System 45 (2014) 211e226

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Review

EFL course book evaluation in Greek primary schools:

Views from teachers and authors
Dina Tsagari a, *, Nicos C. Sifakis b,1
a
b

Department of English Studies, University of Cyprus, 75 Kallipoleos Street, P.O. Box 20537, 1678 Nicosia, Cyprus
School of Humanities, Hellenic Open University, 18 Parodos Aristotelous Street, 26335 Patras, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 4 December 2013
Received in revised form 20 March 2014
Accepted 14 April 2014
Available online 9 May 2014

In foreign language contexts, course books assume a considerable amount of responsibility

for the structuring of class time, classroom interaction, and language learning. In this
paper, we evaluate EFL course book materials by considering their structure and effectiveness through survey questionnaires administered to teachers working in Greek state
primary schools (4th and 5th grades) and via in-depth interviews with the book authors.
Our research has shown that materials production can be a predominantly topedown
process, in which policy makers, materials authors and teachers can draw independent
pathways to developing and implementing the nal product, i.e. the course book. The
ndings of the study have implications for teaching, teacher training, materials design and
policy making in contexts where learners use course books for foreign language learning.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
EFL course books
Teachers
Authors
Policy makers
Questionnaire
Interviews
Primary schools

Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
EFL teaching in Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Methodology of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
4.1.
Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
4.2.
Data collection and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
4.3.
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
4.4.
Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Implications and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Samples of texts from Book D and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 357 22892120; fax: 357 2275 0310.

E-mail addresses: dinatsa@ucy.ac.cy, tsagari.konstantia@ucy.ac.cy (D. Tsagari), sifakis@eap.gr, nicossif@hol.gr (N.C. Sifakis).
1
Tel.: 30 2610 367x687; fax: 30 2610 367x679.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.04.001
0346-251X/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

212

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

1. Introduction
This paper looks at how English language learning course materials developed by the Greek state for the primary sector
(grades 4 and 5)2 are perceived by EFL teachers and what the intentions of authors of these materials are. Greece was chosen
as the context of inquiry for various reasons. First of all, as existing nancial conditions in the country are unlikely to allow the
funding of new course books or even the revision of the current ones (introduced in 2009 and still considered relatively
recently published), teachers are probably going to have to use the existing course books for many years to come. Under the
circumstances, it is likely that the course books will dominate the current EFL primary teaching context and acquire an iconic
status (Bolitho, 2008), leading teachers to developing xed ways of implementing them.
We were therefore interested in nding out about the strengths and weaknesses of these course books through the viewpoints of teachers and authors. Our ultimate aim was to come up with a number of pointers that can demonstrate good practice
in materials design and implementation for policy makers, course book designers and users (e.g., teachers) that is meaningful for
public school education in a country like Greece. We understand that these pointers would be sensitive to the idiosyncrasies of
the context we are focussing on, but are condent that similar teaching and learning contexts around the world can learn from
them. We hope that such recommendations will add to the existing literature on English language learning course book
development and evaluation (Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2010a). We also hope that these will contribute to the development of
appropriate courseware that respond to learners needs and meet the demands and concerns of policy makers and educators in
countries of the Expanding Circle3 (Graddol, 2006), like Greece, that employ course books for the teaching of English.
2. Literature review
Course books are considered a given in most classroom contexts and are usually perceived by teachers to provide
structure and content for learning activities, to organize curriculum, and to frame (more or less questionable) classroom
ideologies, among many other roles (Guerrettaz & Johnston, 2013, p. 781). There is a lot of information on language learning
course book development and evaluation in the available literature (see Tomlinson, 2012, 2013). For example, reviews of
materials development agree that materials evaluation, which refers to attempts to measure the value of materials
(Tomlinson, 2011, p. 3), has taken up most of the attention (McDonough, Shaw, & Masuhara, 2011; Rubdy, 2003; Tomlinson &
Masuhara, 2010a). There has been signicant input on developing principled criteria for evaluating, selecting, adapting and
enriching language learning course books (for example, Cunningsworth, 1984, 1995; Masuhara, Hann, Yi, & Tomlinson, 2008;
Menon, 2009; Mukundan & Ahour, 2010; Tomlinson, 2012; Tomlinson, Dat, Masuhara, & Rubdy, 2001). Interestingly, there is
rich information concerning the descriptions of language learning materials evaluation in different teaching and learning
contexts, with an emphasis on Asian contexts (Lee & Bathmaker, 2007; Renandya, 2003) but fewer in the European context
(Fenner & Newby, 2000).
The literature has also identied various stakeholders perspectives of course book evaluation. Of those, while there is
some interesting insight on teachers viewpoints, there is general consensus that those viewpoints and needs are not sufciently attested, at least from an empirical point of view (Masuhara, 2011; McGrath, 2002; Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2010b).
For instance, McGrath (2006) found that Hong Kong secondary school teachers and learners differed in their perceptions
about the importance of course books and that, while teachers located positive and negative features of these materials,
learners were particularly attached to their course books. Tomlinson and Masuhara (2010b) found that teachers in L2
countries around the world specied their main want as interesting texts and their main need as not having to spend a lot of
time preparing lessons (p. 2).
Research also suggests that teachers perspectives on course books depend heavily on their teaching context (Richards,
1998; Richards & Mahoney, 1996) and teaching experience (Gray, 2010). Some studies discuss teachers awareness about
context-driven demands, for example, the role of institutional examinations, in shaping their own perceptions about course
books. For example, in Malaysia, Chandran (2003) explored junior high school EFL teachers beliefs and practices regarding
course books that integrated the communicative approach, and found that teachers preferred to use commercially available
materials that conformed to examination formats. Lee and Bathmaker (2007) also explored teachers beliefs about the use of
English course books in Singaporean vocational schools. The researchers reported that teachers systematically downplayed
these course books and often replaced them with testing worksheets. These actions seemed to be inuenced by teachers
perceptions about the pressures of the examination system and by learners cognitive shortcomings.
In addition, research has shown that teachers adopt different perspectives in evaluating courseware, some prioritising
teaching discrete language skills, others stressing the role of the rule system of the language, and yet others focussing on the
use of authentic contextualized discourse (Johnson, 1992). In a study reported in Johnson et al. (2008), three ELT teachers
were asked to evaluate the learner and teacher components of a coursebook using think-aloud protocols. The study drew
attention to the different approaches adopted by each teacher portraying their individual priorities and preferences regarding

