Education of the republic of uzbekistan termiz state university the faculty of foreign philology

THE MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY SPECIAL
EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
TERMIZ STATE UNIVERSITY
THE FACULTY OF FOREIGN PHILOLOGY
THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING METHDOLOGY


COURSE WORK
THEME: EVALUATING COURSE BOOKS

Scientific supervisor: Urakova Sh.T
Group: 305 Student: Melikmurodov Sirojiddin
Termez -2022
THEME: EVALUATING COURSE BOOKS
PLAN:
I.INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………...3
II.MAIN PART:…………………………………………………………………….5
1.Approaches to ELT Coursebook Evaluation……………………………………...5
2.Evaluation of ELT coursebooks…………………………………………………10
3.Evaluating course books – checklists……………………………………………14
4.Coursebook Evaluation by English Teachers……………………………………16
III.CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………..19
IV.REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………..21

INTRODUCTION

Several areas of knowledge are determined every year in Uzbekistan, the development of which is given priority attention. This year physics and foreign languages ​​have become such areas. Uzbekistan’s policy of openness, active entry into the global market, expansion of international cooperation in all areas increase the need for studying foreign languages.Teaching in foreign languages ​​is conducted in 25 higher education institutions in Uzbekistan. In 2016, there were only 7 such institutions. Over the past 3 years, the number of applicants who have received a language certificate of international level has increased tenfold.This year 350 students received grants to study at prestigious foreign universities through the El-Yurt Umidi Foundation, which is five times more than in previous years.
However, the state of the system of teaching foreign languages ​​at some places does not allow effectively solving the large-scale tasks in this area. So, in the education system, there are more than 2 thousand vacancies for foreign language teachers. The quality of teaching languages ​​in 1.4 thousand schools is assessed as extremely low. Only 4 percent of school teachers have national and international language certificates. There are no teachers with a certificate in the cities of Khanabad and Kuvasay, Zafarabad, Mirishkor, Turtkul, Sherabad and Uzun districts. 49 percent of teachers failed the certification test.These and other problems in the sphere were comprehensively analyzed at the meeting. Priority tasks were identified.
“The time has come to create in Uzbekistan a new system of teaching foreign languages, which will become a solid foundation for the future. Since we set ourselves the goal of building a competitive state, from now on, graduates of schools, lyceums, colleges and universities must be fluent in at least two foreign languages. This strict requirement should become the main criterion for the work of the head of each education institution”¹, Shavkat Mirziyoyev said.
Coursebooks are a core part of any curriculum as the unique contributors to content learning. They are, perhaps, the most commonly used course materials in transmitting knowledge and skills.² The growing popularity of coursebooks can be justified through several pedagogical reasons. Tomlinson, for example, believes that “a coursebook helps provide a route map for both teachers and learners, making it possible for them to look ahead to what will be done in a lesson as well as to look back on what has been done”. Not only do they serve as the general framework for teachers to follow in accordance with the curriculum, but they also function as a guide through the courses offering a wide collection of relevant examples and practices regardless of the subject matter.
The object of the course paper is the process of evaluating course books.
The subject of the course paper is the character and complex of evaluating course books which are the most efficient for mastering the foreign language.
The aim of the course paper is to develop the methodic of evaluating course books which will stimulate the teaching process.
The tasks of the course paper are the following:

• 
  determine approaches to ELT course book Evaluation;
  
• 
  characterize evaluation of ELT course books;
  
• 
  investigate the key strategies Course book evaluation by English teachers.
  

The practical value of the course paper is to develop methodical approaches to evaluate course books.
The structure of the course paper: introduction, four plans, conclusion, references.

