Critical Evaluation of the New Headway Advanced and the ILI Advanced Series: A Comparison of Curricular Components and CLT Objectives Based on ACTFL

Esmail Zare-Behtash, Hassan Banaruee


The critical evaluation of systematic planning, development and review practices of instructional materials intend to improve the quality of teaching and learning. This study investigates the objectives of communicative language teaching and curricular components of two important textbooks which are widely studied in Iran: the New Headway Advanced Series (2015), the Iran Language Institute (ILI) Advanced1 (2008). The evaluation is done in terms of two prospects; firstly, the interpretation of communicative language teaching objectives and secondly, curricular components of the books. To this aim, a checklist of 5 Cs standards and seven curricular components evaluation developed by American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) was employed. The evaluation reveals that the New Headway advanced series is more preferable and desirable than the ILI Advanced 1 due to the design and organization, authenticity, attractiveness, functionality, practicality and the other qualities mentioned above regarding communication, cultures, connection, comparison, and community in all aspects. The evaluation based on the seven curricular components- language systems, communication strategies, cultural knowledge, learning strategies, content from other subject areas, critical thinking skills, technology and the other features- indicates that the ILI textbook enjoys low standards and is not well developed in all components. The ILI textbook is highly reading and writing oriented and not appropriate for transactional and interactional learning purposes. This study acquaints language teachers and learners with the more desirable and cogent book.



Curricular Components, Evaluation, Culture, the ILI Advanced, the New Headway Advanced

Full Text:



Alemi, M., & Isavi, E. (2012). Evaluation of interactional metadiscourse in EFL textbooks. Advances in Asian Social Science (AASS), 2(1), 422-430.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (1996). Textbook Evaluation Based on ACTFL Standards. Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching (4th ed.). UK: Hodder Education.

Dominguez, L. M. (2003). Gender textbook evaluation. MA thesis, Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmanham.

Dunn, R., J. Beaudry, and A. Klavas. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles. Educational Leadership March, 50-58.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English language teaching. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread functions and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbraum Associates.

Iran Language Institute, (2008). The ILI English Series, Advanced 1: Student’s Book. ILI Research and Planning Department, ISBN 964-7747-47-0

Ranalli, J. C. (2002). An Evaluation of New Headway upper-intermediate. University of Birmingham.

Soars, L., Soars, J., & Hancock, P. (2015). New Headway Student's Book. Oxford University Press.

Sohail, A. (2011). The Procedure of textbook development in Pakistan. Available at:,

Wen-Cheng., W. , H. Chien, L. and C. Chung, L., 2011. Thinking of the textbook in the esl/efl classroom. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 91-96.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2022 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.