2
The study reported in this paper forms part of a larger research project that evaluated a suite of eight new EFL course books recently introduced in state
schools in Greece (three books in primary and ve in secondary schools).
3
Expanding Circle contexts are typically dened as contexts (e.g., in Brazil, China, Russia) where English does not have a state-recognized statutory role
in any way but it is taught and learnt as a foreign language (Kachru, 1990).

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

213

types of tasks, learning outcomes, teaching experience and other language-related issues. Teachers personal beliefs were also
studied in Smith (1996) who found signicant correlations between the instructional decisions of ESL teachers in postsecondary classes in Canada and their expressed theoretical beliefs.
With regard to teaching foreign languages to young learners (aged 7e12), in particular, recent research has prompted
implications for language learning policy-making (Nikolov, 2009), curriculum design (Harwood, 2010), implementation and
evaluation (Enever, Moon, & Raman, 2009), and second language acquisition (Nikolov & Mihaljevi
c Djigunovi
c, 2006). As
English is introduced at an increasingly early age in educational contexts of the Expanding Circle, scholars have looked at the
existence, or lack thereof, of relevant feasibility studies (Garca Mayo & Garca Lecumberri, 2003; Muoz, 2006), teacher
training, and the impact of curricula and language learning materials on young learners learning (Edelenbos & Kubanek,
2009; Ghosn, 2010; Nikolov, Mihaljevi
c Djigunovi
c, Mattheoudakis, Lundberg, & Flanagan, 2007). However, there is still
relatively little research of teachers perceptions about course books used in primary school settings. Nevertheless, the criteria
for successful course books for younger learners are clear. These should incorporate topics that are relevant to the holistic
development of young learners who are still developing, not only linguistically but also cognitively and psychosocially
(Ghosn, 2012, p. 65). Primary school learners respond best to purposeful activities (Hughes, 2012, p. 184) that are fun to carry
out and primarily focus on listening and speaking (Arnold & Rixon, 2008). Skills integration should be gradual and meaningful
(Ghosn, 2012) while more attention needs to be paid to how reading skills might best be launched (Rixon, 2007, p. 6). That
said, in school settings where course books play a particularly important role, as is the case in the present research, it is
important to study stakeholders reactions to how course books designed for young learners impact language teaching and,
by extension, learning.
3. EFL teaching in Greece
Greece is an interesting educational context in that it combines a rather lethargic state sector that is responsible for
providing a basic education. Nowadays, EFL is taught from year 3 up to year 12. The weekly contact hours allocated for foreign
language tuition vary between 2 and 3 (at primary and secondary level respectively). The state sector is also responsible for
implementing the countrys obligations that stem from EU policies concerning plurilingualism and the crosscurricular/
crosscultural approach to language teaching and learning as stipulated in the Foreign Language Curricula of 2003,4 the
philosophy of which was taken into account in the new EFL course books of the present study.
On the other hand, the fact that the teaching and learning of English in the state sector is not openly linked to preparation
for a particular high-stakes examination implies, for the vast majority of learners and their families, that state-based EFL
teaching and learning is perceived as essentially purposeless (Abbot, 1981). As a result, the private sector absorbs virtually all
the interest from parents, teachers, school owners, examining bodies, materials designers etc., in preparing learners for highstakes prociency examinations that are perceived to be linked to a successful professional career (Sifakis, 2012). Consequently, an enormous exam-oriented industry has been operating in terms of courses and materials production that has had
an impact on language teaching and learning (Tsagari, 2009, 2012).
To implement the EU policies in language teaching and learning, new EFL course books were introduced in the state school
system in 2009. The course books were designed under the aegis of the Pedagogical Institute (PI). The authors of the materials
were practising EFL teachers with extensive experience in state-school teaching (partly in primary schools) and at least a
postgraduate degree in the teaching of English language. Just as in the case of authors, the PI also hired a number of course book
evaluators who, in their majority, were senior EFL teachers, teacher trainers and academics with specialization in EFL teaching.
Overall, the materials designed can be characterized as being local, i.e. produced to cater to the local curriculum (see
Barrios, de Debat, & Tavella, 2008). In this paper, we focus on the evaluation of two course books targeted at young learners
(9e11 years old) attending levels D and E (at grades 4 and 5 respectively) of primary schools. These two course books were
selected on the basis of a broad consensus among teachers concerning the widely different impact the course books have had
on teaching and learning (Tsagari & Sifakis, 2012). For example, teachers complained that the book used at level E is too dense
(e.g. overloaded with materials) and difcult for students. In the study, we were interested to pursue this further and look into
the reasons behind these reactions, too.
According to the intention of the PI and the authors, the two course books were designed to target learners at two prociency
levels. The course book for the 4th grade, henceforth Book D, was designed to target learners at A1 level5 (Council of Europe,
2001). The course book for level E, henceforth Book E, targeted students at level A2.6 Both course books comprise a Students
book, Teachers book, Workbook and CD material with oral recordings. These contained ten units each that are thematicallybased. Units are divided into three lessons covering receptive and productive skills as well as grammar and vocabulary. On
the cover page of each unit learners are exposed to the aims and objectives of the unit. The rst two lessons focus on various
aspects of the same thematic unit and present the new language. Each unit follows a similar format. Some of the features are
regular (e.g. strategy corner, warm-up section, presentation of new language) and others may alternate within the book units.

