The sixty-eight items listed in Part Two (i.e., post-evaluation of the textbook) of the questionnaires were analyzed based on the following dimensions: A) the quantity of vocabulary, grammar, texts and practice of four language skills; B) the difficulty level of the above elements; C) overall features; D) language content: vocabulary, phrases, and pronunciation; E) language content: grammar and sentence patterns; F) dialogue and reading texts; G) four skills; H) learning methods and resources; and I) teaching resources. For dimensions A and B, whose focuses are quantity and difficulty
levels of different parts, frequency counts and percentage were conducted. Regarding the other dimensions where participants responded to the items on a four-point Likert scale, to indicate their satisfaction levels.
The following analysis begins with Dimension A, namely, the quantity of different parts (Items A1-7). Table 13 indicates that “speaking practices” in both textbooks were thought insufficient by over half of the urban teachers (54% and 66.04% respectively). On the other hand, a few differences showed in the results from rural teachers. Over half (53.85%) of the rural teachers who used Textbook K also thought that speaking was insufficient, but half (50%) of the rural ones who used Textbook H perceived that speaking was sufficient for them. Even so, nearly half (45.83%) of them had the same opinion as the rural teachers who used Textbook K.
Table 13. Ts’ Evaluation: Quantity of Language Content, Texts, and Four Skills
Textbook H
A. Quantity Urban (n=50) Rural (n=24)
Item Much % Sufficient % Little % Much % Sufficient % Little %
1. Voc. and phrases 18.00
82.00
0 8.3387.50
4.17 2. Gra. and patterns 12.0086.00
2.00 16.6783.33
03. Texts 24.00
74.00
2.00 16.6775.00
8.334. Listening 6.00
80.00
14.00 16.6783.33
05. Speaking 0 46.00
54.00
4.1750.00
45.836. Reading 4.00
72.00
24.00 091.67
8.337. Writing 8.00
70.00
22.00 8.3379.17
12.50Textbook K
A. Quantity Urban (n=53) Rural (n=26)
Item Much % Sufficient % Little % Much % Sufficient % Little %
1. Voc. and phrases 5.66
94.34
0 7.6984.62
7.692. Gra. and patterns 0
98.11
1.89 7.6988.46
3.853. Texts 3.77
88.68
7.55 15.3876.92
7.694. Listening 0
77.36
22.64 7.6976.92
15.385. Speaking 0 33.96
66.04
0 46.1553.85
6. Reading 0
86.79
13.21 3.8561.54
34.627. Writing 0
77.36
22.64 069.23
30.77Note. The highest percentage for each item is boldfaced.
In terms of difficulty levels, Table 14 presents that across different textbooks and geographical areas, each part was evaluated as suitable by the most teachers.
Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that “speaking practices” in both textbooks were thought easy by about one-third of the teachers.
Table 14. Ts’ Evaluation: Difficulty Levels of Language Content, Texts & Four Skills
Textbook H
B. Difficulty levels Urban (n=50) Rural (n=24)
Item Difficult % Suitable % Easy % Difficult % Suitable % Easy %
1. Voc. and phrases 8.00
88.00
2.00 8.3383.33
8.33 2. Gra. and patterns 6.0090.00
4.00 12.5087.50
03. Texts 16.00
78.00
6.00 16.6779.17
4.174. Listening 2.00
82.00
16.00 16.6770.83
12.505. Speaking 2.00
72.00
26.00 16.6745.83
37.506. Reading 6.00
72.00
22.00 4.1783.33
12.507. Writing 0
70.00
28.00 4.1787.50
8.33Textbook K
B. Difficulty levels Urban (n=53) Rural (n=26)
Item Difficult % Suitable % Easy % Difficult % Suitable % Easy %
1. Voc. and phrases 0
90.57
7.55 092.31
7.692. Gra. and patterns 0
94.34
5.66 7.6984.62
7.693. Texts 3.77
88.68
7.55 7.6988.46
3.854. Listening 0
73.58
26.42 3.8584.62
11.545. Speaking 0
64.15
32.08 065.38
34.626. Reading 0
81.13
18.87 076.92
23.087. Writing 0
83.02
16.98 069.23
30.77Note. The highest percentage for each item is boldfaced.
