學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 九年一貫英語讀寫能力指標反映至國民中學英語科習作之研究
A study on reading and writing competence indicators of the grades 1-9 English curriculum in junior high school english workbooks作者 王羿婷
Wang, Yi Ting貢獻者 葉潔宇
Yeh, Chieh Yue
王羿婷
Wang, Yi Ting關鍵詞 九年一貫英語能力指標
國中英語習作
內容分析
焦點團體訪談
Competence indicators of the Grades 1-9 English Curriculum
junior high school English workbooks
content analysis
focus group interview日期 2011 上傳時間 30-十月-2012 10:33:09 (UTC+8) 摘要 教育部明訂，九年一貫能力指標應作為教科書編輯者編撰課本、習作之依據。透過教科書，學生可期望習得能力指標所標示的能力。台灣國中英語教學現場中，習作常作為學生的回家作業，所以能力指標如何呈現在習作上可影響學生能力習得的結果；然而，目前相關研究仍顯不足，因此，本研究採用九年一貫國中英語讀寫能力指標，分析目前最為廣用的一套國中英語習作。另外，本研究也針對第一線國中英語教師進行團體訪談，以了解教師對習作和能力指標的看法。 本研究的結果總結如下:1. 14條指標中，只有3項在習作中有超過10%的練習題目(推論字義文意;了 解文章主旨大意；合併、改寫及造句)；然而卻有8項指標在習作中的練 習題少於1.5%。2. 針對被強調的3項指標，訪談教師同意這些能力的確需要被強調，只不過習 作的練習題仍顯不足。3. 針對被忽略的8項指標，教師認為有些能力(例:查字典)對學生來說並非最 重要，因此習作缺乏此類練習是可以接受的；不過，某些能力(例:看懂圖 表標示)因為和學生的日常生活息息相關，理應出現在習作裡；而部分難度 較高的指標(例:寫一個段落)可編為自由選擇(optional)的習題，讓程度 較高的學生有更多練習的機會。 根據研究結果，研究者對教育決策者、教科書編輯、及英語教師提出數點建議。
The competence indicators (CI) listed in the Grades 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines are regulated as the principles for private publishers to compile teaching materials—textbooks and student workbooks. Through these teaching materials, it is expected that students can acquire the competences stipulated in the curriculum guidelines. Student workbooks, especially in Taiwan’s junior high school English classrooms, are used as a main source for students’ homework. Therefore, how the CIs are incorporated into the workbooks can affect students’ acquirement of the competences. Nonetheless, little research has been done on analysis of English workbooks based on competence indicators. This study, therefore, aimed to analyze a most popular set of junior high school English workbooks based on the Grades 7-9 reading and writing competence indicators. To gain more in-depth insights, a focus group interview with in-service teachers was later conducted to explore teachers’ views on the workbooks and competence indicators.The results of the present study are summarized as follows. 1.Of the 14 CIs, only three were emphasized (to guess meanings of words and reading passages; to understand main ideas; and to combine, change, and make sentences), each taking up more than 10% of the workbook exercises. However, there were up to eight CIs that were neglected, each taking up less than 1.5% of the workbook exercises. 2.As for the three emphasized CIs, the teacher interviewees agreed that the emphasis was necessary, but the practice in the workbooks were still insufficient for their students. 3.As for the eight neglected CIs, the teachers considered that: (1) lack of practice on some CIs, such as to use a dictionary, was acceptable, for these skills were impractical for their students; (2) some practices, such as to fill out forms, should have be included into the workbooks because they were related to students’ daily lives; (3) certain practices, such as to write a simple paragraph, could be designed as optional workbook exercises for high achieving students to master more advanced skills. Finally, some suggestions are provided on the basis of the findings in this study.參考文獻 English ReferencesBrown, H. Douglas. (2004). Language Assessment. Principles and Classroom Practice. Longman.Carpenter, Caitlin. Saturday Evening Post, March/April 2008, Vol. 280 Issue 2, p34-81, 3p Chen, Y.Y. (2005). Homework in Junior High School EFL Classrooms. Unpublished master thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.Connors, N.A. (1991). Homework: A new direction. National Middle School AssociationCooper, H. (1994). The battle over Homework: An administrator’s guide to setting sound and effective policies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.Davis, F.B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly 3, 499-545.Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus Groups. Social Research Update, 19. Retrieved August, 2011, from http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU19.htmlGrabe, W., and F. L. Stoller. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content, edited by M. A. Snow and D. M. Brinton. New York: Longman.Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching Language in Context. Third Edition. Heinle& Heinle. Judith, H. (2006). Competence indicators in academic education and early labor market Success of graduates in health sciences. Journal of Education and Work. Vol. 19, No. 4, 383-413.Kavle, S. (2009). Interviews—Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage. Knott, B. (1975). What is a Competence-Based Curriculum in the Liberal Arts? The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 46, No.1 (Jan. - Feb., 1975), 25-40.Krueger, R.A. (2002). Designing and conducting focus group interviews. Retrieved August, 2011, from http://www.eiu.edu/~ihec/Krueger-FocusGroupInterviews.pdfLaConte, R. T. (1981). Homework as a learning experience: What research says to the teacher. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association.Lee, J. F., & Pruitt, K. W. (1979). Homework assignments: Classroom games for teaching tools. Clearing House, 53, 31-35.Lewis, M. (1995, 2000). Focus Group Interviews in Qualitative Research: A review of the Literature. Retrieved August 12, 2011, fromhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38754829/Lewis-Focus-Groups-InterviewingLin, Yin Tzu. (2009). A Study on the washback Effect of the Basic Competence English Test on Junior High School Students in Northern Taiwan. Unpublished master thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage Publications.Massachusetts Dept. of Education. (2003). English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes for English Language Learners. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/benchmark.pdf McCracken, G. (1988). The Long Interview. London. Sage. Michigan Department of Education. (1996). The Michigan Curriculum Framework. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MichiganCurriculumFramework_8172_7.pdfMunby, J (1978). Communication syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Nation, I.S.P (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge. North, S., & Pillay, H. (2002). Homework: Re-examining the routine. ELT Journal, 56 (2), 137-145.Nunan, David (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Newbury House Teacher Department.Nunan, David (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. McGraw Hill.Oakes, J. (1989). What are educational indicators? The case for assessing the school context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,11, 181-199. Ohio Department of Education. (2010). Academic Content Standards. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf Stewart D.W. and Shamdasani P.N. (1992). Focus groups: theory and practice. London: Sage.Supon, Vi. (2009). Are It’s Last Days Approaching? Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 36 Issue 4, 357-359. Department of Education, United States of America. (2010). National Blue Ribbon Schools Program. Retrieved May, 10, 2012, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/2010/applications/index.htmlWestera, W. (2001). Competences in education: a confusion of tongues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33 (1), 75-88.Zhuo Jia Shiun. (2010). EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of the Implementation of Competition-based Readers’ Theater—Take Taipei County as an Example. Unpublished master thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan. Chinese References王瑞芸 (Wang Ruei Yun) (1996)。國小六年級國語科習作引導與學習之評估研究:以花蓮縣為例 (碩士論文)。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所。王彩芬(Wang Tsai Fen) (1998)。國民小學社會科部編本與審定本教科書內容之比較研究。台南師院學生學刊，19，p.235-251。王素芸 (Wang Su Yun) (2001)。「基本能力指標」之發展與概念分析。教育研究資訊，九卷，一期。王思秦 (Wang Sz Chin)（2004）。國民小學九年一貫課程國語習作內容之分析研究 (碩士論文)。臺中師範學院語文教育學系碩士班。李坤崇 (Lee Kuen Chung) (2002)。綜合活動學習領域能力指標之概念分析、轉化與教材發展。國教天地，149, 3-12。李淑惠 (Lee, Shu-Hui )（2009）。國小社會領域習作中高層次思考能力之內容分析--以修訂版布魯姆認知領域教育目標分類為分析架構 (未出版碩士論文)。臺北市立教育大學課程與教學研究所課程與教學碩士學位班。沈珠帆 (Chu-Fan Shen) (2008) 。國民小學國語習作大意練習的內容分析(未出版碩士論文)。國立台東大學語文教育學系碩士班。林于弘 (Lin, Yu Hung) (2003)。九年一貫版國語第二冊(一下)習作題型析論。人文及社會學科教學通訊13卷5期，頁:34-49。 林蓮珠 ( Lin Lien Chu) (2008)。國語文第二學習階段教科書中教材及寫作能力指標分析(碩士論文)。銘傳大學應用中國文學系碩士在職專班。高新建 (Kao Shin Jian) (2002)。能力指標轉化模式（一）：能力指標之分析及其教學轉化。載於黃炳煌（主編），社會學習領域課程設計與教學策略（頁 51~94）。台北：師大書苑。徐鈴雯 (Hsu Ling Wen) (2001)。高雄市地理習作使用狀況調查研究(碩士論文)，國立高雄師範大學地理學系。徐榕鎂(Hsu, Jung-Mei)（2006）。國民小學九年一貫課程社會習作內容分析與設計 (碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學社會科教育學系碩士班。陳新轉 (Chen Shin Juan) (2004)。九年一貫社會學習領域課程發展—從課程綱要與能力指標出發。心理出版社。張佳琳 (Chang Jia Lin) (2000)。從能力指標之建構與評量檢視九年一貫課程基本能力之內涵。國民教育月刊，40卷4期。張瑞芬（Chang Ruei Fen）(2005)。國民小學國語習作之作文教學研究(碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所。張秀蘭（Chang Shiu Lan) (2006)。九年一貫國民小學第一階段國語習作看圖作文教材研究 (碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學語文教育學系碩士班。 教育部 (MOE) (2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要語文學習領域（英語）。台 灣。教育部 (MOE) (2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要修正版。台灣。教育部 (MOE) (2009)。國民小學及國民中學教科圖書審定辦法修正條文。台灣。教育部 (MOE) (2012)。十二年國民基本教育政策座談會手冊。台灣。梁鈺敏 (Liang Yu Min) (2009)。國小生活課程教科書語能力指標之內容分析—以第一至第三主軸為例 (碩士論文)。國立中正大學課程研究所。郭月婷 (Kuo, Yueh-ting)（2009）。國小自然科習作內容分析與教師使用現況調查 (碩士論文)。國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所。黃郁紋 (Huang Yu Wen) (2003)。國民小學一年級國語教科書家庭概念之內容分析 (碩士論文)。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所。黃亦麟 (Huang, Yi Lin)（2010）。國小四年級國語習作與教師手冊閱讀理解提問類型分析(碩士論文)。臺北市立教育大學課程與教學研究所。葉連祺 (Yeh, Lian Chi)（2002）。九年一貫課程與基本能力轉化。教育研究月刊，96，49-63。葉錫南 (Yeh, Hsi Nan ) (2009)。高中英文科課程分版之教材編纂、教學、評量及升學考試 Materials Development, Instruction, Assessment and College Entrance Exams for Differentiated Curriculum in Senior High School English。考試學刊，98.06，1-20。 曾朝安 (Tzeng Chau An) (2001)。學校課程計劃百面通。台北康軒文教事業。楊孝爃 (Yang Hsiou Zong) (1993)。內容分析: 社會及科學研究法。台北:東華。楊思偉 (Yang Sz Wei) (2000)。基本能力指標之建構與落實。教育研究月刊，第96期。楊麗玲 (Yang Li Lin)（2007）。國語習作之短語語法分析研究 (碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學語文與創作學系語文教學碩士班。鄭蕤 (Jeng Ruei) (1994)。海峽兩岸國小國語科習作內容之探討(碩士論文)。海峽兩岸小學語文教學研討會論文集，頁62。盧雪梅 (Lu Shiue Mei) (2004)。從技術面談九年一貫課程能力指標建構:美國學習標準建構之啟示。教育研究資訊12卷2期，頁29。鍾青青 (Chung Ching Ching) (2009)。國小低年級綜合活動領域教科書層級能力指標轉化之研究(碩士論文)。國立新竹教育大學人資處課程與教學碩士班。藍順德 (Lan Shuen De ) (2006)。教科書政策與制度。五南圖書，台北市。藍毓豪 (Lan Yu Hao) (2006)。國小英語科能力指標轉化至教科書之研究 (碩士論文)。國立屏東教育大學教育行政研究所。鷺江國中 (Lujiang Junior High School)。新北市。作業抽查辦法。Retrieved from http://163.20.65.7/editor_doc/editor_docview.asp?id={2428748A-C1C3-46F6-9AB4-D0C8903EFC29} 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
英語教學碩士在職專班
96951004