4
Pedagogical Institute (2003) Cross-Thematic Curriculum Framework for Compulsory EducationdDEPPS (ofcial English translation available). Retrieved on
15.4.2013, from http://www.pi-schools.gr/download/programs/depps/english/14th.pdf.
5
See Teachers book for 4th grade: http://www.pi-schools.gr/books/dimotiko/english_d/dask/dask.pdf.
6
See Teachers book for 5th grade: http://www.pi-schools.gr/books/dimotiko/english_e/kath/s_1_142.pdf.

214

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

The tasks are said to encourage repetition, substitution, note-taking, summarizing, transfer, inferencing, etc., and require students to transfer spoken or written information into tables or grids or carry out information-gap activities.
On completing each unit the students are requested to monitor their progress through a self-assessment test. There are
also revision tests every two or three units, included in the Teachers Books. In addition each book offers students opportunities to work on a mini portfolio, songs and games (Book D) or a project and, occasionally, poetry and drama activities
(Book E). The books also emphasize a differentiated instruction (DI) approach to teaching. At the end of both books there are
differentiated materials and tasks of two types, e.g.: tiered tasks, which are easier versions of some of the tasks in the course
book units for less advanced learners as well as extra work for early-nishers or students of a more advanced level. Finally,
Teachers books explain the rationale and provide support and guidance on how teachers can implement the DI materials (e.g.
Teachers book, D-level English, p. 13).
4. Methodology of the study
4.1. Research questions
The purpose of this study was twofold. On a micro-level, we wanted to explore the extent to which teachers evaluations of
the two course books could provide information on the role of EFL course books in the state sector. We also looked for reasons
that could help us better understand these reactions and the reasons related to specic features of the course books. On a
macro-level, we were interested in nding out how teachers perceptions could be related to authors experiences of
designing these materials, their perspective, and possible constraints and details of the process of materials design as well as
the role of policy makers (in this case the PI) in the process.
Therefore the research questions the present study addressed were:
 What do teachers perceptions about the strengths and weaknesses of the EFL courseware materials for levels 4 and 5 of
primary education in Greece show about their needs and wants from a good course book?
 How are teachers perceptions related to those of the course book authors?
4.2. Data collection and analysis
To answer the research questions the study involved a mixed-methods approach (Bryman, 2008; Tashakkori & Teddlie,
2003). Creswell (2003) refers to it as a sequential explanatory strategy, characterized by the collection and analysis of
quantitative data followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data. The priority typically is given to the quantitative
data, and the two methods are integrated during the interpretation phase of the study (p. 215). Our primary quantitative data
were generated via a questionnaire (aiming at evaluating the two Students books), and the supporting qualitative data came
from follow-up interviews (with the authors of the books).
4.3. Questionnaire
We forwarded a survey questionnaire (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QLK8C29) to in-service EFL teachers of grades 4
and 5. The questionnaire comprised eight parts, namely, teacher biodata, overall appraisal of the two Students books, and
evaluation of the texts and tasks of language skills and other features included in the books, e.g., vocabulary and grammar
teaching, self-assessment, unit structure and presentation. The questions were based on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1: highly
satised to 5: not satised at all. The questionnaire was informed by the 2003 curriculum, the international literature on
course book evaluation and the actual course books. It was piloted for comprehensibility, coverage and user-friendliness with
a small group of EFL teachers rst and then administered electronically to teachers between February and May 2010. Overall,
thirty three D-level teachers and thirty nine E-level teachers answered the questionnaire (N 72). The majority of the respondents were female teachers with long experience in teaching EFL in state schools (70% of the teachers taught between 5
and 11 years). Other than the minimum requirement of BA in English Language and Literature, many teachers (45%) had a
postgraduate degree in teaching English.
4.4. Interviews
Open-ended in-depth interviews were conducted with two of the authors of the course books. It was not possible to
interview all four authors (two authors per course book), but we ensured that at least one author from each course book
writing team was interviewed. The two interviews were conducted over the phone, as authors resided in various regions
across the country. Each interview lasted between 40 and 50 min. The interviews followed guidelines discussed in the
literature (Drnyei, 2007; Litosseliti, 2010) and were based on an interview guide informed by the structure of the questionnaire. Whenever needed, the researchers probed deeper in issues of interest and relevance to the study. The interviews
were recorded with the agreement of the participants.

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

215

Table 1
Teachers evaluation of relevance to learners language needs per skill.
Skill

Course book

Meana

SD

df

t-Valueb

Reading

Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book

2.22
3.72
2.63
3.80
2.63
3.80
2.35
3.50

0.89
0.94
1.01
0.81
1.06
0.89
0.88
0.82

61

6.39

52

4.75

52

4.45

51

4.90

Writing
Listening
Speaking
a
b

D
E
D
E
D
E
D
E

1: highly satised, 2: satised, 3: somewhat satised, 4: not satised and 5: not satised at all.
p < .01.

Interview data were transcribed and analysed for recurrent themes based on the answers to the questions raised. The
authors responses were analysed through an inductive approach in which themes and patterns emerged from the data
(Paltridge & Phakiti, 2010).
In the next section we present teachers perspectives as the starting point, as they bring in their hands-on experience with
the course books. For reasons of space, we made a selection of the most salient ndings expressed through teachers responses to the questionnaires and focus on results that were statistically signicant (based on t-tests). We integrate information from the interviews and relevant quotations from Teachers books too, to present the authors point of view on
features of the books that are highlighted by the teachers.

