English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113303/144284 (79%)
Visitors : 50826555      Online Users : 700
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/52503


    Title: 國小英語教科書評選指標之研究
    A study on criteria for elementary english textbook evaluation
    Authors: 曾子芸
    Tseng, Tzu Yun
    Contributors: 許炳煌
    Sheu, Ping Huang
    曾子芸
    Tseng, Tzu Yun
    Keywords: 教科書評選
    階層程序分析法
    Textbook evaluation
    Analytic Hierarchy Process
    Date: 2011
    Issue Date: 2012-04-12 13:47:11 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究旨在藉由探討教科書評選指標的權重,了解國小英語教師對於英語教科書評選所採用之評選指標的看法,以及其教師背景對英語教科書評選的影響。本研究方法採用階層程序分析法(AHP), 並由文獻探討將教科書評選指標分為2大層面,5大向度,以及26個指標,建構出階層程序分析法問卷,以隨機方式發放於台北市12個行政區公私立126位國小正式英語教師,並藉由Expert Choice 2000 軟體分析,計算出各層面、向度、指標之權重值,並予以排序。
    研究主要結果如下:
    1.教師重視教科書內在評選高於外在評選。
    2.教科書外在評選,教師較為重視整體編排架構;教科書內在評選,教師認
    為語言能力比語言成分重要。
    3.整體編排架構裡,教師認為最重要的指標為「使用英語文正確、自然流
    暢。」;編印設計,最重要的指標為「字體大小適宜,印刷清楚。」;
    4.教具與輔助教材,最重要的指標為「提供配合課程的電腦多媒體教材。」
    5.教科書內在評選,男性教師較重視教科書語言成分;女性教師則較重視
    語言能力。教學經驗較少的教師重視語言成分高於語言能力;教學經驗較
    豐富的教師則認為語言能力較為重要。
    6.教具與輔助教材,學士學歷教師較重視指標為「提供配合課程的電腦多媒
    體教材。」;碩士學歷教師較重視指標為「CD發音正確清晰,速度適
    宜。」
    綜合本研究結果,教師對於教科書評選指標有不同看法及重視程度,期能提供教師對於教科書評選及評選指標有進一步瞭解。
    The current study aimed to understand how elementary English teachers in Taiwan prioritized criteria for textbook evaluation, and whether their various backgrounds influenced their prioritization of criteria. The research framework was constructed based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), including 2 objectives, 5 sub-objectives, and 25 criteria. An AHP questionnaire was randomly administered to 126 elementary English teachers in Taipei City. All the data were analyzed by means of the software Expert Choice 2000.
    The major findings in the current study are summarized below.
    1.Internal evaluation of textbooks was prioritized
    before External evaluation by a majority of the
    teachers.
    2.In external evaluation, most teachers emphasized
    General features of a textbook; in internal
    evaluation, teachers focused more on Language skills
    rather than Language components in a textbook.
    3.Concerning criteria for evaluating General features of
    textbooks, teachers considered the criterion Accuracy
    and fluency most important; as for Layout and physical
    makeup of a textbook, the criterion Typeface came out
    top; in Teaching aids, Multimedia was viewed as the
    most crucial criterion.
    4.In respect to criteria for evaluating Language
    components and Language skills in textbooks, the
    criterion Integration of components and Integration of
    skills were respectively emphasized by teachers.
    5.While male teachers focused more on Language
    components of a textbook, female teachers found
    Language skills more important.
    6.Novice teachers were more in favor of Language
    components than Language skills; however, to more
    experienced teachers, it was Language skills that they
    prioritized first.
    7.For criteria evaluating Teaching aids of a textbook,
    teachers with a Bachelor`s degree prioritized
    Multimedia as the most important criterion, while
    teachers holding a Master`s degree put much emphasis
    on the Quality of CDs.
