” is used to indicate that the activity exists in the analysed extract.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc.
caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.

166
© 2022 AESS Publications. All Rights Reserved.