5. Findings
The questionnaire data conrmed initial reactions towards the two books, in that Book E attracted more negative evaluations than Book D. As reected in teachers overall evaluation, only 2.5% of teachers liked Book E, while the majority found it
difcult for their students (74%) and said that it needed improvement (66%).
With regard to the way the books tended to learners needs, overall teachers were satised with Book D (see Table 1).
However, this was not the case with Book E, which seemed to have displeased teachers.
The volume of materials vis--vis the number of texts and tasks across language skills in the two course books was one of
the aspects that created unfavourable reactions among teachers of Book E. According to t-test results, this was statistically
signicant for reading texts (Book D: M 2.33, SD 0.78 and Book E: M 3.03, SD 0.81, df 61, t-value 3.41, p < .01),
reading tasks (Book D: M 2.67, SD 1.074 and Book E: M 3.26, SD 0.82, df 60, t-value 2.46, p < .01) and writing
tasks (Book D: M 2.67, SD 0.87 and Book E: M 3.17, SD 0.87, df 52, t-value 2.10, p < .01).
In their comments, Book E teachers also complained strongly about the volume of the material, e.g.:
It is too loaded with activities to do. .. I am speaking as a mother here. I was surprised to see that my son had only
completed four units by the end of the school year.
If the teacher followed the book, hardly 10% or 12% of the material would be covered.
Analysis of the two textbooks in terms of texts and tasks conrmed teachers negative reactions towards Book E. The
volume of texts and tasks included in it justied teachers reactions as can be seen in Table 2.
However, the analysis of the interviews revealed a mismatch between the teachers and authors perspective. Even though
the author of Book E agreed that there was a great number of tasks, she claimed that this was done on purpose. As the author

Table 2
Total number of texts and tasks across language skills.
Skill

Course book

Total

Reading texts

Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book

24
34
21
24
27
34
25
72
19
26
15
34

Reading tasks
Writing tasks
Listening texts
Listening tasks
Speaking tasks

D
E
D
E
D
E
D
E
D
E
D
E

216

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

Table 3
Relevance to students overall level.
Skill

Course book

Mean

SD

df

t-Valuea

Reading

Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book

2.41
4.25
2.68
4.17
2.58
4.31
2.30
3.93

1.01
0.87
0.84
0.83
1.06
0.97
0.88
0.86

61

7.75

50

6.33

51

6.20

51

6.75

Writing
Listening
Speaking
a

D
E
D
E
D
E
D
E

p < .01.

explained, this aimed at equipping teachers with a corpus of tasks from which teachers were to choose those that were more
relevant to their class. This was also made explicit in the Introduction of the Teachers book, e.g.:
There are quite a lot of tasks in each lesson and not all them need to be carried out. The teacher can decide to omit
certain tasks, depending on the time available, the level and the needs of the learners or other factors affecting his/her
specic teaching situation.
Teachers book, D-level English, p. 9
Teachers did not respond favourably to the task types used in Book E. This was statistically signicant for the tasks of
reading (Book D: M 2.67, SD 1 and Book E: M 3.31, SD 0.89, df 61, t-value 2.68, p < .01) and listening (Book D:
M 2.63, SD 0.92 and Book E: M 3.50, SD 1.042, df 52, t-value 3.22, p < .01). In their comments, teachers said that
the tasks lacked variety (Every time the same technique is used for reading, i.e., scanning) and did not specify a particular
way of engaging different types of group-work (e.g., pairs, threes, etc). Teachers also commented negatively on the function of
the Workbook with regard to promoting course book tasks, claiming that the Workbook failed to guide the learners satisfactorily and therefore does not promote their autonomy.
On the other hand, authors expressed contradictory views about the importance of focus on skills and the quality of tasks.
For instance, while the author of Book D was pleased with the writing tasks stressing that:
I believe that writing is more accessible because they begin by writing small sentences.. then, they are asked to write
small texts
the author of Book E seems to downplay the importance of writing and reiterates the importance of teacher autonomy:
Writing is not the most important skill, not at this level, anyway. So I suppose teachers are free to decide which writing
tasks they will deal with or which ones they will simplify or omit
The authors of the books also had interestingly different perspectives of the function of task types in their materials. For
example, the author of Book D claimed that the games, the songs and the stories make the book more interesting, accessible
and fun for children, whereas the author of Book E contended that [Game-playing is] not a core part, as far as I am concerned.
Students are 10 or 11 years old, playing seems to be more appropriate for 7 or 8-year-olds.
With regard to the relevance of tasks to students overall level, teachers were more favourably disposed towards Book D
than towards Book E (see Table 3).
In their comments, teachers of Book E complained that tasks were demanding for their learners level, e.g., the book
presents some kind of haphazard character and the tasks are impossible to carry out in the present school situation and only
a few students can perform these tasks, those attending advanced classes in foreign language schools. Interestingly, similar
concerns were voiced by the authors, too. For instance, the author of Book E stressed that certain reading or listening tasks
need so much explanation or dealing with, that a whole teaching period is needed to discuss a single task.
Commenting on the relevance of tasks, the authors also argued in favour of the importance of differentiation. As the
author of Book D claimed, different classes have different needs and different teachers may have different priorities in their
minds about what to teach (it is possible that a colleague might need more grammar tasks, another colleague more writing,
or speaking, depending on the case. I am not in a position to know the needs of their classroom contexts.). For that reason,
Book D, according to its author, had a variety of different activities that the teacher may choose from; the part of differentiated instruction may help some teachers. The author of Book E also commented on the need for a DI approach to
materials use:
All the tasks were on the right level but this doesnt mean that all the cases are the same. For some students it might be
easier and for others more difcult. This is normal when a new course book is introduced so it is not possible for the
level to be applicable to all students.
What was implied here from the authors comments was that the course book indeed offered a basis for DI but it was the
teachers responsibility to integrate such an approach in their daily instruction. This, however, was not the case, judging from
teachers responses.

