





































Putri Anggraeni, et al / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 

61 

 

 
ELT FORUM 13(1) (2024) 

 

Journal of English Language Teaching 

 
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt 

 

 

Parity of learning tasks in New Total English coursebooks 

 

David Geba Abi Anandi1, Fransiskus Xaverius Mukarto1 

 
1Sanata Dharma University, Indonesia 

 

Article Info 
________________ 
Article History: 
Received on 8 
December 2023 

Approved on 29 March 
2024 
Published on 31 March 
2024 

________________ 
Keywords: The four 
strands; New Total 
English; ke learning 
tasks 
____________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract 
___________________________________________________________________ 
Coursebooks have an essential function in language instruction since they function 

as not only the guidance for both educators and learners in conducting learning 
programs but also the primary source of learning materials and learning tasks. 

Nevertheless, language learning program provides an imbalanced opportunity to 
develop students’ language skills equally. This study sought to analyze the balance 

of the learning tasks in New Total English Coursebooks in terms of the four strands. 
The research question in this study was “From the perspective of the Four Strands, 

what is the frequency distribution of learning tasks in New Total English 

Coursebooks?” In order to answer the research question in this study, the 
researchers used content analysis. The total of 637 learning tasks were analyzed in 

this study from three coursebooks. In selecting the samples of learning tasks, the 
researchers applied stratified random sampling. The findings showed that the highest 

frequency of strand found was meaning-focused input with 28.08%. The fluency 
development strand occupies 25.79% and language-focused learning occupies 

23.57% of the whole learning tasks. Lastly, the meaning-focused output had the 

lowest frequency with 22.54%. In conclusion, the coursebooks are proven to provide 
balanced distributions of the four strands. The findings of this study suggest that 

English instructors use the coursebooks in classrooms as they provide equal balance 
of the four strands. 

 

  
Correspondence Address: p-ISSN 2252-6706 | e-ISSN 2721-4532 

Jl. Affandi, Mrican, Caturtunggal, Kec. Depok, Kabupaten 
Sleman, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta 55281  

E-mail: davidgebaabianandi@gmail.com  

http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1333515478&1&&
http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1576658845&1&&


David Geba Abi Anandi & Fransiskus Xaverius Mukarto | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

62 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Richards and Rogers (2014) mention that instructional materials define daily learning objectives 

with the intention of achieving the objectives of the curriculum. As a result, a successful learning 

process is highly influenced by instructional materials (Hanifa, 2018). Among different types of 

instructional materials, coursebooks are thought as one of the major facets in any contexts in 

education, together with teachers and learners (Arab and Rastgou, 2022). 

In choosing the appropriate coursebooks, learners and teachers must consider the distribution 

of language focus to develop their skills and knowledge equally. Learners are often not given the 

equal opportunity to improve their language skills. The distribution of focus on language learning 

activities are characteristically imbalanced (Funk, 2012). The main focus of learning is on 

reproducible activities that emphasize grammatical precision, while oral fluency abilities receive less 

attention (Funk, 2012). When developing learning materials, it is important to take into account not 

only the objectives but also the learning methods as well as learning materials of (Wiggins and 

McTighe, 2005). 

The four strands theory is based on research on second language acquisition (Nation, 1996). 

A good language course, according to the Four Strands Theory, should place an equal emphasis on 

four important elements, dealing with focus on input, output, language learning, and development 

of fluency. Lightbown (2014) in Burgoine (2017) states that the framework suggested by Nation 

offers a guidance on how courses and curriculum plans should be structured. It includes the 

variation of activities and contexts which students need to make sure that as they learn academic 

material, their language development advances. Additionally, the academic material chosen is to be 

appropriate to their not only language proficiency but also age. 

Previous studies regarding analysis of coursebooks have been conducted. Some of the studies 

focused on analysing gender and cultural representations in coursebooks (Zahara et al., 2022; 

Parlindungan, Rifai, and Safriani, 2018; Yonata and Mujiyanto, 2017). Some of the previous studies 

focus on analysing questions in English coursebooks (Abdelrahman, 2014; Zareian, Davoudi, 

Heshmatifar, and Rahimi, 2015; Zaiturrahmi, Kasim, and Zulfikar, 2017). Some of the studies also 

focused on analysing tasks in coursebooks (Ayu and Indrawati, 2018; Abhar, 2017; Arab and 

Rastgou, 2022). The previous studies mentioned were used as the references for the researchers in 

conducting this study. 