Concerning dimensions C to I, Table 15 shows that no significant differences were found between the two areas. Regarding the three dimensions which gained the most satisfaction, participants of different areas showed a few differences. Among the urban teachers using Textbook H, the top three dimensions were grammar (M=2.63), texts (M=2.62) as well as the overall features (M=2.60); among the rural teachers, in
addition to texts (M=2.74) and overall features (M=2.73), teaching resources was the most satisfying one (M=2.78). On the other hand, the least three satisfying items were the same: learning methods and resources (MU=2.10; MR=2.30), four skills (MU=2.40;
MR=2.38), as well as vocabulary, phrases and pronunciation (MU=2.22; MR=2.42).
Table 15. Ts’ Satisfaction with Textbook H: Urban vs. Rural
Dimension Area
Mean Rank SD t p
Note. NU=50, NR=24. The top three highest scores are boldfaced, while the lowest three are underlined.
With respect to teachers using Textbook K, Table 16 provides the results from urban and rural teachers. There were no significant differences between urban and rural areas. The most satisfying dimensions by teachers in both areas were the overall features (MU=2.70; MR=2.46) and teaching resources (MU=2.88; MR=2.46). Urban teachers also gave high scores to the texts (M=2.70) whereas rural teachers were more satisfied with grammar (M=2.50) than texts (M=2.37). On the other hand, the three dimensions which gained the least satisfaction were: learning methods and resources (MU=2.14; MR=1.89), vocabulary, phrases and pronunciation (MU=2.33; MR=1.98), as well as four skills (MU=2.49; MR=2.30). Particularly, in the rural area, the means of
vocabulary as well as learning methods and resources were lower than two.
Table 16. Ts’ Satisfaction with Textbook K: Urban vs. Rural
Dimension Area
Mean Rank SD t p
Note. NU=53, NR=26. The three highest scores are boldfaced, while the lowest three are underlined.
Concerning Part Three of the questionnaire, students’ learning needs as well as their favorite topics and genres, for the sake of comparison with students’ responses, these dimensions will be reported in the later section, which focuses on the results collected from students.
With regard to the last dimension in Part Three of the questionnaire (Items D1 to D7) which aimed to elicit teachers’ difficulties in using the textbook and where more than one answer was checked by participants, frequency count, percentage, and chi-square test were performed, as shown in Table 17, most teachers showed their worries about “the textbook’s failure to cope with students’ diverse proficiency levels (Item D1)” regardless of their different areas and textbooks. Over eighty-five percent of the teachers had this problem. Furthermore, more rural teachers had this difficulty than urban ones. The percentage of Item D1 in the rural group was even higher than
ninety percent. The other two difficulties that the most teachers of both versions encountered were “the content could neither develop students’ communicative skills”
(Item D2) nor “arouse students’ interests” (Item D5). 50% to 73.1% of the teachers in both areas perceived these two problems. Concerning the results of the chi-square test, no significant differences were shown. Possible reasons for teachers’ commonest difficulties will be discussed in Chapter Five.
Table 17. Ts’ Difficulties in Using the Textbook
All of the Teachers
Urban (n=103) Rural (n=50) Item
f % Rank f % Rank
1. Failure to cope with Ss’ diverse proficiency levels
88 85.4 1 47 94.0 1
2. Failure to cultivate Ss’ communicative abilities64 62.1 3 34 68.0 2
3. Not knowing how to use the textbook well 7 6.8 6 2 4.0 6 4. Inconsistency between the textbook &tests/supplementary materials Item (more than one answer is possible)
f % Rank f % Rank
1. Failure to cope with Ss’ diverse proficiency levels
45 90.0 1 23 95.8 1
2. Failure to cultivate Ss’ communicative abilities29 58.0 3 15 62.5 2
3. Not knowing how to use the textbook well 3 6.0 5 0 0 6 4. Inconsistency between the textbook &tests/supplementary materials Item (more than one answer is possible)
f % Rank f % Rank
1. Failure to cope with Ss’ diverse proficiency levels