本文旨在探討台北市某國中實施英語能力分班的成效。研究對象是台北市某國中2004學年度九年級學生。他們在2002學年度七年級時，被分成A、B兩組接受英語能力分組教學，第二學期時，按照成績調整組別。在升上八年級時，學校取消英語能力分組教學，學生回到原班上英語課。本研究採取質、量並重的方式進行資料蒐集。學生和家長填寫問卷；老師、行政人員、以及挑選出的學生及家長接受訪談。
本研究的結果顯示，該國中英語能力分組教學效果並不明顯，原因可能在於該校英語能力分班只分兩級教學，而且課程並未依不同能力的班級而有所區分。根據學生問卷調查的結果，對這些同時經歷過分組與不分組英語課的學生來說，在總共19個項目中，只在上課是否有趣、同學上課是否專心、是否缺乏英語學習的模範、以及是否找得到熟悉的同學請教等4個項目上，學生組別和分組方式有顯著交互作用。根據問卷和訪談結果，英語能力分班較有益於A組的學生，而原班上課較有益於B組的學生，而某些有轉組經驗的學生認為能力分班會增加他們的英語學習動機，促使他們努力爭取轉到A組。整體而言，喜歡不分組上課方式的學生約佔一半，喜歡分組上課方式的學生約佔四分之一，另外四分之一的學生表示不確定。並且有A組的學生喜歡分組而B組的學生喜歡不分組上課的傾向。此外，從訪談結果發現一些英語能力分班時值得注意的現象，例如覺得自己被分錯組的B組學生對七年級的英語分組課產生厭惡感、受表面文字的影響學生普遍認為B2班比B1班更差（雖然事實上兩種班級並無任何英語能力上的差異）、沒有被班級英語導師教到的B組學生覺得不公平且與導師或班級有疏離感。
根據家長問卷調查的結果，超過一半的家長認為應該實施英語能力分班上課。家長普遍相信能力分班可以滿足不同程度的學生不同的學習需求，並且有A組和有轉組經驗的學生家長，以及孩子有兩年以上英語學習經驗的家長傾向支持英語分組上課，而B組家長以及孩子缺乏英語學習經驗的家長傾向支持英語原班上課。從家長與學生的訪談及問卷中所陳述的理由得知，家長較重視英語學習是否有成效，而孩子則較注重與班上同儕的人際互動關係。
在教學方面，根據訪談教師和學生的結果發現，英語教師對不同組別的學生採取不同的教學方式。教師提供A組的學生較多可以激發創意、溝通式的活動以及課外補充教材，對B組的學生則花較多時間使其精熟課本的內容。教師的教學似乎有利於A組的學生以及在小學有負面英語學習經驗的B組學生。然而，英語能力分班產生一些英語教師們原先沒有預料到的缺點，例如B組成績好的學生上課覺得無聊、A組最頂尖的學生學習態度傲慢、英語教師為了準備不同組別的教材而增加工作負擔、以及英語導師對導生班級經營困難。有趣的是，接受訪談的4位中的兩位英語導師表示若能排除導生班級經營困難的障礙，他們會支持能力分班上課。
在行政方面，該國中因為英語能力分組教學只實施在七年級學生，為期一年，所以在學生分組和排課上都沒有遭遇到困難，只在段考考卷的收集和學生成績電腦作業系統上，增加行政工作負擔。
為了兼顧學生和家長不同的需求和喜好，和避免本研究中教師和學生所提到英語能力分班上課的缺點，學校可以考慮在七年級下學期或八年級實施英語能力分組教學，或是將每班少數英語能力優異的同學挑出形成英語資優班。此外，在實施英語能力分組教學時，學校應該注意下列事項，例如：針對不同程度的學生發展不同程度的英語教材，帶領英語教師建立團隊合作的模式，清楚向學生說明英語能力分組上課的原理以及對學習上的好處。同時，在給不同程度的班級命名時也需特別小心。

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of ability grouping in junior high English class. Ability grouping was adopted in English teaching in Sunny Junior High School in Taipei in 2002 for the seventh graders, who were divided into two levels (Group A and Group B). In the second semester, those who made good progress to the top one-third transferred from Group B to Group A, and vice versa. The same group of students had English in ungrouped homeroom classes when they were eighth graders. This study adopted both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The students and parents were asked to fill out questionnaires; teachers, administrators, as well as selected students and parents were interviewed.
