The Comparative Analysis Of Senior High Teaching Material NSEFC And SHE

Teaching material is an important part of the implementation of English Curriculum. A high level and quality teaching material will take an active effect on teachers,students teaching process and results. Nowadays there appears different editions of English teaching material on market. Facing the variety of teaching material, it is vital to analyze and compare different editions. Teaching material evaluation and analysis are of great usage to the improvement of the quality of teaching material and teacher’s practical teaching.According to the new English curriculum standards and the teaching material evaluation standards of home and abroad, this thesis based on Cheng Xiaotang’s internal evaluation and external evaluation, aims to evaluate and analyze New Senior English For China (NSEFC) and Senior High English(SHE), From internal evaluation we will analyze their guiding theories.structures, quality of pictures and charts of books. language contents and languages shills. The language contents deals with the analysis of phonetics, vocabularies and grammar while language skills includes the analysis of listening, speaking, reading and writing. In addition, by external evaluation, that is from the investigation of the users of the two sets books, we will analyze the contents of module one to module eight of the set of books. aiming at rinding out whether NSEFC and SHE are consistent with the New English curriculum standards, and satisfying users*needs. Thus, we will figure out the common and differences of the two sets of books and their advantages and disadvantages. Documentary method, method of comparative analysis.questionnaire method and interviewing are used to analyze these two sets of books. All data comes from the textbooks, questionnaires, and interviewing. This thesis also provides some suggestions for the teachers and compilers.From the analysis, we find that both NSEFC and SHE are consistent with the requirements of New English curriculum standards and they both pay much attention to the cultivation of students*comprehensive language application ability. The topics and writing styles of the two textbooks are various. The language of the content is authentic and provide students with sufficient language input. The structure of NSEFC is comparatively fixed and its layout is regular and tidy while SHE’s structure is more dynamic and more colorful but its layout is too crowded, the font is too small and the white space is not enough. What’s more, both textbooks’s contents vocabulary and teaching tasks are too much for the users investigated. The arrangement of grammar of the two sets pf books is not systematic.