國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	黃孟婷 Meng-ting Huang
論文名稱：	國中英語教科書之用後評估 Post-Use Evaluation of Junior High School English Textbooks in Taiwan
指導教授：	葉錫南 Yeh, Hsi-Nan
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2012
畢業學年度：	100
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	164
中文關鍵詞：	國中英語教科書、教科書評鑑、用後評估、教師觀點、學生觀點、城鄉差距、教科書使用者的困難、教科書使用者的喜好、教科書使用者的需求
英文關鍵詞：	junior high school English textbooks, textbook evaluation, post-use evaluation, teachers' perspective, students' perspective, urban-rural disparity, textbook users' difficulties, textbook users' preferences, textbook users' needs
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：198 下載：38
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

自從國內國中教科書編輯全面開放以來，市場上出現各版本英語教科書供教師選擇、採用。為了將來教科書的編寫、評選及使用，針對多種版本教科書的評估變得重要。雖然目前已有多筆研究探討教師對教科書的看法，卻極少研究傾聽學生的心聲。因此，本研究旨在探討教師及學生對現行國中英語教科書的用後評估，研究素材為目前市面上最常選用之兩套教科書（H、K）。另一重要目的為檢驗受試者的看法是否因城鄉差距而有所不同。教科書使用者的喜好、困難及需求也是討論重點。
城區及鄉區合計153位教師及399位學生填寫問卷。受試者之中有6位教師和11位學生參與訪談。資料顯示儘管師生觀點及學校所在地區有所不同，受試者對現行教科書的份量、難易度和滿意程度極為相似，少有顯著差異。師生皆認為「說」的練習份量不足，而各部份的難易度皆為適中。大多數受試者認為「學習方法及資源」向度需要改善，其次為「語言技巧」、「字彙、片語及發音」等兩向度。
至於城區和鄉區教師使用教科書所遭遇的困難，兩區之間並無顯著差異。兩區皆有超過85%的教師認為最主要的問題是「教科書無法因應學生參差不齊的程度」，其次為「內容無法培養學生的英語溝通能力、不能引起他們的興趣」。而學生最普遍的問題為「文法的說明不夠、說與寫的技巧不足」。此外，儘管版本不同，以下三項顯示城區和鄉區學生的困難具有顯著差異：「閱讀的技巧不足」、「文法太多、太難」、「索引不便，難查閱單字及文法」。這些和目前英語考試的重點有關，而城鄉差距可能與這些顯著差異相關。
關於學生的喜好，他們最喜愛的主題是「運動、旅行與休閒娛樂」、「文化、習俗、民俗技藝、節慶」及「情感」；最喜歡的體裁為「笑話」、「故事」和「漫畫」。教師在這兩方面的預測與學生的回應大致相符。最後也是最重要的一點，學生的學習需求，教師的預期及學生的回應顯示兩者觀點的差異。學生認為學習英語最主要的目的是「用英語溝通」，然而教師將「在考試及基測中拿高分」視為優先考量。此外，學生在「學習策略」與「情意學習」等兩方面的需求透露雙方觀點的顯著差異。
期待本研究的結果可以幫助英語教師察覺到學生的個別喜好與需求，老師也需要彈性並多元運用教科書來因應學生多樣的需求及英語程度。此外，教科書應該根據教師及學生不同的困難、喜好及需求來編輯。