1.Approaches to ELT Coursebook Evaluation

Sheldon mentions two basic reasons to evaluate coursebooks. First, the evaluation will help the teacher or program developer make decisions on selecting the appropriate coursebook. Also, evaluation of the merits and demerits of a coursebook will familiarize the teacher with its probable weaknesses and strengths. What’s more, Tomlinson regards material evaluation as another way of action research that develop our understanding of the ways in which the material works. Needless to say, materials evaluation is also likely to contribute to teachers’ professional development by providing them with a critical point of view and enabling them to scrutinize the course material with an academic perspective.
Several models, methods and approaches have emerged in relation to coursebook evaluation. Grant introduced a succinct evaluative approach called CATALYST test; an acronym in which the letters stand for Communicative, Aims, Teachability, Availibility, Level, Your impression, Students’ interest and Trying and testing. Similarly, Tanner and Green offer a practical assessment form based on Method, Appearance, Teacher-friendliness, Extras, Realism, Interestingness, Affordability, Level and Skills. Initials of these features recollectively make up the word MATERIALS. Though these easy-to-remember models were made up as handy tools to evaluate coursebooks, they may not be quite effective in having a deep understanding on the efficacy and the actual performance of a targeted coursebook. ³To be more specific, McDonough and Shaw propose a two-stage model for a thorough evaluation of coursebooks. They suggest that a brief external evaluation should be conducted firstly to have an overview of the organizational foundation of the coursebook. Then, it should be followed by a detailed internal evaluation “to see how far the materials in question match up to what the author claims as well as to the aims and objectives of a given teaching program”. In terms of the period evaluation is carried out, Cunningsworth proposes pre-use, in-use and post-use evaluations. Pre-use evaluation is intended to predict the potential performance of a coursebook. In-use evaluation is conducted while using a coursebook “when a newly introduced coursebook is being monitored or when a well-established but ageing coursebook is being assessed to see whether it should be considered for replacement”. Post-use evaluation provides retrospective assessment of a coursebook and also serves to decide whether to use the same coursebook on future occasions. Abdelwahab suggests three basic methods to evaluate coursebooks. The impressionistic method, as the name suggests, involves analyzing a coursebook on the basis of a general impression. He asserts that this method will not be adequate in itself and it needs to be integrated with the checklist method, which also covers the main idea of the present paper. The third one, the in-depth method, requires a profound scrutiny of representative features such as the design of one particular unit or exercise, or the treatment of particular language elements.
A checklist is an instrument that helps practitioners evaluate coursebooks in an effective and practical way. According to Mukundan, Hajimohammadi and Nimehchisalem, checklists allow for a more sophisticated evaluation of the coursebook in reference to a set of generalizable evaluative criteria. As Cunningsworth states, one major benefit of using checklists is that they provide a very economic and systematic way to ensure that all relevant items are considered for evaluation. Checklists may be qualitative or quantitative. When designed in the form of quantitative scales, they allow for an objective evaluation of a given coursebook. Qualitative checklists, on the contrary, elicit subjective information on the quality of coursebooks by directing open-ended questions. There are some issues which make the use of evaluation checklists necessary. At the outset, Ghorbani asserts, a large number of English classes around the world today are using coursebooks which are not chosen by the careful application of objective evaluation criteria. Randomness is the other shortcoming encountered. The procedure for choosing coursebooks in many countries is too often haphazard. Last but not least, teacher-centeredness is dominant in the selection of coursebooks. While this may be understandable given that teachers are the end-users facing the merits and demerits of a given coursebook throughout the whole semester, we should not ignore the fact that students are the other shareholders to be positively or negatively affected by the potential of the coursebook chosen. At this point, the needs and wants of learners should be given careful consideration while selecting a coursebook through applying to students an evaluation checklist of appropriate selection criteria.
It may be quite challenging for language teachers as the end-users if they are authorized, school principals and administrators to evaluate and select coursebooks. Though plenty of ELT coursebook evaluation checklists are available in the literature to make coursebook selection and evaluation process easier and more systematic, practitioners may have difficulty choosing from the available evaluation checklists. This is probably due to the fact that some of the evaluation checklists suffer from practicality issues such as being in the awkward length or not allowing for rational scoring. Some of the checklists may include simplistic criteria such as popularity of the coursebook and competence of the author while some others include ambiguous items that are diffucult to make out. At this point, this study is an attempt to come up with a practical ELT coursebook evaluation checklist by drawing on previous research with the thought that different approaches by researchers to ELT coursebook evaluation checklist could be embraced.
The present study set out with an extensive review of literature so that previously developed ELT coursebook evaluation checklists could be examined from multiple perspectives and a general understanding could be obtained with regards to the rationale behind preparing checklists. As a result of this preliminary process, over thirty evaluation forms and checklists were determined and twenty three of them were utilized in developing the checklist for student’s book. Featured items from these instruments were brought together, offering a final eclectic checklist (See the appendix). The items borrowed were accompanied by the researchers’ own items.