The results of the study indicate that ability grouping practiced in Sunny Junior High School failed to bring about great effects on English learning. The possible reasons may lie in no differentiation of textbooks and in the two-level grouping policy. According to the student questionnaires, significant interaction effects between students’ groups (Group A, Group B, and Transfer) and their responses to grouped and ungrouped classes existed in only four out of nineteen items－students’ perceived interest level of the English class, concentration level of their classmates, likelihood of finding role models and accessibility to familiar peers for consultation in class. According to the questionnaires and interviews, ability grouping benefited Group A students whereas ungrouped classes benefited Group B students. In addition, some students of Transfer reported that the pressure of shifting groups made them work harder when they were in 7th-grade grouped classes. All in all, nearly half of the students preferred ungrouped classes; one-fourth preferred grouped classes; one-fourth showed their uncertainty. There was a tendency that Group A students preferred grouped classes, whereas Group B students preferred ungrouped classes. Furthermore, several phenomena found in the interviews were worth the attention－the resentment of some Group B students who felt themselves misplaced, the misunderstandings and conflicts caused by the literal meanings of B1 and B2 (though they were actually equal in English ability), and the feeling of inequity or alienation found among some Group B students who were not taught by their English homeroom teachers.
According to parent questionnaires, more than half of the parents showed their preferences for ability grouping. They generally believed that ability grouping met their children’s learning needs. There was a tendency that parents of Group A and Transfer or those whose children had more years of English learning experience preferred ability grouping, whereas parents of Group B or those whose children had few years of English learning experience preferred ungrouped classes. From the interview data and the reasons stated in the questionnaires, it was found that parents were concerned more about the learning efficiency, whereas students were concerned more about familiar peer relationship in homeroom class.
In terms of teaching, the results of teacher and student interviews indicate that different teaching strategies were used for different groups. Group A students were given more creative, communicative activities and supplementary materials that enriched their learning. Group B students spent time mostly on mastering the basics in textbooks. The adjusted instruction seemed to benefit Group A and those students with negative English learning experience before. However, there were unexpected disadvantages of ability grouping reported by the English teachers, such as boredom of some Group B students in the high standing, arrogant attitudes of top students in Group A, English teachers’ increased workload, and English homeroom teachers’ difficulties in managing their homeroom classes. Interestingly, two English homeroom teachers of the four teachers interviewed reported that they would have voted for ability grouping if they did not have to consider their homeroom class management.
In terms of administration, one-year practice of ability grouping in this school did not cause many difficulties in group formation and timetable arrangements, but the chief of registry section had trouble collecting test papers and computing grades.
To solve the conflicting needs and preferences of parents and students as well as to avoid the disadvantages found in this study, an alternative may be to have students study English in homeroom class in the first semester of the 7th grade and to have grouped English class from the second semester or second year on. Another is to sort out a small number of students with high English proficiency to form English-gifted classes. In case that ability grouping is implemented, school authorities should be careful with the following issues, including developing different materials for students of different levels, encouraging collaboration among teachers, helping students understand sufficiently the rationales of the grouping policy and its advantages in learning, and taking care to label or name groups of different levels.

Ahr, T. J. (1989). The effects of ability grouping on academic achievement and
self-concept among black and white students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
ASCD (2004, August 23). A Lexicon of Learning. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ascd.org/cms/index.cfm?TheViewID=1112
Boaler, J., Wiliam, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students’ experiences of ability
grouping-disaffection, polarization and the construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 631-648.
Borg, W. R. & Maxfield, M. R. (1967). A Study of the Effects of Different Kinds of Ability Grouping on Personal Relationships among High School Students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 017 002)
Bryan, M. M., & Findley, W. G. (1970). Ability Grouping: 1970 – II. The Impact of
Ability Grouping on School Achievement, Affective Development, Ethnic Separation and Socioeconomic Separation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 048 382)
Burroughs, F., & Tezer, P. (1968). A Response to Major Problems in
Second-Language Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 031 504)
Chapman, P. D. (1988). Schools as Sorters. New York: New York University Press.