Due to the reform on textbook policies in Taiwan, multiple versions of junior high school English textbooks have appeared on the market for teachers to select and adopt. The evaluation of various textbooks thus becomes important for future textbook compilation, selection and use. Although a number of studies investigated teachers’ perceptions of textbooks, yet little attention so far seems to have been paid to student users’ voice. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the post-use evaluation of the most popular two junior high school English textbooks (i.e., H and K) from both teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Another significant purpose is to examine whether users’ perceptions vary with urban-rural disparity. Textbook users’ difficulties, preferences, and needs are also discussed.
One hundred and fifty-three teachers as well as three hundred and ninety-nine students in urban and rural areas filled in the questionnaires. Among these participants, six teachers and eleven students were interviewed. The results indicated that regardless of different perspectives and school locations, participants’ perceptions of quantity and difficulty level of different parts in the textbook as well as their satisfaction were similar and showed few significant differences. “Speaking practice” in both textbooks was thought insufficient by teachers and students, whereas the difficulty level in each part of both textbooks was evaluated as suitable. Most participants suggested that the dimension of “learning methods and resources” be improved. Another two dimensions which needed improvement were the presentation of “four language skills” as well as that of “words, phrases and pronunciation.”
Concerning urban and rural teachers’ difficulties in using the textbook, there was no significant differences. In both areas, “the textbook’s failure to cope with students’ diverse proficiency levels” was the major problem for over eighty-five percent of the teacher participants. Another two common problems were “the textbook’s failure to develop students’ communicative abilities and to interest them.” On the other hand, students’ most common difficulties are “insufficient explanation of grammar”, “insufficient speaking and writing skills.” Furthermore, the following three difficulties showed significant differences in the results from rural students: “too much and too difficult grammar,” “insufficient reading skills,” and “inconvenient appendixes to look up words and grammar.” These involve the focuses of the current English exams. Urban-rural disparity may be related to these significant differences.
With regard to students’ preferences, their favorite topics are “sports, traveling and recreation,” “cultures, customs, folk art and festivals,” as well as “affections.” For their favorite genres, “jokes,” “stories” and “comics” were preferred. Teachers’ predictions approximately corresponded to students’ responses. Last but not least, for students’ needs, a gap between teachers’ and students’ expectation emerged. “To communicate in English” was the top purpose of learning English in students’ mind, but teachers ranked “to get high grades in exams and the BCT” as the top priority. Furthermore, needs about “learning strategies” and “affective learning” show significant differences in the students’ perceptions.
It is expected that the results help to sensitize teachers to students’ preferences as well as their needs, and teachers are suggested to flexibly and diversely utilize the textbook to suit students’ varying needs and proficiency levels. Also, it is suggested that textbook compilation be based on teachers’ and students’ major difficulties, preferences as well as needs.

ABSTRACT (CHINESE)    i
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH)    iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT    v
TABLE OF CONTENTS    vii
LIST OF TABLES    ix
LIST OF FIGURES    x

CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION    1
Background and Motivation    1
Purposes of the Study    7
Significance of the Study    8

CHAPTER TWO  LITERATURE REVIEW    9
Issues in English Textbook Evaluation    9
English textbook evaluation schemes    9
Textbook functions in English language teaching and learning    17
Needs of English textbook users    19
Related Studies in English Textbook Studies    23
Textbook evaluation stages    23
Textbook evaluation criteria    25
Textbook users’ needs, preferences and difficulties    26
Summary    29
Urban-Rural Disparity    32
Classifications of an area    32
Distribution of learning resources    33
Summary of Chapter Two    35

CHAPTER THREE  METHOD    36
Participants    36
Instruments    40
Questionnaires    40
Interviews    44
Procedures    45
Pilot study    45
Data collection    46
Data analysis    47
CHAPTER FOUR  RESULTS    49
Questionnaires    49
Teachers’ post-use evaluation of the textbook    49
Students’ post-use evaluation of the current textbooks    56
Interviews    74
Interviews with teachers    74
Interviews with students    97
Summary of Chapter Four    109

CHAPTER FIVE  DISCUSSION    110
Urban-rural Disparity in Textbook Evaluation    110
Teachers’ perceptions    110
Students’ Perceptions    113
Differences between Teachers’ and Students’ Textbook Evaluation    120
Sufficiency in quantity and difficulty level    120
Satisfaction with the textbook    120
Students’ need and preferences    122
Summary of Chapter Five    124

CHAPTER SIX  CONCLUSION    125
Summary of the Study    125
Pedagogical Implications    126
Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Future Research    133