As the other building block of the suggested checklist, the draft instrument was subject to ELT researchers’ constructive reviews at a conference of English language teachers’ association in Turkey. In the light of the feedback received, some of the items were modified. For example, the item “The subject and content of the textbook are interesting, challenging, and motivating” was divided into three items: “Are the subject and content of the coursebook interesting?”, “Is the content of the coursebook challenging enough to foster new learnings?”, “Are the subject and content of the coursebook motivating?”. The main motive behind such modifications was that in double-barreled or more questions “even if respondents do provide an answer, there is no way of knowing which part of the question the answer concerned”.⁴ What’s more, new items were also included to compensate for lack of measurement in technology, self-assessment and methodology. Therefore, the following items were added to the checklist: “Does the coursebook include selfassessment parts?”, “Can the coursebook easily be integrated into technology, thereby allowing for individual study outside the school?”, “Do the activities and exercises introduce the main principles of CLT?”.
There are quite different categories in the checklists developed for ELT coursebook evaluation. For example, Shih designed a very comprehensive checklist made up of nine categories: general features, content theme and functions, language skills, language components, layout and physical makeup, teachers’ manual, workbook, audio aids and other teaching aids. On the other hand, there is no categorization in Tseng’s checklist which comprises only twenty specific items. There is no certain standard set for the number of segmentation. However, there is no doubt that categorization will allow for a more concrete and systematic evaluation.
The suggested evaluation checklist comprises 56 items under four basic sections. Clarity was one of the first considerations in collecting the items. Loaded words were avoided and items were “written in simple sentences rather than compound or complex sentences”. Tomlinson suggests avoiding large, vague, and dogmatic questions that might be interpreted differently by different evaluators. For example, one of the items in Byrd’s checklist is: “the coursebook fits the pedagogical and SLA philosophy of the program/course”. Such items, according to Mukundan et al. “may be easily discernable for an expert in the area; however, it will not be clear enough for an end-user with a low expertise”. Checklist developers, therefore, should strive to incorporate concise and comprehensible items which can eventually serve to constitute applicable evaluation tools.
The other consideration in developing the current checklist was the matter of context. Cunningsworth remarked that since different criteria will apply in different circumstances, it is best for practitioners to identify their own priorities and draw up their own evaluation checklists. Moreover, Sheldon explains that “any culturally restricted, global list of criteria can never really apply in most local environments, without considerable modification”.⁵Therefore, the suggested checklist was designed to be easily modifiable in accordance with the context where a given coursebook is to be utilized. This was made possible by not adding narrow context-specific items. The issue of length is the other challenge in developing checklists. According to Mukundan et al, most of the checklists in the literature are either too short or too long, which precludes their meeting the requirements of an applicable instrument for evaluation purposes. While some of the evaluation checklists do not include any more than twenty items, a few others contain more than a hundred items. At this point, the resulting checklist having 56 items, is neither too short to allow for a detailed and extensive evaluation, nor too long to apply. Last but not least, the suggested evaluation checklist does not include discriminating elements in terms of gender, race, culture and the like. It further includes an extra blank at the bottom, allowing practitioners to make additional comments on the coursebook. This will be helpful in terms of highlighting points which may not be measured through the evaluation checklist.
2.Evaluation of ELT coursebooks
Tomlinson and Masuhara’s definition of materials evaluation is: “Materials evaluation involves measuring the value or potential value of a set of learning materials by making judgements about the effect of materials on people using it”. Teachers interested in the evaluation of ELT materials can find many frameworks and criteria developed by researchers and coursebook authors. However, as McDonough, Shaw & Masuhara state “there does not seem as yet an agreed set of criteria or procedures for evaluation”.
In this post I will discuss two frameworks: McDonough, Shaw & Masuhara’s which attempts to provide a comprehensive framework which might be applied in the majority of ELT situations worldwide; and, Littlejohn’s framework which aims to evaluate the materials ‘as they are’, not the ‘materials-in-action’ i.e. as the teacher thinks the material should be used.⁶ McDonough, Shaw & Masuhara examine materials in two stages: an external evaluation cover, introduction, table of contents and a more detailed internal evaluation. The external evaluation “… aims at examining the organization of the material as stated explicitly by the author/publisher by looking at: the ‘blurb’, or the claims made on the cover of the d/students’ book, and the introduction and table of contents”. To achieve this the following information should be gathered:
target audience
the proficiency level
the context in which the material will be used
how the language is organized into units, modules, etc.
the authors’ views on language, methodology and the relationship between the language, the language process and the learner
whether the material will be used as the ‘core’ course
whether it is locally available
visuals, layout and presentation
presence of vocabulary lists or appendixes
cultural bias, representation of minority groups
the inclusion of digital materials CDs, DVDs, downloadable materials, and the inclusion of a teacher’s book and tests
According to these authors, after this stage and having in mind the profile of the learners, we will have enough information to identify if the material is potentially appropriate and is worth a deeper inspection. 
The internal evaluation seeks to find information about:
Then, an overall evaluation can be made considering:
the usability factor possibility of integration to the syllabus