Learning tasks serve as the important aspects of coursebooks in improving language skills and 

knowledge. Even though numerous studies have explored different aspects of coursebooks, a few 

have employed the Four Strands theory as the criterion to analyse learning tasks. Based on the 

background of this study and previous studies, this study aimed at analysing the learning tasks in 

New Total English Coursebooks from the perspective of the Four Strands. The research question in 

this study was “From the perspective of the Four Strands, what is the frequency distribution of the 

learning tasks in New Total English Coursebooks?”. The researchers narrowed the focus of the study 

to three coursebooks of an English coursebook series namely New Total English Coursebooks. 

 

The nature of coursebooks 

Using a coursebook, a teacher can follow a framework that is in line with the curriculum. Demir and 

Ertas (2014) mention that the most frequently used course materials for transferring both skills and 

knowledge are coursebooks, which are regarded as the essential component of every curriculum and 

contribute to content learning. They also mention that coursebooks act as the resource for courses, 

providing a variety of practices and examples of the course content. Jafarigohar & Ghaderi (2013) 

mention that coursebooks establish the content to be taught, the timing, the method, and the 

outcomes to be learned. Thus, it may be said that coursebooks serve as the guidelines for instruction 

in classrooms. In English Language Teaching (ELT), coursebooks serve a variety of purposes 

(Cunningsworth, 1995). They serve as 1) the aids for less experienced teachers, 2) the sources of 

inspiration and ideas, 3) the sources of knowledge for learners about the language elements such as 

vocabulary, grammar, etc., 4) the language program's syllabus, 5) the sources for classroom activities 

6) the resources of contents in forms of both oral and written presentations. Hence, coursebooks 

have an undeniably important function in guiding the process of language learning. 

 

New Total English coursebooks 

The coursebooks are published by Pearson Publication. Six books make up the New Total English 

series, which includes books for advanced, upper-intermediate, intermediate, pre-intermediate, 



David Geba Abi Anandi & Fransiskus Xaverius Mukarto | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

63 

 

elementary, and beginner levels. The coursebook series also includes CEFR reference levels from A1 

to C1. As written in the publisher’s website, the coursebook series is one of the coursebook series 

designed for general adult courses. 

 

Backward design 

The phrase "backward design" describes a style of program preparation that begins with the desired 

results first before selecting the kinds of evaluation and instructional approaches to be applied 

throughout the learning processes (Llerena, 2020). Three stages make up backward design are 1) the 

desired results identification, 2) acceptable evidence determination, and 3) learning experiences and 

instruction planning (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). 

Clarity of priorities, which is referred to as looking at existing content standards and 

evaluating the expectations of the curriculum being used, is determined in the identifying the desired 

results and includes taking into account the learning goals. A learning program's assessment is 

decided upon during the step of determining acceptable evidence. Lastly, choosing the activities that 

will help students successfully attain the targeted goals is a key component of the planning learning 

experiences and instruction stage. Additionally, relevant learning experiences yield the results that 

educators want students to demonstrate (Spady, 1994). 

 

Learning tasks 

In the process of achieving the learning goals, learners need to do learning tasks. Anderson and 

Pesikan (2016) mention that learning tasks are designed to help students progress from ignorance to 

knowledge or from incompetence to competency. Skehan (1996) in Ellis (1997) says that the 

completion of tasks is seen as having some priority, meaning is important, there is a connection to 

the actual world, and the judgment of task performance is based on the result. English coursebooks 

provide tasks as part of the English teaching materials (Muhammad, 2008). According to The 

Council of Europe (2020), tasks are defined as any deliberate actions which are necessary by 

individuals to achieve the outcomes in the context of problem solving, obligations realization or 

achieving learning objectives. Learning tasks are defined as activities where there is a connection to 

real-world circumstances, the performance of students is assessed based on the task's conclusion, and 

the focus is on the meaning (Skehan, 1998 in Tsiplakides, 2011). 