Chen, Y. H. (2004). Elementary and Junior High School English Teachers’
Perceptions and Implementation of Remedial Instruction for Underachievers. Master’s thesis, Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chen, Y. P. (2004). Investigation of 7th Grades’ EFL Proficiency Discrepancy in
Relation to Their Family Background. Master’s thesis, Department of English National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chern, C. L. (2003). English language teaching in Taiwan today. In H. W. Kam & R.
Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English Language Teaching in East Asia Today: Changing Policies and Practices. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Dictionary of Education PLUS (2004, August 23). [Online]. Available:
http://dictionary.soe.umich.edu/plus
Eder, D. (1979). Ability Grouping and Students’ Self-esteem. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 181 016)
Eder, D. (1981). Ability grouping as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A micro-analysis of
teacher-student interaction. Sociology of Education, 54(3), 151-162.
Eder, D. (1982). Peer Influence on Student Attentiveness during Classroom Lessons. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 219 671)
ERIC (2004, August 23). Thesaurus of ERIC Descriptors. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ericfacility.net/extra/pub/thesfull.cfm
Esposito, D. (1973). Homogeneous and heterogeneous ability grouping: Principal findings and implications for evaluating and designing more effective educational environments. Review of Educational Research, 43(2), 163-179.
French, D., & Rothman, S. (1990). Structuring Schools for Student Success: A
Focus on Ability Grouping. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 315 501)
Gamoran, A. (1989). Measuring curriculum differentiation. American Journal of
Education, 97(2), 129-143.
Gamoran, A. (1993). Alternative uses of ability grouping in secondary schools: Can
we bring high-quality instruction to low-ability classes? American Journal of Education, 102(1), 1-23.
Gamoran, A. & Berends, M. (1987). The Effects of Stratification in Secondary Schools: Synthesis of Survey and Ethnographic Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 288 855)
Goldberg, M. L., Passow, A. H., & Justman, J. (1966). The Effects of Ability
Grouping. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hallam, S, Ireson, J., Mortimore, P., & Davies, J. (2000). Children’s Socialisation into
Schools’ Learning Contexts: Ability Grouping in the UK Primary School. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 440 761)
Hallinan, M. T., & Srensen, A. B. (1985). Ability grouping and student friendships.
American Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 485-499.
Hallinan, M. T. (2000). Ability Group Effects on High School Learning Outcomes.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 467 684)
Hereford, N. (1993). Making sense. Instructor, 102, 50-52.
Huang, Y. W. (2002). The Influence of Different Grouping Methods on Junior High
School Students’ Oral Performance in Mixed-ability Classroom. Master’s thesis, Graduate Institute of English Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ireson, J., Hallam, S., Hack, S., Clark, H., & Plewis, I. (2002). Ability grouping in
English secondary schools: Effects on attainment in English, Mathematics and Science. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8(3), 299-318.
Ireson, J., Hallam, S., & Plewis, I. (2001). Ability grouping in secondary schools:
Effects on pupils’ self-concepts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 315-326.
Kelly, R. L. (1969). Ability grouping in English. Clearing House, 43(9), 547-552.
Kulik, C. C. (1981). Effects of Ability Grouping on Secondary School Students. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 204 417)
Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school
students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415-428.
Kulik, J. A. (1992). An Analysis of the Research on Ability Grouping: Historical
and Contemporary Perspectives. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 777)
Lu, C. H. (1991). An investigation of ability grouping in junior high schools in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, USA.
Masullo, J. T., Jr. (1991). The effects of heterogeneous grouping on language arts achievement, self-concept, discipline, and attendance. Unpublished master thesis, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA.
Nicholson, J. A. (1998). What Research Says about Ability Grouping and Academic
Achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 426 129)
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. Binghamton,
New York: Vail-Ballou Press.
Page, R. N. (1991). Lower-Track Classrooms. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Reglin, G. (1992). Ability grouping: A sorting instrument. Illinois Schools Journal,
72(1), 43-47.
Reid, M. I., Clunies-Ross, L. R., Goacher, B., & Vile, C. (1981). Mixed Ability
Teaching. UK: NFER-NELSON.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1998). Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roye, W. J. (1971). Ability Grouping, Good for Children or Not? (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 050 196)
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and its alternatives: Must we track? American
Education: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 11(2), 32-36, 47-48.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A
best-evidence synthesis, Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471-499.