REFERENCES    135

Appendix A. Cunningsworth’s Quick-Reference Checklist for Evaluation and Selection (1995: 3-4)    141
Appendix B. Grades 1-9English Curriculum Guidelines (Adapted from the MOE, 2008: 7&30)    144
Appendix C. Detailed Information of Junior High Schools in the Formal Study    146
Appendix D. The Questionnaire for Teacher Participants    149
Appendix E. The Questionnaire for Student Participants    153
Appendix F. Interview Questions for Teacher Participants    157
Appendix G. Interview Questions for Student Participants    158
Appendix H. Teachers’ Suggestions for Future Textbook Compilation    159
Appendix I. Students’ Suggestions for Future Textbook Compilation    162


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Distribution of Related Studies in National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan 1986-2010: Classified by the Level of English Textbooks    3
Table 2. Types of Textbook Evaluation Stages    11
Table 3. Textbook Evaluation Criteria    11
Table 4. Textbook Functions in Language Teaching and Learning    17
Table 5. Needs Identified in Needs Analysis Literature (Masuhara, 1998: 240-1)    20
Table 6. The Summary of Related Studies on Textbook Evaluation from 2003 to 2010    30
Table 7. The Distribution of the Teacher and Student Participants Filling in Questionnaires in the Present Study    37
Table 8. The Distribution of Interviewees in the Present Study    39
Table 9. An Outline of Teacher Participants’ Questionnaire    40
Table 10. An Outline of Student Participants’ Questionnaire    43
Table 11. An Outline of Interviews with Teachers and Students    44
Table 12. Participants in the Pilot Study    45
Table 13. Ts’ Evaluation: Quantity of Language Content, Texts, and Four Skills    50
Table 14. Ts’ Evaluation: Difficulty Levels of Language Content, Texts & Four Skills    51
Table 15. Ts’ Satisfaction with Textbook H: Urban vs. Rural    52
Table 16. Ts’ Satisfaction with Textbook K: Urban vs. Rural    53
Table 17. Ts’ Difficulties in Using the Textbook    54
Table 18. Ss’ Evaluation: Quantity of Language Content, Texts, and Four Skills    57
Table 19. Ss’ Evaluation: Difficulty Levels of Language Content, Texts, & Four Skills    58
Table 20. Ss’ Satisfaction with Textbook H: Urban vs. Rural    59
Table 21. Ss’ Satisfaction with Textbook K: Urban vs. Rural    60
Table 22. Satisfaction with Textbook H: Urban Ts vs. Urban Ss    61
Table 23. Satisfaction with Textbook H: Rural Ts vs. Rural Ss    61
Table 24. Satisfaction with Textbook K: Urban Ts vs. Urban Ss    62
Table 25. Satisfaction with Textbook K: Rural Ts vs. Rural Ss    63
Table 26. Ss’ Favorite Topics from Ts’ and Ss’ Perspectives    64
Table 27. Ss’ Favorite Genres from Ts’ and Ss’ Perspectives    65
Table 28. Learning Needs: Ts’ Perspective vs. Ss’ Perspective    66
Table 29. Learning Needs from Ts’ Perspective: Urban vs. Rural    67
Table 30. Learning Needs from Ss’ Perspective: Urban vs. Rural    68
Table 31. Ss’ Difficulties in Using the Textbook    70
Table 32. Ss’ Difficulties in Using Textbook H    71
Table 33. Ss’ Difficulties in Using Textbook K    72
Table 34. Code Names of the Interviewees    74


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. A Teacher’s Path through the Production of New or Adapted Materials    20
Figure 2. A Flowchart of the Present Research Design    48

                                