 

The four strands 

Nation (1996) proposes a framework for language learning, which is the Four Strands. The Four 

Strands is a theory consisting of an equal proportion of focus in language learning. The four strands 

are meaning-focused output, fluency development, meaning-focused input, and language-focused 

learning. 

 

Meaning-focused input 

As highlighted by Krashen (1981), input, as defined by i+1, is the procedure used to comprehend a 

language through listening and reading at one-higher-level than students’ current understanding. The 

level of understanding "I" is the language, while the level "+1" is one level higher. Input hypothesis 

emphasizes the exposure of a language for students in a communicative context (Gass & Mackey, 

2015). In addition, the language being exposed to the learners need to be slightly above their current 

level of understanding. The meaning-focused input strand is accomplished through reading and 

listening exercises in which the focus of the learning is on the messages. The meaning-focused input 

can also be accomplished through sign and visual language in certain cases (Gass & Mackey, 2015). 

The conditions required in meaning-focused input strand are as follows: 

- The majority of the input must be familiar to the learners. 

- The students want to and are engaged in understanding the input. 

- The learners are only familiar with a very small percentage of the language features. 

- The context and background information can help learners learn the unfamiliar language 

components. 

- There is a lot of input available. 

 

Meaning-focused output 

According to the output hypothesis, providing students with a ton of chances to write and speak in 

the classroom is needed (Swain, 1993). Meaning-focused output strand gives students opportunity to 



David Geba Abi Anandi & Fransiskus Xaverius Mukarto | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

64 

 

communicate with others through both written and verbal expressions. Meaning-focused output is 

the strand where students concentrate on communicating their thoughts and messages to others 

through writing and speaking tasks (Nation, 2007). Learners are encouraged to make the most of 

their resources and linguistic skills in this strand. The conditions required in meaning-focused output 

strand are: 

- The students write or speak about well-known subjects. 

- Their main goal is to make someone else to understand what they are saying. 

- Strictly limited use of unfamiliar language. 

- The availability of tools to fill any gaps in their productive language knowledge, such as 

communication techniques, dictionaries, or prior input.  

- Plenty of speaking and writing opportunities are given (Nation, 2007). 

 

Language-focused learning 

Nation (1996) mentions language-focused learning is achieved through purposeful learning in which 

the focus is on vocabulary, grammar, sounds and spelling of language, and explanations. Long & 

Robinson (1998) mention that focus-on-form occurs when students change their attention from 

meaning-focused to form-focused as a result of perceived difficulties with understanding or 

production. Focus on form should take place in meaning-focused strands in order to apply the new 

linguistic features they learn. Ellis (2015) states that to truly master new linguistic forms in 

communicative usage, learners require opportunities to engage in meaning-focused language 

activities. The conditions required in language-focused learning strand are: 

- Learners are being exposed to language features deliberately. 

- The students are urged to process language features in depth and thoughtfully. 

- It is crucial to offer opportunities to focus on the linguistic features in order to maximize language 

learning. 

- The features being chosen should be easy to understand and not rely on background information 

that the learners may not have. 

- The other three strands should frequently reference the linguistic features covered in the language-

focused strand. 

 

Fluency development 

This strand's activities are designed to encourage learners to use the language they are familiar with 

repeatedly with the intention of sharpening their skills rather than to teach them new information 

(Razman, Ismail, Ismail, 2022). The conditions required in fluency development strand are: 

- The students' focus is on understanding or expressing meaning. 

- Students are motivated to perform faster. 

- There is a significant amount of input or output (Nation, 2007). 

- The majority of input and output are already familiar to the students. In other words, there are no 

new languages, unfamiliar topics, or new language features. 

 

METHODS 

The researchers of this study applied content analysis. Content analysis is defined as a method 

aiming to identify specific characteristics of a material (Ary et al., 2010). The focus of content 

analysis is analysing and interpreting recorded materials such as magazines, journals, books, essays, 

music, speeches, advertisements, photographs, and any other forms of electronic communication 

(Frankael et al., 2012). In conducting this study, the researchers adopted the steps of content analysis 

from Frankael, Wallen, and Hyun (2012) namely 1) deciding objectives, 2) describing terms, 3) 

defining the unit of analysis, 4) discovering relevant data, 5) develop a rationale, 6) develop 

sampling technique, 7) and planning coding categories. The steps were chosen since they are suitable 

with the purpose of this study and clearly define each step. 