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

217

Table 4
Rubrics to tasks.
Skill

Course book

Mean

SD

df

t-Valuea

Reading

Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book

2.48
4.06
2.54
3.87
2.63
3.79
2.43
3.47

0.98
0.89
0.88
0.82
0.92
0.98
0.90
0.82

61

6.66

52

5.70

51

4.40

51

4.36

Writing
Listening
Speaking
a

D
E
D
E
D
E
D
E

p < .01.

Rubrics to tasks, and especially reading tasks, were another feature that displeased the teachers of Book E. The differences
between the two books with regard to task rubrics were also statistically signicant across the range of the four skills
(Table 4).
One reason for this negative reaction might be that the rubrics were presented in L1 (Greek). The rationale behind this was
that the weaker learners are not discouraged and the stronger ones can work independently (Teachers book, D-level English,
p. 13). When asked to comment on the use of the L1, the author of Book D said that the rubrics in Greek in some of the
activities are an asset because they can help learners become more independent and feel more comfortable e if they dont
know something and have to ask the teacher for clarication. In Book E, the L1 is absent from the rubrics. That might probably
be the reason for teachers dissatisfaction. However, this was not always in the authors hands. As the author commented, the
L1 is present in class D, absent in class E [.]. These are PI instructions.
Various other characteristics of the reading and listening texts also help explain the considerably divergent evaluations
from teachers (see Table 5 and Appendix A for samples of reading and listening texts two from each book). Book E teachers
seemed to believe that their textbook was considerably more difcult and, perhaps, inappropriate, for their learners than
their Book D colleagues.
In their interview the author of Book E acknowledged that some readings should be simplied, at least my classes cannot
deal with them without my help. Book D author made the point that many of the texts selected aimed to be used as reference
material:
Reading texts may appear difcult, but we incorporate them to increase post-reading activity. We have placed them
there more as a reference, so that learners can see how they function in a context. Therefore, even if they are somehow
difcult, learners do not have to work on them.
Teachers were on average somewhat satised by the variety of text sources and authenticity of reading and listening
texts. While the differences in evaluation between the two course books persisted (Book D received more favourable responses), teachers reaction towards listening was more negative than that for reading (see Table 6).
The analysis of the interviews showed that both authors converged in that they sought out to nd authentic reading
materials. As the author of Book D claimed: it was very hard to nd authentic materials and so I didnt use a lot of them in my
textbook. The author of Book E also conrmed this by highlighting the restrictions imposed by mixed-ability students when
saying that the level of students would not enable them to deal effectively with authentic texts; in Greece we have multi-level
classes.
Further analysis of teachers questionnaire responses revealed their dissatisfaction towards the text speed (Book D: M 2.83,
SD 1.09 and Book E: M 4.07, SD 0.94, df 50, t-value 4.40, p < .01) and quality of English accent speed (Book D:
M 3.21, SD 1.28 and Book E: M 4.07, SD 1.03, df 43.87, t-value 2.65, p < .01) of the listening recordings in Book E.

Table 5
Features of reading/listening texts.
Course book feature
Length of texts

Reading
Listening

Level of difculty of texts

Reading
Listening

Vocabulary density of texts

Reading
Listening

p < .01.

Course book

Mean

SD

df

t-Valuea

Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book

2.33
3.25
2.25
3.48
2.30
4.23
2.58
4.32
2.42
4.14
2.42
4.11

0.92
1.05
0.94
1.21
0.72
0.91
1.06
0.82
0.86
0.87
0.93
0.99

61

3.61

51

4.16

60

9.04

50

6.67

60

7.73

50

6.30

D
E
D
E
D
E
D
E
D
E
D
E

218

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

Table 6
Text sources and authenticity of reading/listening texts.
Course book features
Variety of text sources