Slavin, R. E. (1993). Ability grouping in the middle grades: Achievement effects and alternatives. The Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 535-552.
Su, C., & Lin, Y. C. (2003). Ability-grouping practice in second year reading class
at Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages. Proceeding of the 12th International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei, ROC, 494-499.
Trimble, K. D. & Sinclair, R. L. (1987). On the wrong track: Ability grouping and the
threat to equity. Equity & Excellence, 23(1-2), 15-21.
Weisberg, H. F., Krosnick, J. A., & Bowen, B. D. (1996). An Introduction to Survey Research, Polling, and Data Analysis. CA: Sage.
Wilson, B. J., & Schmits, D. W. (1978). What’s new in ability grouping? Phi
Delta Kappan, 59 (8), 535-536.
Winn, W., & Wilson, A. P. (1983). The affect and effect of ability grouping.
Contemporary Education, 54(2), 119-125.
Young, T. A. (1990). Alternatives to Ability Grouping in Reading. Reading Horizons,
30(3), 169-183.
Yu, C. F. (1994). The assessment of ability grouping in the college lab program: The Soochow experience. Soochow Journal of Foreign Language and Literatures, 10, 45-77.
九年一貫課程綱要 (The Guidelines of Nine-Year-Integrated Curriculum.) (2004, December 22)。 教育部。[Online]. Available: http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/Web/E0001/index.htm
未能依照「改進國民中學學生編班試行要點」編班之國民中學 (1982)。教育部
公報，89，7-8。
朱惠美 (Chu, H. M.) (2003)。台北市國小英語能力分組教學探討。2003國際應用
英語教學研討會暨工作坊論文集，500-505。
朱敬先 (Chu, C. H.) (1987)。教學心理學。台北: 五南。
林政逸 (Lin, Z. Y.) (2003)。國民小學英語教育政策執行影響因素及實施現況之
研究。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中。
林傑聖 (Lin, C. S.) (2003)。英文教學問題之我見。師友月刊，429，39-41。
莊懷義 (Chen, H. Y.) (1987)。教育問題研究。國立空中大學。
陳玉婕 (Chen, Y. C.) (1988)。尋找最完美的編班方式。師友月刊，257，9。
陳姿青 (Chen, T. C.) (2002)。國小英語教學的困難與展望。師友月刊，425，15-19。
國小英語分組教學 (Ability Grouping in Elementary English Teaching.) (2004, Feb. 2)。自由時報，第13版。
國民中學學生編班實施要點 (1985)。教育部公報，125，9。
國民中學學生編班實施要點 (1991)。教育部公報，200，13-14。
婁立 (Lou, L.) (1986). 國中實施學科能力分組教學學生適應行為研究。國立台灣
師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
黃馨民 (Huang, H. M.) (1991)。國中編班探究。父母親，81，25-27。
黃彩玉 (Huang, T. Y.) (1998)。國中編班方式面面觀。師大校友月刊，246，9-11。
黃振球 (Huang, Z. C.) (1992)。合理的編班模式－台北師大附中國中部編班辦
法。人文及社會學科教學通訊，3(2)，163-177。
詹餘靜, & 蔣月美 (Chan, Y. C., & Chiang, Y. M.) (2002)。彈性能力分班在國小英
語教學之實施－台北市龍安國小個案研究。第十一屆中華民國英語文教學國際研討會論文集，634-643。
蔣月美 (Chiang, Y. M.) (2003)。彈性能力分班在國小英語教學之實施－台北市龍
安國小個案研究。國立台北師範學院兒童英語教育研究所碩士論文，台北。
蔣貴枝 (Chiang, K. Z.) (2000)。國小英語課程與教學之個案研究。國立台中師範
學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，台中。
錢景甯 (Chien, C. N.) (1987)。中原大學大一英文能力分班教學效果研究。中原
學報, 16, 74-49。
錢景甯，荊行倫，&高儷華 (Chien, C. N., Ching, H. L., & Kao, L. H.) (2002)。中
原大學英文能力分班政策實證研究。中原學報, 30(4), 505-516。
檢送修正「國民中學學生編班實施要點」 (1997)。教育部公報，273，20-23。
戴曉霞 (Tai, H. H.) (1998)。能力分班與常態編班：美國經驗的啟示。課程與教
學季刊，1(1)，123-142。