1.
Lyons (1999) claimed that the compute r revolution is unlikely to significantly affect reading habits in
the perspective of history and current literacy trends. New media and online literacy belong to and
affect people of all ages. In fact “The internet becomes as important part of college students lives.
Not only for this studies and daily sootiness but as a tool for getting to know other people and the
rest of the world” (Chou & Ssiao) 2000 p. 66. Common sense and experiential evidence seem to
indicate a relationship between interest in the material read and comprehension of that material
(Bernstein, 1955; Norvell, 1958; Witty, 1959, 1961, 1961a; Furness, 1963; McKay, 1968). That is,
readers who are more interested in a certain topic seem likely to have better comprehension of
material concerning that topic.
2. Every student is unique with different set of abilities so there is not any 'fit for all' kind of teaching
method possible. Teaching method should be according to the level of the class . There will never be
a perfect method. As teachers, we have to be flixible enough to adapt to the quality of the students
we have. Every year, a new different group of students comes to class with different backgrounds and
abilities. This means that we have to select suitable methods and techniques.
Prabhu (1990, p.162) had said, “We do not believe that there is a single best method.” IT ALL
DEPENDS ON THE TEACHING CONTEXT. That there is no best method therefore means that no single
method is best for everyone, as there are important variations in the teaching context that influence
what is best. The variations are of several kinds, relating to social situation (language policy, language
environment, linguistic and cultural attitudes, economic and ideological factors, etc.), educational
organisation (instructional objectives, constraints of time and resources, administrative efficiency,
class-size, classroom ethos, etc.) THERE IS SOME TRUTH TO EVERY METHOD. As a comment on our
state of knowledge at this time (or indeed at any time), the suggestion that no method contains more
than a partial truth is clearly unexceptionable. We continue to engage in the professional activity of
research, concept development, discussion, and debate because all of our understanding of language
learning and teaching is at best partial, and for any of us operating with a theory, which can represent
only a partial truth, it remains entirely possible that other theories represent partial truths as well. In
other words that different methods are best for certain people in a different teaching contexts.
Brumfit (1984), for instance, has strongly questioned the notion that teaching methods, which are
essentially concerned with human interaction, can usefully be subjected to the processes of objective
testing and prediction, which are part of the scientific method. He argues, in summary, (a) that a
teaching method in operation is necessarily an embodiment of certain general pedagogic principles
into a variety of specific contextual features (including participants' psychological states); (b) that
predictive testing of a method demands manipulation and control of the manifold contextual
features; (c) that many of the contextual features are either difficult or impossible to control; and,
most important, (d) that any success actually achieved in controlling contextual features will have
only the effect of disembodying the method, as it were, of its actual, operational form, thus rendering
the outcome of the testing inapplicable to the operation of the method in any specific context.
Brumfit comments: A claim that we can predict closely what will happen in a situation as complex as
[the classroom] can only be based on either the view that human beings are more mechanical in their
learning responses than any recent discussion would allow, or the notion that we can measure and
predict the quantities and qualities of all these factors. Neither of these seems to be a sensible point
of view to take.
How a method is implemented in the classroom is not only going to be affected by who the teacher
is, but also by who the students are.” (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson,2011,p.x). The method offered
by the researchers cannot be literally used without considering the learners’ needs. This is one of
crucial importance in choosing one method to be used. The teachers cannot just think about what
method is the most interesting and familiar according to them, instead they have to adjust.
3. a common definition of reading fluency is “the ability to read rapidly with ease and accuracy, and to
read with appropriate expression and phrasing. It involves a long incremental process and text
comprehension is the expected outcome” (Grabe, 2009). Such a definition of fluency includes skills in
rapid word recognition, rapid reading rate, extensive “exposure to print” (large reading amounts),
accuracy in comprehension, and incremental learning. What is striking about this set of skills is that
they all require the development of automaticity, a large recognition vocabulary, and extended
periods. Fluency development is often neglected in courses, partly because teachers and learners
feel that they should always be learning something new. Fluency d evelopment, [in contrast], involves
making the best use of what is already known (Nation, 2009, p. 2). Fuchs, Fuchs,Hosp, and Jenkins
(2009) added to this definitions that fluency in reading is the indicator all other components of
reading including comprehension. In this respect, not reading fluently may be defined as making
many reading mistakes reading monotony and with an unnatural voice, intermittent and very slowly
(Allington, 2006; Vilger, 2 008). It can be said that there is consensus about what the necessary
reading skills are for observing fluent reading. These include accuracy (knowing the word), reading
speed (automaticity), and prozody (Allington, et.al)
4. As Grant (1987, p.8) claims (the) 'Perfect book does not exist', yet the aim is to be to find out the best
possible one that will fit and be appropriate to a particular learner group. Sheldon (1988) suggests
that textbooks do not only represent the visible heart of any ELT program, but also offer considerable
advantages for both students and the teachers when they are being used in ESL/EFL classrooms.
Cunnigsworth (1995) suggest that potential, which textbooks have, in serving several additional roles
in ELT curriculum, is an advantage. He argues that textbooks are an effective resource for self
directed learning, an effective source for presentational material, a source of ideas and activities, a
reference source for students, a syllabus where they reflect pre-determined learning objectives, and
support for less experienced teachers who are yet to gain confidence. In addition to that, Hycroft
(1998) states that one of the primary advantage of using textbooks is that they are psychologically
essential for students since their progress and achievement can be measured concretely when we use
them. Preeminent theorists in the field of ELT textbook design and analysis such as Williams (1983),
Sheldon (1988), Brown (1995), Cunningsworth (1995) and all agree, for instance, that evaluation
checklists should have some criteria pertaining to the physical characteristics of textbooks such as
layout, organizational, and logistical characteristics. Other important criteria that should be
incorporated are those that assess a textbook's methodology, aims, and approaches and the degree
to which a set of materials is not only teachable, but also fits the needs of the individual teacher's
approach as well as the organization's overall curriculum. which a set of materials is not only
teachable, but also fits the needs of the individual teacher's approach as well as the organization's
overall curriculum.
For this reason, a coursebook must be adapted to your particular group of learners. a coursebook is
not an inflexible document, it is a learning tool that is used by learners and teachers. Acklam (1994, p.
12) suggests the following acronym for adapting a coursebook: “SARS.”
( S = SelectWhat parts of the coursebook do you definitely want to keep? A = Adapt What parts of the coursebook do
you basically want to keep, but need to change in some way to make them more suitable for your students, and in tune
with your teaching style? R = Reject What parts of the coursebook do you definitely want to leave out? S = Supplement
What else do you need to bring to the coursebook to fulfill the requirements of the overall syllabus you are working to,
and to respond to the needs of
your particular students?