In total, there are 34 chapters involved in this study. In selecting the samples, the researchers 

applied stratified random sampling. According to Krippendorff (2019), stratified random sampling is 

done through systematic random sampling for each stratum, that comprises of the units of samples. 

Since this research involved three different levels of the English coursebooks, stratified random 

sampling was employed. The researchers took three random chapters from each level to analyse. 

In content analysis, the most commonly utilized way is calculating the frequency, 

percentages, and ration of one occurrence to the whole occurrences (Frankael, Wallen, & Hyun, 



David Geba Abi Anandi & Fransiskus Xaverius Mukarto | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

65 

 

2012). In analysing the samples of the learning tasks, the researchers categorized every learning task 

into the four strands based on the conditions they fit into. After categorizing the learning tasks into 

the four strands, the researchers calculated the frequencies and percentages of the categories. In 

transforming the data, the researchers used spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel to not only increase the 

accuracy level of the calculation, but also save time since the calculations were done automatically. 

It is important to take into account the accuracy and credibility of studies in qualitative 

research (Gay et al., 2012). To improve the trustworthiness of this study, the researchers employed 

external audit. External audit or peer debriefing is defined as a process in qualitative studies where 

the researchers invite an individual outside the study to review the methods and interpretations of 

the study (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2012). The researchers invited an external auditor to review 

the coding categories and the analysis of this study. The auditor was invited as the external auditor 

of this study because the expert has experience in coursebook designing as he has published a 

number of English coursebooks and he has experience in teaching English language at the university 

level. The mentioned criteria are the indicators in choosing the auditor for this study. 

 

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 

In order to group all of the learning tasks from the chosen chapters, fluency development, meaning-

focused output, language-focused learning, and meaning-focused input strands were utilized. Table 1 

shows the frequencies of the four strands in the learning tasks of New Total English Coursebooks. 

 

Table 1. The frequencies of the four strands in New Total English coursebooks 
 Strands Proportions 

No Frequency Percentage 

1 Meaning-focused input 355 28.08 % 

2 Meaning-focused output 285 22.54% 
3 Language-focused learning 298 23.57% 

4 Fluency development 326 25.79% 

 Total 1264 100% 

 

The whole learning tasks analysed in this study consists of 335 meaning-focused input, 326 fluency 

development, 298 language-focused learning, and 285 meaning-focused output. The meaning-focused 

input has the highest frequency whereas meaning-focused output has the lowest frequency. It is critical to 

comprehend that There might be more than one strand in a single learning task. For instance, when 

learners are asked to work in pairs, the three meaning-focused strands are involved since learners would 

take turns speaking and listening. Subsequently, both receptive and productive actions occur in such 

activities. Additionally, the particular learning task also involves fluency development strand because the 

learners’ focus is on communicating messages and utilizing what they already know. 

Figure 1. shows the visualization of the learning tasks from the perspective of the four strands in the 

coursebooks. 

Figure 1 shows that the fluency development strand comes in second with 25.79%, and the 

meaning-focused input strand comes in first with 28.08%. Additionally, 22.54% of the learning tasks are 

categorized as the meaning-focused output tasks and 23.57% as the language-focused learning tasks. The 

total course time should involve around 25% of the four strands (Nation, 2007). The results show that each 

strand in the learning tasks in the New Total English Coursebooks is spread equally. Because no strand 

makes up more than 30% of the total, no strand is dominant. 

The meaning-focused strands in the four strands theory are meaning-focused output, meaning-

focused input, and fluency development. These three strands are primarily concerned with conveying and 

receiving meaning or messages. The meaning-focused strands take up 76.41% of the overall learning tasks. 

It is crucial that a course should consists of a small amount of language-focused learning strand 

(Nation, 2007). The entire course time should involve no more than 25% of language-focused learning 

strand (Nation, 2007). The results of this study show that 23.57% of the whole sample is taken up by 

learning tasks that are classified as language-focused learning. It indicates the coursebooks provide 

appropriate amount of language features learning for the students. 