100資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096951004 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 葉潔宇 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Yeh, Chieh Yue en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 王羿婷 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Wang, Yi Ting en_US dc.creator (作者) 王羿婷 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Wang, Yi Ting en_US dc.date (日期) 2011 en_US dc.date.accessioned 30-十月-2012 10:33:09 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 30-十月-2012 10:33:09 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 30-十月-2012 10:33:09 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0096951004 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54278 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 英語教學碩士在職專班 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 96951004 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 教育部明訂，九年一貫能力指標應作為教科書編輯者編撰課本、習作之依據。透過教科書，學生可期望習得能力指標所標示的能力。台灣國中英語教學現場中，習作常作為學生的回家作業，所以能力指標如何呈現在習作上可影響學生能力習得的結果；然而，目前相關研究仍顯不足，因此，本研究採用九年一貫國中英語讀寫能力指標，分析目前最為廣用的一套國中英語習作。另外，本研究也針對第一線國中英語教師進行團體訪談，以了解教師對習作和能力指標的看法。 本研究的結果總結如下:1. 14條指標中，只有3項在習作中有超過10%的練習題目(推論字義文意;了 解文章主旨大意；合併、改寫及造句)；然而卻有8項指標在習作中的練 習題少於1.5%。2. 針對被強調的3項指標，訪談教師同意這些能力的確需要被強調，只不過習 作的練習題仍顯不足。3. 針對被忽略的8項指標，教師認為有些能力(例:查字典)對學生來說並非最 重要，因此習作缺乏此類練習是可以接受的；不過，某些能力(例:看懂圖 表標示)因為和學生的日常生活息息相關，理應出現在習作裡；而部分難度 較高的指標(例:寫一個段落)可編為自由選擇(optional)的習題，讓程度 較高的學生有更多練習的機會。 根據研究結果，研究者對教育決策者、教科書編輯、及英語教師提出數點建議。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The competence indicators (CI) listed in the Grades 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines are regulated as the principles for private publishers to compile teaching materials—textbooks and student workbooks. Through these teaching materials, it is expected that students can acquire the competences stipulated in the curriculum guidelines. Student workbooks, especially in Taiwan’s junior high school English classrooms, are used as a main source for students’ homework. Therefore, how the CIs are incorporated into the workbooks can affect students’ acquirement of the competences. Nonetheless, little research has been done on analysis of English workbooks based on competence indicators. This study, therefore, aimed to analyze a most popular set of junior high school English workbooks based on the Grades 7-9 reading and writing competence indicators. To gain more in-depth insights, a focus group interview with in-service teachers was later conducted to explore teachers’ views on the workbooks and competence indicators.The results of the present study are summarized as follows. 1.Of the 14 CIs, only three were emphasized (to guess meanings of words and reading passages; to understand main ideas; and to combine, change, and make sentences), each taking up more than 10% of the workbook exercises. However, there were up to eight CIs that were neglected, each taking up less than 1.5% of the workbook exercises. 2.As for the three emphasized CIs, the teacher interviewees agreed that the emphasis was necessary, but the practice in the workbooks were still insufficient for their students. 3.As for the eight neglected CIs, the teachers considered that: (1) lack of practice on some CIs, such as to use a dictionary, was acceptable, for these skills were impractical for their students; (2) some practices, such as to fill out forms, should have be included into the workbooks because they were related to students’ daily lives; (3) certain practices, such as to write a simple paragraph, could be designed as optional workbook exercises for high achieving students to master more advanced skills. Finally, some suggestions are provided on the basis of the findings in this study. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents Chapter One: Introduction 1Background and Motivation 1Purpose of the Study 3Research Questions 4Significance of the Study 4Definition of Terms 5 Chapter Two: Literature Review 7Competence Indicators in Education 7Definitions of Competence 7Functions of Competence Indicators 8Competence Indicators and Teaching Materials 10Related Studies on Textbook Analysis Based on Competence Indicators 10Importance of Student Workbooks 11Functions of Student Workbooks 13Related Studies on Workbook Analysis 14Chapter Three: Methodology 17Subjects 17The Target Workbooks 17Focus Group Interview Participants 18Instruments 19Converting Formats of Competence Indicators 19Semi-structured Focus Group Interview 22Procedure 24Workbook Analysis 24Inter-rater Reliability 25Focus Group Interview 33Analysis of Workbook Coding Results and Interview Data 34Data Analysis 36Chapter Four: Results 39Distribution of Competence Indicators in the Workbooks 39The Analysis of CI Frequency: Each Volume 39CI Frequencies in All Volumes and Exercise Examples 53Junior High School English Teachers’ Viewpoints of the CompetenceIndicators and Workbooks 61Ways of Using the English Workbooks 61Functions of the Workbooks 63Evaluation of the Workbook Contents 63English Reading and Writing Competence Indicators in the workbooks……65Emphasized Competence Indicators 65Neglected Competence Indicators 66Comparison between CIs in the Textbooks and Workbooks 68Comments on the Researcher’s Workbook Analysis Results 69Comments on the Emphasized Competence Indicators 69Comments on the Neglected Competence Indicators 72Summary 77Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion 79Major Findings 79An Imbalanced Distribution of Competence Indicators 79Emphasized Competence Indicators 80Neglected Competence Indicators 83Comparison with Previous Studies 87In-Service Teachers’ Comments on the Workbooks 88Answers to the Research Questions ..90Implications of the Study 93Limitations of the Study 98 Suggestions for Future Research 99 Conclusion 100References 103Appendix 1: Converting Formats of Grade 7-9 Reading and Writing Competence Indicators (Adapted from Tzeng, 2001) 109Appendix 2: Workbook Coding Sheet (The Chinese Version) 112Appendix 3: Workbook Coding Sheet (The English Version) 113Appendix 4: Interview Consent Form (The Chinese Version) 114Appendix 5: Interview Consent Form (The English Version) 115Appendix 6: Interview Questions (The Chinese Version) 116Appendix 7: Interview Questions (The English Version) 119 zh_TW dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096951004 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 九年一貫英語能力指標 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 國中英語習作 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 內容分析 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 焦點團體訪談 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Competence indicators of the Grades 1-9 English Curriculum en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) junior high school English workbooks en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) content analysis en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) focus group interview en_US dc.title (題名) 九年一貫英語讀寫能力指標反映至國民中學英語科習作之研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) A study on reading and writing competence indicators of the grades 1-9 English curriculum in junior high school english workbooks en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) English ReferencesBrown, H. Douglas. (2004). Language Assessment. Principles and Classroom Practice. Longman.Carpenter, Caitlin. Saturday Evening Post, March/April 2008, Vol. 280 Issue 2, p34-81, 3p Chen, Y.Y. (2005). Homework in Junior High School EFL Classrooms. Unpublished master thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.Connors, N.A. (1991). Homework: A new direction. National Middle School AssociationCooper, H. (1994). The battle over Homework: An administrator’s guide to setting sound and effective policies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.Davis, F.B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly 3, 499-545.Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus Groups. Social Research Update, 19. Retrieved August, 2011, from http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU19.htmlGrabe, W., and F. L. Stoller. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content, edited by M. A. Snow and D. M. Brinton. New York: Longman.Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching Language in Context. Third Edition. Heinle& Heinle. Judith, H. (2006). Competence indicators in academic education and early labor market Success of graduates in health sciences. Journal of Education and Work. Vol. 19, No. 4, 383-413.Kavle, S. (2009). Interviews—Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage. Knott, B. (1975). What is a Competence-Based Curriculum in the Liberal Arts? The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 46, No.1 (Jan. - Feb., 1975), 25-40.Krueger, R.A. (2002). Designing and conducting focus group interviews. Retrieved August, 2011, from http://www.eiu.edu/~ihec/Krueger-FocusGroupInterviews.pdfLaConte, R. T. (1981). Homework as a learning experience: What research says to the teacher. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association.Lee, J. F., & Pruitt, K. W. (1979). Homework assignments: Classroom games for teaching tools. Clearing House, 53, 31-35.Lewis, M. (1995, 2000). Focus Group Interviews in Qualitative Research: A review of the Literature. Retrieved August 12, 2011, fromhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38754829/Lewis-Focus-Groups-InterviewingLin, Yin Tzu. (2009). A Study on the washback Effect of the Basic Competence English Test on Junior High School Students in Northern Taiwan. Unpublished master thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage Publications.Massachusetts Dept. of Education. (2003). English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes for English Language Learners. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/benchmark.pdf McCracken, G. (1988). The Long Interview. London. Sage. Michigan Department of Education. (1996). The Michigan Curriculum Framework. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MichiganCurriculumFramework_8172_7.pdfMunby, J (1978). Communication syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Nation, I.S.P (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge. North, S., & Pillay, H. (2002). Homework: Re-examining the routine. ELT Journal, 56 (2), 137-145.Nunan, David (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Newbury House Teacher Department.Nunan, David (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. McGraw Hill.Oakes, J. (1989). What are educational indicators? The case for assessing the school context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,11, 181-199. Ohio Department of Education. (2010). Academic Content Standards. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf Stewart D.W. and Shamdasani P.N. (1992). Focus groups: theory and practice. London: Sage.Supon, Vi. (2009). Are It’s Last Days Approaching? Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 36 Issue 4, 357-359. Department of Education, United States of America. (2010). National Blue Ribbon Schools Program. Retrieved May, 10, 2012, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/2010/applications/index.htmlWestera, W. (2001). Competences in education: a confusion of tongues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33 (1), 75-88.Zhuo Jia Shiun. (2010). EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of the Implementation of Competition-based Readers’ Theater—Take Taipei County as an Example. Unpublished master thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan. Chinese References王瑞芸 (Wang Ruei Yun) (1996)。國小六年級國語科習作引導與學習之評估研究:以花蓮縣為例 (碩士論文)。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所。王彩芬(Wang Tsai Fen) (1998)。國民小學社會科部編本與審定本教科書內容之比較研究。台南師院學生學刊，19，p.235-251。王素芸 (Wang Su Yun) (2001)。「基本能力指標」之發展與概念分析。教育研究資訊，九卷，一期。王思秦 (Wang Sz Chin)（2004）。國民小學九年一貫課程國語習作內容之分析研究 (碩士論文)。臺中師範學院語文教育學系碩士班。李坤崇 (Lee Kuen Chung) (2002)。綜合活動學習領域能力指標之概念分析、轉化與教材發展。國教天地，149, 3-12。李淑惠 (Lee, Shu-Hui )（2009）。國小社會領域習作中高層次思考能力之內容分析--以修訂版布魯姆認知領域教育目標分類為分析架構 (未出版碩士論文)。臺北市立教育大學課程與教學研究所課程與教學碩士學位班。沈珠帆 (Chu-Fan Shen) (2008) 。國民小學國語習作大意練習的內容分析(未出版碩士論文)。國立台東大學語文教育學系碩士班。林于弘 (Lin, Yu Hung) (2003)。九年一貫版國語第二冊(一下)習作題型析論。人文及社會學科教學通訊13卷5期，頁:34-49。 林蓮珠 ( Lin Lien Chu) (2008)。國語文第二學習階段教科書中教材及寫作能力指標分析(碩士論文)。銘傳大學應用中國文學系碩士在職專班。高新建 (Kao Shin Jian) (2002)。能力指標轉化模式（一）：能力指標之分析及其教學轉化。載於黃炳煌（主編），社會學習領域課程設計與教學策略（頁 51~94）。台北：師大書苑。徐鈴雯 (Hsu Ling Wen) (2001)。高雄市地理習作使用狀況調查研究(碩士論文)，國立高雄師範大學地理學系。徐榕鎂(Hsu, Jung-Mei)（2006）。國民小學九年一貫課程社會習作內容分析與設計 (碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學社會科教育學系碩士班。陳新轉 (Chen Shin Juan) (2004)。九年一貫社會學習領域課程發展—從課程綱要與能力指標出發。心理出版社。張佳琳 (Chang Jia Lin) (2000)。從能力指標之建構與評量檢視九年一貫課程基本能力之內涵。國民教育月刊，40卷4期。張瑞芬（Chang Ruei Fen）(2005)。國民小學國語習作之作文教學研究(碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所。張秀蘭（Chang Shiu Lan) (2006)。九年一貫國民小學第一階段國語習作看圖作文教材研究 (碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學語文教育學系碩士班。 教育部 (MOE) (2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要語文學習領域（英語）。台 灣。教育部 (MOE) (2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要修正版。台灣。教育部 (MOE) (2009)。國民小學及國民中學教科圖書審定辦法修正條文。台灣。教育部 (MOE) (2012)。十二年國民基本教育政策座談會手冊。台灣。梁鈺敏 (Liang Yu Min) (2009)。國小生活課程教科書語能力指標之內容分析—以第一至第三主軸為例 (碩士論文)。國立中正大學課程研究所。郭月婷 (Kuo, Yueh-ting)（2009）。國小自然科習作內容分析與教師使用現況調查 (碩士論文)。國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所。黃郁紋 (Huang Yu Wen) (2003)。國民小學一年級國語教科書家庭概念之內容分析 (碩士論文)。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所。黃亦麟 (Huang, Yi Lin)（2010）。國小四年級國語習作與教師手冊閱讀理解提問類型分析(碩士論文)。臺北市立教育大學課程與教學研究所。葉連祺 (Yeh, Lian Chi)（2002）。九年一貫課程與基本能力轉化。教育研究月刊，96，49-63。葉錫南 (Yeh, Hsi Nan ) (2009)。高中英文科課程分版之教材編纂、教學、評量及升學考試 Materials Development, Instruction, Assessment and College Entrance Exams for Differentiated Curriculum in Senior High School English。考試學刊，98.06，1-20。 曾朝安 (Tzeng Chau An) (2001)。學校課程計劃百面通。台北康軒文教事業。楊孝爃 (Yang Hsiou Zong) (1993)。內容分析: 社會及科學研究法。台北:東華。楊思偉 (Yang Sz Wei) (2000)。基本能力指標之建構與落實。教育研究月刊，第96期。楊麗玲 (Yang Li Lin)（2007）。國語習作之短語語法分析研究 (碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學語文與創作學系語文教學碩士班。鄭蕤 (Jeng Ruei) (1994)。海峽兩岸國小國語科習作內容之探討(碩士論文)。海峽兩岸小學語文教學研討會論文集，頁62。盧雪梅 (Lu Shiue Mei) (2004)。從技術面談九年一貫課程能力指標建構:美國學習標準建構之啟示。教育研究資訊12卷2期，頁29。鍾青青 (Chung Ching Ching) (2009)。國小低年級綜合活動領域教科書層級能力指標轉化之研究(碩士論文)。國立新竹教育大學人資處課程與教學碩士班。藍順德 (Lan Shuen De ) (2006)。教科書政策與制度。五南圖書，台北市。藍毓豪 (Lan Yu Hao) (2006)。國小英語科能力指標轉化至教科書之研究 (碩士論文)。國立屏東教育大學教育行政研究所。鷺江國中 (Lujiang Junior High School)。新北市。作業抽查辦法。Retrieved from http://163.20.65.7/editor_doc/editor_docview.asp?id={2428748A-C1C3-46F6-9AB4-D0C8903EFC29} zh_TW