Reading
Listening

Authenticity of texts

Reading
Listening

Course book

Mean

SD

Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book

2.59
2.75
3.00
3.37
2.72
2.96
3.46
3.75

0.844
0.770
1.063
1.033
0.779
0.898
1.062
1.076

D
E
D
E
D
E
D
E

The teachers comments also corroborated the questionnaire results. As one of the teachers of Book E explained:
The accent in the listening texts is incomprehensibly strange. Kids sometimes laugh at it. It is not British English, it is
not American English, it is not Greek English, it sounds strange, funny, silly, if I may say so.
Teachers evaluations of other course book features, such as assessment, course book structure, and vocabulary/grammar
teaching, also provided a more positive appreciation of Book D over Book E. With particular regard to assessment methods,
the self-assessment practices of Book D received a mean of 1.95 (SD 0.79) when Book E received a mean of 3.32 (SD 1.19).
These differences were statistically signicant (df 46.78, t-value 4.88, p < .01).
However, analysis of the revision tests and the self-assessment tests of the books showed that these did not include
listening and speaking sections. When the author of Book E was asked the reasons for this, she said: All I can say about this is
that we simply followed instructions from the Pedagogical Institute. The PI is responsible for these choices.
Several other important themes were identied in the analysis of the interviews with regard to materials design. The most
salient one was the issue of coordination and collaboration among the parties involved, e.g. the course book authors, evaluators and administrators of the PI. For example, at the planning stage, it seems that the authors must have been provided
with broad guidelines by the PI and were made responsible for laying down the principles of language learning and the
structural framework to be followed themselves. Unfortunately, the PI did not communicate the principles of language
learning or the structural framework used for the design of the materials (or the criteria for the evaluation of the materials) to
the authors. In absence of these, the author of Book D explains what she did:
I studied the CEFR levels at the planning stage but this was not enough. Therefore, I tried to nd as many books at that
level as I could from different stores, to get a general idea. I hope we managed to develop a course book that addresses
the needs of A1, which is their level.
Both authors also agreed on the importance of coordination and collaboration and converged in acknowledging that this
was not always successful, as the PI wanted to be in full control of the evaluation conducted by the external evaluators and
the materials design. This was stressed by the authors, e.g.: The PI insisted on the presence and exploitation of all four skills in
every lesson (Book E author).
The following interview extract also added to the general feeling of exclusion of the course book authors from the
decision-making process of materials design:
I personally made it clear to the PI that the book was too much at certain points. I was concerned with difculties that
might intimidate students, rather than encourage learning, but they, that is the PI, chose otherwise. (Book E author)
Overall, the role of the PI in monitoring the design of the materials was not adequate according to the course book authors.
As the author of Book E stressed, the PI failed in creating effective channels of communication across the course book authors
and between external evaluators:
Meetings were not always arranged in advance so not all parties could attend. Generally you didnt get the feeling that
evaluation criteria were common for all books. Instructions were not always consistent. Evaluators did not give us the
impression that they were always in contact with each other, as their comments sometimes contradicted each other.
Another issue that both authors highlighted was the lack of progress from one grade to the next, which added to the lack of
PI coordination among the authors. As the author of Book D contends:
There was no collaboration between the writing teams of the different course books. So there was no smooth transition
from one level to another.
Overall, it took authors four years to complete the books. As the authors explained, the materials were written with a view
to being in use for a number of years, but there was no planning for an online version of the course book that would be
frequently updated by the authors. As a result, it can be argued that these materials give the impression of being static rather
than evolving, which makes things worse when we consider the increased probability of their implementation for many years
to come (due to the nancial crisis). During her interview, the author of Book E welcomed the idea of the revision of the
materials pointing out that any revision should be based on a collaboration between authors and teachers.

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

219

6. Discussion
What the quantitative and qualitative data of the study show is that neither of the two course books received fully positive
evaluations from the teachers who use them. That said, Book D received more positive evaluations than Book E, both overall
and with regard to specic issues, ranging from structural matters to pedagogical concerns. Across the board, Book E is
characterized as incorporating material that is more demanding for learners while lacking in variety and purpose. This shows
that appropriacy in the selection of texts and the design of tasks in language learning materials is central in prompting learner
motivation, empathy and emotional involvement (Mishan, 2005, pp. 41e42).
Although there has been a lot of skepticism regarding the complications and role of appropriacy and relevance of texts and
tasks in foreign language learning (e.g., see Day, 2003), the element of personal involvement of each individual learner in both
the texts and the tasks remains uncontested. For example, Arnold and Rixon (2008) claim that materials targeted at young
learners need to be child-friendly and teachers need to be specially prepared to implement them in useful ways. Our study
underlined (a) different perspectives of course book authors and teachers regarding child-friendliness and (b) teachers
acknowledging that they did not have the training necessary for the teaching of these course books. Furthermore, teachers
reactions to the two course books can further be linked to the intrinsic cognitive and affective needs and wants of the (young)
learners they are addressing. The emphasis on large numbers of tasks and their lack of variety, especially as concerns Book E
shows that Ghosns point that .. young-learner courses are still by and large structure- and skills-based (2010, p. 21) holds
sway here.
Our research also showed a mismatch between the perceptions of teachers and course book authors, which is rooted in the
lack of clear perspective and strategic planning reected both at the top and at the bottom of the national educational policy
scale. On the one hand, local policy makers, in this case the PI, tried to handle the design, linking and monitoring of the
decisions and actions of courseware developers with the CEFR levels and the then current foreign languages curricula. Clearly,
the PI is found wanting in its institutional role of ensuring curriculum coherence throughout the levels of courseware production and implementation. For example, there was no sense of authors involvement in the decision-making process that
would focus on producing a commonly agreed series of principles (Jolly & Bolitho, 2011; Mares, 2003). Rather, it was a given
that the curriculum and CEFR descriptors were already there and that course book authors would be able to design their
materials in perfect alignment to those.
On the other hand, there was a sense of developing materials that would give teachers a lot of space to make their own
decisions, that teachers would be based on and develop further these materials in a creative manner that would be benecial
to their learners (similar to Edge & Wharton, 1998). Such processes would imply a comprehensive understanding of the
educational priorities for the particular level of learners, which would then inform the internal structure of courseware, and a
concomitant training of all teachers who would be using these course books along these lines. As the data show, none of these
elements were incorporated in the materials designing process.
These shortcomings are further exacerbated by the fact that course book authors, themselves experienced teachers, bring
to the course book writing task their own personal philosophies and theories about what is appropriate. This is by no means
undesirable, but, when these intentions are not shared or understood by teachers who are asked to implement these course
books, problems will occur, especially in an educational system that is primarily course book-led. In this way, while the author
of Book E would claim that the course book promotes teacher autonomy, teachers who fully rely on this book, especially if
they have been used to following course books on a page-by-page basis, are bound to be overwhelmed by it. This is reected,
for example, in some teachers suggestions about the need for clearer task instructions, or about the lack of different types of
group-work in the course books. A genuinely autonomous teacher would be expected to bypass these shortcomings (Edge &
Wharton, 1998). Another example of the lack of mutual understanding between the stakeholders involved is the orientation
of course books as reference books. This was a major decision taken by the authors of Book E that was neither based on a
specic philosophy about the layout of the book (in the pre-production stage) nor supported by sufcient teacher preparation
(in the post-production stage).
In a similar vein, these course books were designed for teaching contexts that favour differentiated instruction, but
the vast majority of teachers in Greece lack training in this eld. On the other hand, it could be argued that the course
book authors themselves also lacked comprehensive training in designing courseware suitable for the differentiated
classroom. Another byproduct of the lack of clear orientation offered by the PI is that, as the data show, the two course
books do not portray a progress from one grade to the next, they lack continuity or, if they do, that progress is far from
smooth.
7. Implications and conclusions
The results presented above help us draw several implications for various stakeholders (e.g. policy makers, course book
designers and teachers) that would be meaningful for public education in a country like Greece. We propose a two-tiered reorientation of strategic policy making and planning. The rst tier would deal with (a) the design of a comprehensive curriculum that draws clear specications for different grades and (b) the orientation of essential criteria for the design of such
courseware that would bind all courseware authors. The second tier would target the preparation, training and monitoring of
(a) courseware authors and (b) teachers implementing the courseware. In what follows, we draw attention to both tiers while
focussing on courseware authors and teachers.

