2019
DOI: 10.1080/13488678.2019.1669301
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Locally-developed vs. Global Textbooks: An Evaluation of Cultural Content in Textbooks Used in ELT in Malaysia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
21
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
3
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…English in Mind written by foreign authors, predominantly emphasizes the target culture. It aligned with previous studies investigating global textbooks (Baleghizadeh & Amiri Shayesteh, 2020;Chao, 2011;Rahim & Daghigh, 2020;Shah et al, 2014;Shin et al, 2011;Yuen, 2011). Besides, it provided international culture with a smaller number than the target culture.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…English in Mind written by foreign authors, predominantly emphasizes the target culture. It aligned with previous studies investigating global textbooks (Baleghizadeh & Amiri Shayesteh, 2020;Chao, 2011;Rahim & Daghigh, 2020;Shah et al, 2014;Shin et al, 2011;Yuen, 2011). Besides, it provided international culture with a smaller number than the target culture.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Moreover, the result differed from Silvia's (2015) that the local textbook balanced source, target, and international culture. Further, the study was in line with Rahim and Daghigh (2020) that the source culture was dominant but their finding showed that target and international culture were included in the local textbook.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…With regards to its content, imported English language textbooks are deemed as irrelevant to local English learners due to their imbalanced and mismatched cultural content (Sabbiri, 2019;Din & Yamat, 2020;Hadi & Shah, 2020;Nazari & Aziz, 2020;Takal et al, 2021). Rahim and Daghigh (2019) who analyzed the cultural content of English textbooks in Malaysia found out that 'PULSE 2' textbook offers zero content that relates to the Malaysian culture. This is a huge departure from the previously used English textbook for Form 1 students in Malaysia, 'English Form 1', where almost two-third of its contents focus on the local culture.…”
Section: Imbalanced Cultural Contentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second indicator of the importance of sufficient density of lexis an English textbook has to provide in its materials. These are two critical indicators of English textbook selection or textbook development that deserve consideration besides other indicators of English textbook that other studies have worked on, for instance, the indicators of vocabulary items (Zawahreh, 2012), morphology (Roth, 2017), grammar (Lee, 2006), multimodal resources (Joo et al, 2019;Subakir et al, 2012), cultural contents (Pashmforoosh & Babaii, 2015;Rahim & Daghigh, 2019;Shin et al, 2011;Su, 2014;Zhili, 2014), multiculturalism (Babaii & Sheikhi, 2017;Bhandari, 2019;Cho & Park, 2014;Setyono & Widodo, 2019), language ideologies (Xiong & Qian, 2012), world Englishes paradigm (Alcoberes, 2016), the paradigm of English as an international language (Ke, 2012;Thuy et al, 2020), global Englishes paradigm (Syrbe & Rose, 2017); moral education (Feng, 2017), students' needs (Rashidi & Kehtarfard, 2014), and the values of peace (Gebregeorgis, 2016). The present study contributes to providing important highlights of appropriate genre distribution and lexical density.…”
Section: Lexical Density Of Reading Texts In English Alive Textbookmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For this reason, the processes of English teaching and learning in the context of Indonesia are established to embed more students' competencies in written communication through instilling be mapped into several themes. Some prior studies conducted textbook analyses in terms of linguistics such as vocabulary items (Zawahreh, 2012), morphology (Roth, 2017), and grammar (Lee, 2006); multimodal resources (Joo et al, 2019;Subakir et al, 2012); cultural content (Pashmforoosh & Babaii, 2015;Rahim & Daghigh, 2019;Shin et al, 2011;Su, 2014;Zhili, 2014); multiculturality (Babaii & Sheikhi, 2017;Bhandari, 2019;Cho & Park, 2014;Setyono & Widodo, 2019); the status of English such as language ideologies (Xiong & Qian, 2012), world Englishes paradigm (Alcoberes, 2016), English as an international language (Ke, 2012;Thuy et al, 2020), and global Englishes paradigm (Syrbe & Rose, 2017); and humanity such as moral education (Feng, 2017), students' needs (Rashidi & Kehtarfard, 2014), and the values of peace (Gebregeorgis, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%