 



David Geba Abi Anandi & Fransiskus Xaverius Mukarto | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

66 

 

 

Figure 1. The distributions of learning tasks in New Total English coursebooks from the perspective 

of the four strands 

 

According to the results, it was found that the learning tasks in New Total English Coursebooks' are 

appropriately distributed from the perspective of the four strands. The four strands framework suggests that 

in a well-balanced course, each strand has a roughly equal amount of time (Nation, 2007). The four 

strands framework offers a rationale for the three-to-one balance, according to which meaning-focused 

strands take up 75% of the course's total time and language-focused strand occupies the remaining 

percentage.  

The study conducted by Arab & Rastgou shows similar results to this current study. The book they 

analysed offers an approximately the same balance of strands dealing with fluency development, meaning-

focused output, language-focused learning, and meaning-focused input. On the contrary, another study 

that used the four strands found that the framework isn't being used to its full potential because meaning-

focused output and input strands are disregarded. Consequently, fluency development, the final strand, 

was impacted (Nazeer, Shah, Sarwat, 2015). The followings are the discussions of the four strands in New 

Total English Coursebooks. 

 

Meaning-focused input 

Messages that the learners are likely to focus on make up the meaning-focused input strand (Nation, 

1995). Figure 2 shows an example of a meaning-focused input strand learning task in the 

coursebooks. 

The learners are requested to read news articles in the learning task mentioned above. After reading 

the news articles, the students are required to respond to questions about the news. As a result, to obtain 

the answers to the questions, students are expected to locate specific passages in the text. Intensive reading 

is the term for such reading assignments. Harmer (2015) defines intensive reading as reading activities that 

require students to read assigned texts and complete specific goals, such as responding to questions, 

transferring knowledge, questioning the text, and serving as themes for additional activities. 

The task is categorized as meaning-focused input strand. It is because teachers ask students to read 

stories in order to respond to questions. Additionally, because the students are required to write responses, 

the learning task is also classified as meaning-focused output. Because all learners are prompted to read the 

material again rather than learning new language elements, the fluency development strand is also 

involved in this strand. 

 

 



David Geba Abi Anandi & Fransiskus Xaverius Mukarto | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

67 

 

 

Figure 2. A meaning-focused input learning task 

 

Meaning-focused output 

The meaning-focused output strand is done through productive actions (Nation, 2007). According to 

the analysis, the meaning-focused output strand takes up 22.54% of the learning tasks in the New 

Total English Coursebooks. The productive abilities covered by the meaning-focused output strand 

are learned through presenting, writing, and speaking. Figure 3 shows an example of a meaning-

focused output strand task in the coursebook. 

 

 

Figure 3. A meaning-focused output learning task 

 

The learners are requested to communicate their findings from the prior activity to the class in the 

example of the learning assignment above. They are required to provide details regarding their partners in 

this situation. The author of the book also provides an illustration of how the description should be like. 

The students' speaking and presentation skills are the main focus of the learning task. As a result, it 

belongs to the meaning-output strand. However, other learners are acting as listeners while a learner 

presents information. It implies that this learning task includes the meaning-focused input strand as well. 

This learning task also improves learners' fluency because it does not teach them to any new language 

characteristics or subjects. All three meaning-focused strands, fluency development, meaning-focused 

output, and meaning-focused input, are present in the learning activity. 

 

Fluency development 

The acquisition of fluency can be achieved through both receptive and productive actions (Nation, 

2007). The four language skills which are writing, reading, speaking, and listening are all covered in 

this strand. Furthermore, the fluency development strand is included into one of the meaning-

focused strands, with the intention of communicating and receiving meanings (Nation, 2007). Figure 

4 is an example of a learning tasks which is categorized as fluency development strand task. 

 

 

 

 

 



David Geba Abi Anandi & Fransiskus Xaverius Mukarto | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

68 

 

 

Figure 4. A fluency development learning task 

 

In the learning task shown in figure 4, the students are required to work in pairs and place a call 

pretending to be a travel agent and a customer. Speaking and listening are required during the learning 

activity as they are expected to simulate a real-world conversation. The task's objective is for students to be 

able to explain and understand meanings to others. 