the generalizability factor whether the whole coursebook can be used or only a part of it
based on the previous factor, the adaptability factor
the flexibility factor how rigid is the sequencing and grading?.
However, these authors as well as Tomlinson 2004, state that the success or failure of a material can only be fully determined after a while and post-use evaluation
Littlejohn does not take into account the ‘superficial aspect’ of materials or their content, his framework focuses on the methodology and the linguistic nature of the coursebook.
The author identifies three levels of analysis: objective description, subjective description and subjective inference.
In level 1 ‘objective description’, we will find the information about:
publication date
intended audience
type of material general, specific, main course, etc.
the amount of classroom time required and type of use self-study, order, etc. published form, number of pages, use of colour
components teacher’s book, student’s book, CDs, etc.
the division into sections, access indexes, detailed content, hyperlinks, etc.
how the sections are distributed between teachers and students, length of sections and any pattern in them.
In the ‘subjective analysis’ in level 2, we analyse what teachers and learners will have to do in each task to test the claims made by the material a task is defined by this author as any proposal made to students whose aim is bringing about the learning of the L2. For each task we need to identify:
the process, including turn-take the learners’ role in classroom discourse,
focus: on meaning? form? or both?
mental operations: the mental processes required, like repetition, deducing, hypothesizing
type of classroom participation: alone? pair work? in groups?and the content of the input and of the learners’ output written or oral? individual sentences or discourse?, source from the material? the teacher? or the students? and nature grammar explanation? fiction? or personal information?.
Based on the previous levels of analysis we can determine the aims of the material and the basis for the selection and sequencing, the following step is to identify the teacher’s and the learners’ roles implied in it. Finally, a conclusion about the material as a whole can be done subjective inference.Littlejohn proposes a further step which is to analyse the teachers/students/institutions situation and their expectations from the material to decide its rejection, adoption, adaptation or supplementation.⁷
Material analysis
What aspect should you consider to evaluate the coursebook itself? Littlejohn summarizes them with the following image
aspects of an analysis of language teaching materials.
With the analysis of the material and the analysis of your teaching context in mind, you might have enough information to reject, adopt, adapt, supplement or use the material with its pros and cons and discuss them with your students it would be a great source of discussion at least.
3.Evaluating course books – checklists
Unit two talked about evaluating materials, specifically course books. We were introduced to a range of checklists that could be used for evaluating a course book, and discussed the pros and cons of each. I can’t imagine everyone would find this topic interesting, but it was really topical for me – in the same week I was given a checklist to evaluate our new course book for teen classes. It gave me the opportunity to reflect on our own evaluation process and suggest some changes if necessary…We looked at about six different checklists that were listed in McGrath. In some of my jobs I’ve completed evaluations like this one from Harmer .
They’re alright. I mean, the fact that a school is bothering to evaluate a course book in the first place is a positive thing. I’ve worked in other jobs where this wasn’t standard practice and the course books used seemed unsuitable.Reflecting on pitfalls/considerations when making a checklist, McGrath mentioned these points:Selection of criteria – if you use an existing checklist rather than make your own can you guarantee that all the criteria are relevant to your context? Do you need to adapt it?Item format – how do you want teachers to evaluate? Will you use open ended questions, tick boxes, a mixture, etc.
Weighting of criteria – are all items equally important? Should some be given greater importance than others?
Value-laden responses – this comes down to subjectivity from teachers based on their own beliefs. It’s tough to control/address I think
Are the learners involved in the evaluation process?
The last point is one of the most important, but the checklists I’ve looked at are meant for teachers.In addition to McGrath’s list, I think wording is really important. I noticed in the checklists we looked at that the criteria used can be ambiguous or a bit leading, plus they can be too time consuming for teachers. For example, in Harmer’s example above:‘Is there are sufficient amount of communicative output in the materials under consideration?’What constitutes a ‘sufficient amount’? Harmer does provide a description, but that involves more investment as a teacher to read up on this. I don’t often have time, so I’d probably just use my own judgement on what a sufficient amount of communicative output might be. But I’d likely supplement a course book anyway to provide more communicative tasks – so is the question actually whether I have to supplement too much?
Different items are given a ‘weighting’ depending on how important they are in the evaluation. Then they are given a ‘rating’ depending on how effective the course book is in this area. Weighting multiplied by rating is the evaluation score for that particular item. I prefer this to YES/NO questions, it gives a bit more information and prioritises the most important features of the materials.
Our checklist – is it any good?
It’s comprehensive. It covers methodology, language, skill, practice, variety, ease of use, exploitability, suitability, assessment and more
Most items in the list are clear and measurable
It’s not that time consuming to complete and comments are optional
Cons:
Some items are still a bit vague or open to interpretation
You’re forced to choose between YES/NO, although you can elaborate on viewpoint with comments.Possible improvements:We could use a rating system, it might tell us more about how effective the material isTeachers could devise the checklist together rather than using the existing one, but we don’t get the time to do this.⁸The checklist could be accompanied by an evaluation for learners to complete – this might be coming soon though!