220

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

The production of ELT materials for primary levels D and E should aim to meet the demands of the curriculum while, at the
same time, being based on sound theorizing and published research in the domain of teaching young learners (e.g., Muoz,
2006; Nikolov, 2009). It is important that these concerns are shared by policy makers, courseware authors and critical readers
of the materials alike, so that the materials are properly aligned and any possible untested theories held (as was the case with
the author of Book E concerning the exclusion of games) minimized. To that end, it is useful to involve course book authors in
a process of continuous reection as they produce the materials (e.g., following the example of verbal protocols in Johnson,
2003). Provided the aim of the materials is to assist in a particular framework for teaching, e.g., differentiated instruction, it is
crucial that, in the pre-production stage, extensive research is carried out of teachers awareness of and needs regarding this
framework, so that specic guidelines are incorporated into the materials (Masuhara, 2011).
Teachers need to be empowered to take their share of responsibility in the implementation of language learning materials.
This is especially important for a context like the Greek public school system, where, for reasons related to the current
economic crisis, the same course books are probably going to be used in the future (despite ongoing curricular changes).
Therefore, teacher preparation programmes should take into consideration not only curricular and courseware concerns but
teachers wants and needs as well (Karavas-Doukas, 1996). On that basis, such programmes should tangibly inform teachers
about appropriately adapting (for a review, see Tomlinson, 2012, p. 151f.) and supplementing their coursebooks (Islam &
Mares, 2003; Rubdy, 2003) and involving their learners in this (Saraceni, 2003) as a means of rendering them more
learner-centred.
It is also important for teacher preparation to incorporate an awareness of learners response to courseware. Exploring in
depth learners opinions and reactions towards their course book materials (Wolf, 2013) and understanding their growing
engagement with the foreign language outside the classroom would be a worthwhile venture as it can create mutual understanding between materials producers and users and help establish a culture in which materials are not producer- but
consumer-centred (Bruthiaux, 2010). It is our belief that the more courseware development integrates learners language and
learning needs, teachers readiness to integrate the course books orientation, as well as current research on what constitutes
adequate language learning, the more they will succeed in contributing to genuine language learning.

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

221

Appendix A. Samples of texts from Book D and E

Book D (Bratsoli, A. & Diamantidou, A., English 4th Grade: Pupils Book): pp. 58 & 62. Book E (Kolovou, E.-K. & Kraniotou, A.,
English 4th Grade: Pupil's Book): pp. 78 & 106. 2014 The Institute of Educational Policy, Greece.

222

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

223

224

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

References
Abbot, G. (1981). Encouraging communication in English: a paradox. ELT Journal, 35, 228e230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/XXXV.3.228.
Arnold, W., & Rixon, S. (2008). Materials for teaching English to young learners. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning materials: A critical review
(pp. 38e58). London: Continuum.
Barrios, M. L., de Debat, E. V., & Tavella, G. (2008). Materials in use in Argentina and the Southern Cone. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning
materials e A critical review (pp. 300e316). London: Continuum.
Bolitho, R. (2008). Materials used in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language teaching materials:
A critical review (pp. 213e222). London: Continuum.
Bruthiaux, P. (2010). World Englishes and the classroom: an EFL perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 365e369. http://dx.doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.222223.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Chandran, S. (2003). Where are the ELT textbooks? In W. A. Renandya (Ed.), Methodology and material design in language teaching: Current perceptions and
practice and their implications (pp. 161e169). RELC Anthology Series, 44. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