Part I: English References
Allwright, R. L. (1981). What do we want teaching materials for? ELT Journal, 36(1), 5-17.
Bolitho R. & Jolly. D. (1998). A framework for materials writing. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching (p. 98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An integrative approach to language pedagogy. White Plains: Pearson Education.
Chan, Y. W. (詹雨薇) (2004). Junior high school English teachers' ideas of current English textbooks in Tainan County. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chen, Y. H. (陳育萱) (2006). A study of compiling process and post-use evaluation of senior high school English textbooks (Master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Hong Kong: Macmillan Heinemann.
Davies, A. (2006). What do learners really want from their EFL course? ELT Journal, 60(1), 3-12.
DÖornyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dubin, F., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Course design: Developing programs and materials for language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1998). The evaluation of communicative tasks. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grant, N. (1987). Making the most of your textbook. New York: Longman.
Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Hong, H. L. (Ed.) (洪宏齡) (2010). Junior high school English textbook (Vol. 1-6). Taipei: Kan Hsuan Educational Publishers.
Huang, L. W. (黃良微) (2003). Vocational high school teachers' perceptions and use of the English textbooks in southern Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Huang, S. L. (黃淑玲) (2005). A comparative study on English reading comprehension of urban and rural junior high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Huang, W. J. (黃婉珍) (2006). An evaluation of junior high school English textbooks designed for the Nine-year Integrated Curriculum in Taiwan: from 2004-2006. Unpublished master’s thesis, Fu-Jen Catholic University, New Taipei, Taiwan.
Huang, Y. P. (黃玉珮) (Ed.) (2010). Junior high school English textbook (Vol. 1-6). Taipei: Joy Enterprises Organization.
Liao, C. C. (廖靖綺) (1999). The study of textbook and teaching methods usage by secondary school English teachers. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Li, T. C. (李筱晴) (2003). Predictive evaluation, use, and retrospective evaluation of an EFL textbook by junior high school teachers: A case study in Taipei. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lin, Y.H. (林育慧) (2004). An analytical study on provisionary editions of junior high school English textbooks in Kaohsiung City. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Lu, C. Y. (呂昭穎) (2010). Junior high school English teachers' perspectives on current English textbooks in Hsin Chu County. Unpublished master’s thesis, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Masuhara, H. (1998). What do teachers really want from coursebooks? In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (1st ed., pp. 240-245). Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
