Comparison of Green Line I 1995 and Green Line I 2001 Considering the Structure of Tasks

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Other, grade: 1,0, University of Münster (Englisches Seminar), course: Schoolbook Analysis, language: English, abstract: Schoolbook analysis as a field of research opens a wide range of perspectives worth taking a closer look at. Even though, noticing the current discourse leads to an astounding conclusion: Considering schoolbooks as one major and significant instrument of school life, the amount of research carried out on this topic is rather insubstantial. Noting that there is a wide range of different contemporary schoolbooks in use, the question arises, in how far there can be a justification for this variety. Does the 'perfect schoolbook' exist? Are some books of higher quality than others? Are significant differences a matter of perspective? And - in that case - are there any criteria which reinforce a certain perspective? The research on differences between commonly used schoolbooks may be distracting as it is always accompanied by a certain degree of subjectivity. Even if there are several criteria pleading for one schoolbook or another, it is up to the college of each school to decide on a concrete way of teaching, about which the author does not want to judge within a short paper like this. This attitude shall be exemplified briefly, and since the character of tasks partly resembles the character of language testing methods , an excursion on testing theory may be appropriate in order to achieve this goal. Commenting on testing methods, Gabel states that in "fact there is no best test or best technique. A test which proves ideal for one purpose maybe quite useless for another; a technique which may work very well in one situation can be entirely inappropriate in another" (Gabel [a], P.1.). Transferring this statement to the task structure of different schoolbooks, it becomes clear that while some books serve one purpose, others serve a different one. This paper avoids