4.Coursebook Evaluation by English Teachers

The use of coursebooks in ELT is more popular than ever before, especially after innumerable ELT preparatory classes have been established for a large number of departments at universities, private schools, and some state schools. Moreover, the school administrations and circles of English teachers prefer ready-made coursebooks because they possibly provide ready-made syllabi to be followed by teachers. Thus, the coursebooks have gradually become the most pervasive tool for language instruction. As Richards and Rodgers state, coursebooks are an unavoidable element of the curriculum because they specify content and define coverage for syllabus items. Grant mentions that coursebooks try to solve the problem by creating opportunities for learners to use the target language in the classroom, as a sort of “halfway house” before using it in real life. Because of this possible vitality, Ur states the advantages of coursebooks as follows: a) they provide a clear framework which the teacher and the students know where they are going and what is coming next, b) mostly, they serve as a syllabus which includes a carefully planned and balanced selection of language content if it is followed systematically, c) they provide readymade texts and tasks with possible appropriate level for most of the class, which save time for the teacher, d) they are the cheapest way of providing learning material for each student, e) they are convenient packages whose components are bound in order, f) they are useful guides especially for inexperienced teachers who are occasionally unsure of their language knowledge, g) They provide autonomy that the students can use them to learn new material, review and monitor progress in order to be less teacher-dependent. Besides, coursebooks as preplanned teaching materials have some possible disadvantages): a) they fail to present appropriate and realistic language models, b) They propose subordinate learner roles, c) they fail to contextualise language activities, d) they foster inadequate cultural understanding, e) they fail to address discourse competence, f) they fail to teach idioms, g) they have lack of equity in gender representation.
Some argue that coursebooks are a magical tool, they give learners a sense of system, cohesion and progress, and they help to achieve consistency and continuation. On the other hand, some state that coursebooks are inevitably superficial and reductionist in their coverage of language items and they impose uniformity of syllabus and remove initiative from teachers. At the other extreme, coursebooks are seen to have a tendency to dictate what is taught, in an intentional order, and they have a serious impact on how teachers use them. Although coursebooks are seen as an indispensable tool of the language arts instruction, they are hardly evaluated for their appropriateness to meet teachers’ and learners’ needs and interests.⁹ In formal educational settings, especially for language teaching, the necessity of coursebooks leads the way to the exploration of the coursebook evaluation by teachers. With this respect, this study focuses on the teachers’ views on the coursebook evaluation they use in furtherance of an awareness to be a spur for a state of undifferentiated consciousness and professional development. Moreover, general conceptions of the teachers were determined by using standardized open-ended interviews with forty volunteer English teachers determined on the basis of convenience by open sampling technique in order to compare with questionnaire results and to explore the coursebook evaluation in greater depth. Besides, the strategy of probing was used to get the respondents to achieve depth in terms of penetration, exploration, and explanation. Standardized open ended interviewing was used for the instrumentation. It includes the same questions –the same stimuli- in the same way and the same order determined in advance. Seven questions asked during the interviews. The interview transcripts were analyzed line by line and memos were written. Categories or labels were reviewed and recurring themes, core consistencies and meanings were identified by using pattern codes. The themes were found as follows: a) the use of teacher initiative, b) specialization of coursebook authors, c) independent use of books by the students, d) transfer to other contexts, e) meeting learner needs,f) developing teaching repertoire What is immediately apparent from interview transcripts is that teacher’ initiatory step toward the books carries on the whole syllabus because the teachers state that they cannot stay out of the books during the teaching learning process and they should follow them in a page-by-page manner. They sometimes decide in English circles to supplement the books with workbooks but they hardly do it in