The learning task also involves meaning-focused output and input because students are requested to 

communicate meanings in pairs. Additionally, if the learners are familiar with all the topics and linguistic 

components, fluency development also takes place (Nation, 1995). It can be said that this particular activity 

can be divided into strands for developing fluency and meaning-focused output and input. 

 

Language-focused learning 

Language-focused learning entails deliberately acquiring language aspects (Nation, 2007). 

Grammar, pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary, and conversation make up the language features. 

The linguistic components, such as their overall meaning, the patterns they fit into, and their spoken 

and written forms, are also the emphasis of language-focused instructions (Nation, 1995). Lexis, 

syntax, sounds, and coherent devices were all language features that the researcher used in this study 

that were taken from Harmer's (2015) work. Figure 5 is an example of a language focused learning 

task in New Total English Coursebooks. 

An illustration of a language-focused learning exercise is shown in figure 5. The learning 

assignment emphasizes word meanings. In the learning exercise, students are required to read words 1 

through 8 and match them with meanings 1 through h. The learning assignment is classified as language-

focused learning as the learners are encouraged to comprehend word meanings. 

 Instructional materials are the sources used by educators in the educational process to assist both 

teachers and learners in order to achieve the goals of the curriculum (Richards and Rogers, 2014). As one 

of the instructional materials, coursebooks serve as the three facets of any educational contexts, together 

with teachers and students (Ajoke, 2017). This current study shows that the coursebooks have a balance 

proportion of language learning in accordance with the Four Strands. The analysis was done by analysing 

the learning tasks in the coursebooks. It is important to take into account the balance of these tasks in a 

language learning (Nation, 2007). Additionally, the grammatical precision is often the main emphasis of 

the learning process, while giving little attention to the oral fluency skills (Funk, 2012). The findings of this 

study give information to the teachers about how to choose the appropriate coursebooks to utilize in 

classrooms from the perspective of the Four Strands. This current study also contributes to the material 

design and development in English Language Studies by providing the perspective of how learning tasks in 

coursebooks should be. 

 

 



David Geba Abi Anandi & Fransiskus Xaverius Mukarto | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

69 

 

 

Figure 5. A language-focused learning task 

 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, New Total English Coursebooks provide equal opportunities for learners in terms of 

the Four Strands because no strand was found dominant. Meaning-focused input has the highest 

frequency of strand in the learning tasks with 335 (28.08%), fluency development strand has the 

second highest frequency with 326 (25.79%) learning tasks. The language-focused strand occupies 

298 (23.57%) learning tasks, while the mearning-focused output strand occupies 285 (22.54%) of the 

learning tasks. 

The learning tasks may be used and followed by general adult learners, who are the coursebooks' 

intended users, to accomplish learning objectives. The coursebooks analysed in this current study can be 

used as a reference for language coursebook designers as the coursebooks provide equal distributions of the 

four strands. Finally, future studies that analyze the learning tasks in coursebooks can use the current work 

as a reference in conducting their studies. The current study's researchers suggest that future studies 

examine different general language learning coursebooks to determine how the four strands are distributed 

throughout the books. Lastly, the researchers suggest English instrutors use the coursebooks analysed in 

this study to be used in classrooms since they are proven to provide equal proportions of the Four Strands. 

 

FUNDING STATEMENT 

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article. 

 

REFERENCES 

Abdelrahman, M. S. B. (2014). An analysis of the tenth-grade English language textbooks questions 

in Jordan based on the revised edition of Bloom's taxonomy. Journal of Education and 

Practice, 5(18), 139-151. 

Arab, H. & Rastgou, A. (2022). A critical analysis of prospect 3 based on Nation and Macalister's 

four-strand framework. Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies, 1(1), 58-69.  

Abhar, N. (2017). Evaluating 7th grade English textbook based on Ellis evaluation framework. 

Studies in Literature and Language, 15(2), 32-37. DOI: 10.3968/9849.  