McDonough J., & Shaw C. (1993). Materials and methods in ELT. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skierso, A. (1991). Textbook selection and evaluation. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Tomilison, B. (1998). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, L.Y. (王麗雲) (2005). A study of junior high school English teachers' perceptions of the liberalization of the authorized English textbooks and their experience of textbook evaluation and selection. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan.
Yalden, J. (1983). The communicative syllabus: Evolution, design & implementation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Part II: Chinese References
Cai, G. Z.（蔡光昭）（1997）。偏遠地區醫療問題探討—以恆春地區為例。醫院，31(1)，29-36。
Chang, D. F. （張鈿富）（2004）。大學多元入學方案實施與學生家庭背景及城鄉差距對入學機會分配影響之研究。台北：教育資料館。
Chang, S. M.（張淑旻）（2005）。城鄉國小學童英語學習情況之研究—以桃竹地區六所學校為例。新竹：國立新竹師範學院碩士論文。
Chang, W. C.（張武昌）（2006）。台灣的英語教育：現況與省思。教育資料與研究雙月刊，69，129-144。
Chang, W. C.（張武昌）（2007）。國中基本學力測驗英語科雙峰現象形成原因之探討。飛揚，16。(Retrieved July, 2012, from: http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/)
Chang, W. C. et al. （張武昌，葉錫南，鄭錦桂，黃宗嫻，張麗滎，張立之）（2007）。九年一貫課程之教科書總評鑑：設計理念、能力指標與連貫性語文領域（英語）教科書評鑑報告。台北：中華民國課程與教學學會。
Chang, Y. F.,（張玉芳）& Wu, H. Z.（吳萼洲）（2004）。台中市國小英語教材使用現況分析。教育資料與研究雙月刊，57，71-78。
Chen, Y. H.（陳宜欣）。（2001）。衛生所功能及醫療保健服務需求城鄉差異之研究—以臺北縣為例。台北：國立臺灣大學碩士論文。
Chen, J. Y.（陳嘉陽）（2004）。教育概論--中冊。台中：教甄策略中心。
Chen, S. H., （陳尚蕙）& Lin, C.（林菁）（2009）。國民小學教師媒體素養之調查研究。台中教育大學學報：教育類，23(2)，1-28。
Chou, P. I. （周珮儀）（2008）。豈是「一本」能了？—— 教科書概念的重建。教科書研究，1(1)，29-47。
Chou, S. C. （周淑卿）（2003a）。今是昨非，抑或昨是今非？教科書一綱多本爭議之分析。國立編譯館館刊，31，12-21。
Chou, S. C. （周淑卿）（2003b）。論中小學教科書評鑑機制建立的必要性。中華民國課程與教學學會，教科書之選擇與評鑑。高雄：復文。
Committee of Basic Competence Test for Junior High School Students. （國民中學學生基本學力測驗推動工作委員會）（2012）。國中教育會考問與答。飛揚， 75，16-19。(Retrieved July, 2012, from: http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/)
Deng, J. W. （鄧鈞文）（2002）。教科書自由化及其問題分析。課程與教學季刊， 6(1)，27-42。
H.S. Newsletter.（合聲英語教學通訊網）（2009）。閱讀課文後，只能進行「閱讀理解」測驗？。合聲英語教學通訊網，2，1-2版。
Huang, Y. W.（黃怡雯）（2008）。偏遠地區國中學生基測成績之探究。學校行政雙月刊，58，60-75。
Jhang, S. M.（張淑旻）（2005）。城鄉國小學童英語學習情況之研究—以桃竹地區六所學校為例。新竹：國立新竹師範學院碩士論文。
Lan, S. T.（藍順德）（2003a）。從教科書開放談教科書的定位。中華民國課程與教學學會，教科書之選擇與評鑑。高雄：復文。
Lan, S. T. （藍順德）（2003b）。教科書開放政策的演變與未來發展趨勢，國立編譯館館刊，31，3-11。
Lan, S. T. （藍順德）（2004）。二十年來國內博碩士論文教科書研究之分析，國立編譯館館刊，32(4)，2-25。
Lan, S. T. （藍順德）（2006）。教科書政策與制度，台北：五南。
MOE.（教育部）（2008）。97年國民中小學課程綱要：英語領域。(Retrieved July, 2007, from http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC2/9cc_97.php)
MOE.（教育部）（2012）。十二年國民基本教育。(Retrieved July, 2012, from http://12basic.edu.tw/)
MOJ. （法務部）（2010）。地方制度法。(Retrieved June, 2012, from http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=A0040003)
Ou, Y. S. （歐用生）（2002）。如何選擇教科書。康軒教育雜誌，46，9-15。
Ou, Y. S. （歐用生）（2003）。歐用生教授教科書之旅。台北：中華民國教材硏究發展學會。
Pan, M. J. （潘明智）（2010）。國中生基測成績城鄉差距之研究—以臺南市為例。台南：立德大學碩士論文。
Wang, T. Y. （王姿尹）（2010）。國民中小學九年一貫課程國中英語教科書評鑑規準建構之研究。新竹：國立交通大學碩士論文。
Wu, H. K.（吳祥坤）（2009）。國中學生基本學力測驗城鄉差距成因之比較研究—以台北市A校與金門縣B校為例。台北：銘傳大學碩士論文。
Wu, S. L.（吳淑綾）（2010）。台中市國中英語教師對英語教科書之評選與使用滿意度之研究。台中：國立臺中教育大學碩士論文。
Yang, Y. J.（楊英君）（2008）。城鄉教育資源差異對學生學習成就影響之個案研究。台北：世新大學碩士論文。(Retrieved July 2012, from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/)
Yeh, H. N. （葉錫南）（2000）。九年一貫課程英語科之多元化評量。英語教學季刊，24(3)，5-28。
Yu, W. F.（尤婉芬）（2007）。城鄉差異影響國中生音樂學習態度相關因素之研究—以彰化縣為例。台北：國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文。

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文