the classroom because they should do it in a rush or leave some of the exercises. Taken the importance of content, unnecessary load of exercises and mechanical drills may have a reverse effect on the learning process. They state surprisingly that they sometimes think that the authors of the books are not ELT specialists or language teachers. Especially one of the teachers state that he thinks the so-called authors are “just writers in dark rooms with internet connections”. They also mention that the books cannot be used as a reference or sourcebook independently by the learners. The books are organized in terms of class use with the help of a teacher although they may be helpful for the learners to develop language skills. This can indicate that the books do not have a complete consistency of content. For example, detailed dialogues about going to church, the Halloween celebrations, or other national festivals in the countries of foreign coursebook authors are not related to the culture and environment of learners. Then those examples do not lead the way to transfer into other contexts and motivation. Another theme which can mean that the books do not meet the needs and expectations in the teaching learning process is impressing. The teachers state that another coursebook package can contribute to the learning environment in a more positive way. Besides, they state the particular coursebooks do not expand their teaching repertoire.¹⁰ On the contrary, they narrow down their teaching repertoire because there is almost nothing to do except for following the books.¹¹We can infer from these results that teachers are in agreement with the inadequacy of the books.
CONCLUSION
No coursebook evaluation checklist in the literature is complete. Regardless of the number of items it is made up of, any checklist can be modified by adding or deleting items depending on the circumstances of a given instructional setting. This can be achieved, as Ansary and Babaii mention, only when one is able to identify specific requirements in a specific teaching situation. What’s more, a checklist designed for a particular context might be inapplicable to the other. Herein lies the importance of adopting a modifiable evaluation instrument.
To conclude, the suggested ELT coursebook evaluation checklist is not a result of a scale development study. It rather seeks to suggest a practical alternative for coursebook evaluators and practitioners by putting together items from featured checklists in the field. Despite the content validity provided by sticking loyal to the literature, it still needs to be validated through a pilot study before the actual use in the context where it is to be implemented. Another important point is that though the proposed checklist, along with many others in the field, can serve as a systematic evaluation tool, checklist method might not necessarily be applicable, or enough in itself. In such cases, quantitative evaluation checklists should be accompanied by open-ended interviews and users’ comments to make the best judgment of any coursebook.
The purpose of this research is to reveal language teachers’ views on the quality of coursebook packages used in ELT classes in Mersin. In general, the results may reveal that the coursebook packages do not represent the teachers’ expectations and they do not meet the needs of learners in the teaching process. This can primarily lead the outcomes that:
The materials evaluation process should continue while they are being used, as well as after each implementation period so that they do not become stale with regard to the particular curriculum involved.
The content and structure of a syllabus is related to the objectives of the learner or of society and these can be better determined by the teachers instructing the particular classes and authorities at universities rather than dark room authors who serve “international ELT publishing industry”.
With both advantages and disadvantages, the coursebook figure should not be seen as an international industry because it can never represent the guarantee of a complete uniformity at school in an authentic context.
The coursebook evaluation of English teachers may prove to be just a beginning for resource development process. The process of resource and coursebook development could support and facilitate teaching and learning process by meeting the needs of the learners and developing the teaching repertoire of the teachers. In this respect, the successful use of coursebook packages could be realized in a creative and flexible manner instead of dominating the teaching and learning process. The study attempts to identify the views of English teachers on the quality of coursebook packages used in language classes. Further studies may carry out in different samples for different coursebook packages on a vast scale.