Anderson L. W., & Pesikan, A. (2016). Task, teaching and learning: Improving the quality of education for 

economically disadvantaged students. Belley: International Bureau of Education. 

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). 

Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. 

Burgoine, S. (2017). A four strands approach to content-based instruction in an EFL context. 

国際社会文化研究, 18, 67-84. 



David Geba Abi Anandi & Fransiskus Xaverius Mukarto | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

70 

 

Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heineman. 

Council of Europe. (1996). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, 

assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved from www.coe.int/lang-

cefr. 

Demir, Y., & Ertas, A. (2014). A suggested eclectic checklist for ELT coursebook evaluation. The 

Reading Matrix, 14(2).  

Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 51(1), 36-42. 

Ellis, R. (2015). The importance of focus on form in communicative language teaching. Eurasian 

Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 1–12.  

Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012,). How to design and evaluate research in education 

(8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Funk, H. (2012). Four models of language learning and acquisition and their methodological 

implications for textbook design. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(1), 298–

311. 

Gass, S.M. & Mackey, A. (2015).  Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. in 

Vanpatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds).  Theories in second language acquisition. New York: 

Routledge. 

Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and 

applications (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson. 

Hanifa, R. (2018). EFL published materials: An evaluation of English textbooks for junior high 

school in Indonesia. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(2), 166-174, DOI: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.2p.166. 

Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching (5th ed.). London: Pearson. 

Jafarigohar, M. (2013). Evaluation of two popular EFL coursebooks. International Journal of Applied 

Linguistics & English Literature, 2(6), 194-201, DOI: 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.6p.194. 

Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). London: Sage 

Publication.  

Llerena, C. L. A. (2020). The benefits of backward design in the English as a foreign language 

context. Indonesian Journal of English Education, 7(2), 145-158. doi:10.17785/ijee.v7i2.17785. 

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. in C. Doughty, & 

J. Williams (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Muhammad, K.S. (2008). How to choose suitable English coursebooks to be used in the English 

teaching-learning process: Doing a micro evaluation. Journal of English and Education, 2(1), 

92-107. 

Nation, P. (1996) The four strands of a language course. TESOL in Context, 6(2), 7-12. 

Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 1-12. 

Nazeer, M., Shah, S.K., Sarwat, Z. (2015). Evaluation of Oxon English textbook used in Pakistan 

public schools for 6th & 7th grade. Journal for the Study of English Linguistics, 3(1), 51-79. 

Parlindungan, F., Rifai, I., & Safriani, A. (2018). The representation of Indonesian cultural diversity 

in middle school English textbooks. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 289-302, 

DOI: 10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13276. 

Razman, S.M, Ismail, Z., & Ismail, W.M.A.S. (2022). Developing a teaching module on Arabic 

vocabulary based on the four strands theory for pre-university students in Malaysia: A needs 

analysis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(11), 2263-2273. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1211.05. 

Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, England. 

Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. Arlington: American 

Association of School Administrators. 

Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian 

Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158-164. 

Tsiplakides, I. (2011). Selecting an English coursebook: Theory and practice. Theory and Practice in 

Language Studies, 1(7), 758-764. DOI: 10.4304/tpls.1.7.758-764. 

Wiggins, G. & Jay McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria: ASCD 

publications. 



David Geba Abi Anandi & Fransiskus Xaverius Mukarto | ELT Forum 13(1) (2024) 

71 

 

Yonata, F., Mujiyanto, Y. (2017). The representation of gender in English textbooks in Indonesia. 

Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature 12(1), 91-101. 

Zahara, V., Saraka, Rusmawati, D. (2022). The representation of Indonesian culture diversity in 

English textbooks used in high school. E3L: Journal of English Teaching, Linguistic, and 

Literature, 5(1), 9-20.  

Zaiturrahmi, Kasim, T., and Zulfikar, T. (2017). Analysis of instructional questions in an English 

textbook for senior high schools. English Education Journal (EEJ), 8(4), 536-552. 

Zareian, G., Davoudi, M., Heshmatifar, Z., & Rahimi, J. (2015). An evaluation of questions in two 

ESP coursebooks based on Bloom’s new axonomy of cognitive learning domain. 

International Journal of Education and Research, 3(8), 313-326. 

 