225

Cunningsworth, A. (1984). Evaluating and selecting EFL teaching materials. London: Heinemann.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.
Day, R. (2003). Authenticity in the design and development of materials. In W. A. Renandya (Ed.), Methodology and materials design in language teaching:
Current perceptions and practises and their implications (pp. 1e11). Singapore: RELC.
Drnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edelenbos, P., & Kubanek, A. (2009). Early foreign language learning: published research, good practice and main principles. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), The age
factor and early language learning (pp. 39e58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Edge, J., & Wharton, S. (1998). Autonomy and development: living in the materials world. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching
(pp. 295e310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Enever, J., Moon, J., & Raman, U. (Eds.). (2009). Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives. Reading: Garnet Education/IATEFL.
Fenner, A., & Newby, D. (2000). Approaches to materials design in European course books: Implementing principles of authenticity, learner autonomy, cultural
awareness. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.
Garca Mayo, M. P., & Garca Lecumberri, M. L. (Eds.). (2003). Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ghosn, I.-K. (2010). Five-year outcomes from childrens literature-based programmes vs. programmes using a skills-based ESL course e the Matthew and
Peter effects at work? In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Research for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice (pp. 21e
36) London: Continuum.
Ghosn, I.-K. (2012). Language learning for young learners. In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Applied linguistics for materials development (pp. 93e110).
London: Continuum.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council.
Gray, J. (2010). The construction of English: Culture, consumerism and promotion in the ELT Coursebook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guerrettaz, A. M., & Johnston, B. (2013). Materials in the classroom ecology. Modern Language Journal, 97, 779e796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.
2013.12027.x.
Harwood, N. (2010). Issues in materials development and design. In N. Harwood (Ed.), Materials in ELT: Theory and practice (pp. 3e32). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, A. (2012). The teaching of reading in English for young learners: some considerations and next steps. In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Applied
linguistics for materials development (pp. 93e110). London: Continuum.
Islam, C., & Mares, C. (2003). Adapting classroom materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 86e103). London:
Continuum.
Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of
Literacy Research, 24, 83e108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10862969209547763.
Johnson, K. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Johnson, K., Kim, M., Liu, Y.-F., Nava, A., Perkins, D., Smith, A.-M., et al. (2008). A step forward: investigating expertise in materials evaluation. ELT Journal, 62,
157e163.
Jolly, D., & Bolitho, R. (2011). A framework for materials writing. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed.) (pp. 107e134).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1990). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native Englishes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Evaluating the implementation of an EFL innovation in Greek public secondary schools. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 7, 49e71.
Lee, R., & Bathmaker, A. (2007). The use of English course books for teaching English to vocational students in Singapore secondary schools: a survey of
teachers beliefs. RELC Journal, 38, 350e374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0033688207085852.
Litosseliti, L. (Ed.). (2010). Research methods in linguistics. London: Continuum.
Mares, C. (2003). Writing a coursebook. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 130e140). London: Continuum.
Masuhara, H. (2011). What do teachers really want from coursebooks? In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed.)
(pp. 236e266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Masuhara, H., Hann, N., Yi, Y., & Tomlinson, B. (2008). Adult EFL courses. ELT Journal, 62, 294e312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn028.
McDonough, J., Shaw, C., & Masuhara, H. (2011). Materials and methods in ELT: A teachers guide (3rd ed.). Malden: Blackwells.
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
McGrath, I. (2006). Teachers and learners images for coursebooks. ELT Journal, 60, 171e180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci104.
Menon, S. (2009). Corpus analysis of prescribed Science and English language course books: potentials for language teaching and EST materials design. In J.
Mukundan (Ed.), Readings on ELT materials III (p. 213). Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia.
Mishan, F. (2005). Designing authenticity into language learning materials. Bristol: Intellect.
Mukundan, J., & Ahour, T. (2010). A review of course book evaluation checklists across four decades (1970e2008). In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.),
Research for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice (pp. 336e352). London & New York: Continuum.
Muoz, C. (Ed.). (2006). Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Nikolov, M. (Ed.). (2009). Early learning of modern foreign languages: Processes and outcomes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Nikolov, M., & Mihaljevi
c Djigunovi
c, J. (2006). Recent research on age, second language acquisition, and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 26, 234e260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190506000122.
Nikolov, M., Mihaljevi
c Djigunovi
c, J., Mattheoudakis, M., Lundberg, G., & Flanagan, T. (Eds.). (2007). Teaching modern languages to young learners: Teachers,
curricula and materials. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A. (Eds.). (2010). Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics. London: Continuum.
Renandya, W. A. (Ed.). (2003). Methodology and materials design in language teaching: Current perceptions and practices and their implications. Singapore:
RELC.
Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., & Mahoney, D. (1996). Teachers and textbooks: a survey of beliefs and practices. In Perspectives: Working papers (City University of Hong Kong,
Department of English) (Vol. 8/1); (pp. 40e61).
Rixon, S. (2007). EYL teachers background, beliefs and practices in the teaching of initial reading. In A. Hughes, & N. Taylor (Eds.), Teaching English to young
learners: Fourth international TEYL research seminar 2007 papers (pp. 6e14). York: The University of York.
Rubdy, R. (2003). Selection of materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 37e57). London: Continuum.
Saraceni, M. (2003). Adapting courses: a critical view. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 72e85). London: Continuum.
Sifakis, N. C. (2012). The English language and globalisation: Aspects of present day reality in Greece, Europe and the rest of the world. Athens: Herodotus (in
Greek).
Smith, D. B. (1996). Teacher decision-making in the adult ESL classroom. In D. Freeman, & J. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 197e
216). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tomlinson, B. (2011). Introduction. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed.) (pp. 1e31). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tomlinson, B. (2012). State-of-the-art article: materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45, 143e179. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/S0261444811000528.
Tomlinson, B. (2013). Applied linguistics and materials development. London & New York: Bloomsbury.

226

D. Tsagari, N.C. Sifakis / System 45 (2014) 211e226

Tomlinson, B., Dat, B., Masuhara, H., & Rubdy, D. (2001). ELT courses for adults. ELT Journal, 55, 80e101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.1.80.
Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (Eds.). (2010a). Research for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice. London & New York:
Continuum.
Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2010b). Published research on materials development for language learning. In B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Research
for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice (pp. 1e18). London & New York: Continuum.
Tsagari, D. (2009). The complexity of test washback: An empirical study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH.
Tsagari, D. (2012). The inuence of the Examination for the Certicate of Prociency in English (ECPE) on test preparation materials. Internal report sponsored by
the SPAAN Fellowship for Studies in Second or Foreign Language Assessment. Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA: Cambridge Michigan Language Assessments
(CaMLA).
Tsagari, D., & Sifakis, N. C. (2012). Course-book evaluation in Greek primary state EFL schooling: Lessons learned. Paper presented at the 11th conference for the
European Society for the Study of English (ESSE). Istanbul, Turkey: Bogazici University.
Wolf, J. P. (2013). Exploring and contrasting EFL learners perceptions of textbook-assigned and self-selected discussion topics. Language Teaching Research,
17, 49e66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457535.