REFERENCES

1.O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 2017 yil 7 fevraldagi "O‘zbekiston Respublikasini yanada rivojlantirish bo‘yicha harakatlar strategiyasi to‘g‘risida”gi PF-4947-sonli Farmoni
2.Mirziyoev Sh.M. Tanqidiy tahlil, qat'iy tartib-intizom va shaxsiy javobgarlik – har bir rahbar faoliyatining kundalik qoidasi bo‘lishi kerak. -T.: “O‘zbekiston” 2017.
3.Jalolov J., Mahkamova G., Mamadayupova V., Ismatova L.Ingliz tili o'rgatish texnologiyasi: 0 ‘quv metodik qoMlanma. -Toshkent: TDPU. 2020.-96 b.
4.Ahmedova, L. T., Normuratova, V. I., 2021. Teaching English Practicum.
5.Jalolov, J.J, G.T., Ashurov Sh. S., 2015. English Language Teaching Methodology.
6.Jalolov J. “Chet tili o’qitish metodikasi” Toshkent.1996 yil. Yo’ldoshev J. T. “Yangi pedagogik texnologiyalar yo’nalishidagi muammoni yechimlari.Toshkent.1999 yil.
7.Матмуротова, З. Chet tillarni o`rgatish samaradorligini oshirish usullari / З — 2017. — № 24.2 (158.2). — С. 37-38.
8.Ishmuhamedov R. «Innovatsion texnologiyalar yordamida ta’lim samaradorligini oshirish yo’llari. Toshkent “Nizomiy nashriyoti”. TDPU 2005 yil.
9.Abdelwahab, M. M. (2013). Developing an English Language Textbook Evaluative Checklist. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 1(3), 55
10.Ansary, H., & Babaii, E. (2002). Universal characteristics of EFL/ESL textbook: A step towards systematic textbook evaluation. The Internet TESL Journal, 2, 1-8. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ansary-Textbooks.
11.Byrd, P. (2001). Textbooks: Evaluation for Selection and Analysis for Implementation. In M.
12.Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language 3rd edition (pp. 415-427). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
13.Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing Your Coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.
14.Daoud, A., & Celce-Murcia, M. (1979). Selecting and evaluating a textbook. In M. CelceMurcia, & L. McIntosh (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 302-307). New York: Newbury House.
15.Garinger, D. (2002). Textbook selection for the ESL classroom. Center for Applied Linguistics Digest. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resources/ Digest/0210garinger.html
16.Ghorbani, M. R. (2011). Quantification and Graphic Representation of EFL Textbook Evaluation Results. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(5), 511-520.

The list of used internet sites

1. 
   WWW.Ziyonet.uz
   
2. 
   WWW.Translation.org
   
3. 
   WWW.Wikipedia.org
   
4. 
   WWW.Ya.ru
   
5. 
   WWW.Multiligual.com
   

1^ O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 2017 yil 7 fevraldagi "O‘zbekiston Respublikasini yanada rivojlantirish bo‘yicha harakatlar strategiyasi to‘g‘risida”gi PF-4947-sonli Farmoni

2^ Jalolov J., Mahkamova G., Mamadayupova V., Ismatova L.Ingliz tili o'rgatish texnologiyasi: 0 ‘quv metodik qoMlanma. -Toshkent: TDPU. 2020.-96 b.

3^ Jalolov J., Mahkamova G., Mamadayupova V., Ismatova L.Ingliz tili o'rgatish texnologiyasi: 0 ‘quv metodik qoMlanma. -Toshkent: TDPU. 2020.-96 b.

4^ Ahmedova, L. T., Normuratova, V. I., 2021. Teaching English Practicum

5^ Jalolov, J.J, G.T., Ashurov Sh. S., 2015. English Language Teaching Methodology.

6^ Jalolov J. “Chet tili o’qitish metodikasi” Toshkent.1996 yil. Yo’ldoshev J. T. “Yangi pedagogik texnologiyalar yo’nalishidagi muammoni yechimlari.Toshkent.1999 yil.

7^ Jalolov J. “Chet tili o’qitish metodikasi” Toshkent.1996 yil. Yo’ldoshev J. T. “Yangi pedagogik texnologiyalar yo’nalishidagi muammoni yechimlari.Toshkent.1999 yil.

8^ Jalolov J. “Chet tili o’qitish metodikasi” Toshkent.1996 yil. Yo’ldoshev J. T. “Yangi pedagogik texnologiyalar yo’nalishidagi muammoni yechimlari.Toshkent.1999 yil.

9^ Матмуротова, З. Chet tillarni o`rgatish samaradorligini oshirish usullari / З — 2017. — № 24.2 (158.2). — С. 37-38.

10^Ishmuhamedov R. «Innovatsion texnologiyalar yordamida ta’lim samaradorligini oshirish yo’llari. Toshkent “Nizomiy nashriyoti”. TDPU 2005 yil

11^ Ansary, H., & Babaii, E. (2002). Universal characteristics of EFL/ESL textbook: A step towards systematic textbook evaluation. The Internet TESL Journal, 2, 1-8. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ansary-Textbooks/