    To conclude, it is hoped that these findings can shed light on textbook development and provide useful information for teachers when selecting and evaluating textbooks and for textbook developers when compiling textbooks for students.
    Reference: Ariew, R. (1982). The textbook as curriculum. In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum,
    competence, and the foreign language teacher (pp. 11-33). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.
    Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in education (8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
    Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. (3rd ed.). NY: Longman.
    Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to
    program development. NY: Heinle and Heinle.
    Byrd, P. (2001). Textbooks: Evaluation and selection and analysis for implementation. In Celce-Murcia, M. (3rd ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language
    (pp. 415-427). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
    Chao, Y. C. (2005). A Triangulated investigation of elementary teachers’ perceptions into English textbooks used by 5th, 6th graders in Taichung County, central Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, Providence University, Taichung, Taiwan.
    Chang, C. L. (2008). A Study on Taiwanese Junior High School English Teachers` Use of Supplementary Teaching Materials. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Tiawan.
    Chen, C. S. (2003). Reflections of elementary school teachers on the use of English textbooks in Taipei City. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
    Collins English Dictionary. (1992). Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus. Harper Collins Publishers.
    Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford, UK: Heinemann.
    Decarrico, J. S. (2001). Vocabulary Learning and Teaching. In Celce-Murcia, M.
    (3rd ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 285-300). Boston: Heinle &Heinle.
    Department of Education, Taipei City Government. (2002). Temporary English Curriculum Guidelines of Elementary Schools in Taipei City. Retrieved June, 25, 2012, from http://www.tp.edu.tw/law/doc/20040227_29.zip
    Dyer, R. F. and E. H. Forman (1991). An Analytic Approach to Marketing Decisions. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
    Fredriksson, C. & Olsson, R.(2006). English textbook evaluation:An investigation into criteria for selecting English. Unpublished student’s thesis, Malmö University, Sweden.
    Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 51(1), 36-42.
    Forman, E and Selly, M. (2001). Decision by Objectives: How to Convince Others That You Are Right. New York: World Scientific Publishing Company.
    Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 325–353.
    Gonzales, P. C. (1983). An analysis of language development materials. NABE Journal, 8(1), 5-21.
    Grant, N. (1987). Making the most of your textbook. New York: Longman.
    Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48(4), 315-328.
    Inal, B.(2006). Coursebook selection process and some of the most important criteria to be taken into consideration in foreign language teaching. Journal of Arts and Sciences, 5, 19-29.
    Jan, L. Y. (2004). English materials selection and communicative language teaching principle in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
    Johnson, K., Kim, M., Liu, Y. F., Nava, A., Perkins, D., Smith, A. M., Canela, O., & Lu, W. (2008). A step forward: Investigating expertise in materials evaluation. ELT Journal, 62(2), 157-163.
    Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
    Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching Grammar. In Celce-Murcia, M. (3rd ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 251-266). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
    Li, H-C. (2003). Predictive Evaluation, Use, and Retrospective Evaluation of an EFL
    Textbook by Junior High School Teachers. Unpublished master’s thesis, National
    Normal University, Taipei, R.O.C.
    Lin, Y. H. (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.
    Littlejohn, A. (1998). The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan horse. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp.191-213). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Liu, S. J. (2009). An evaluation of the current elementary English textbooks: Teachers’ perspectives. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Cheng Chi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Lu, C.Y. (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.
    Ishizaka, A. & Labib, A. (2009). Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits and Limitations, ORInsight, 22(4), p. 201–220
    Kuo, W. C. (2003). Assessing the English textbook for elementary school developed by Tainan city. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
    McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (1993). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide. London, UK: Blackwell.
    McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
    Ministry of Education. (2004). General guidelines of Grade 1-9 Curriculum of elementary and junior high school education. Retrieved March, 20, 2009, from
    http://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/66618445071.doc
    Ministry of Education. (2006). An introduction to the Ministry of Education of the R.O.C. Retrieved March, 20, 2009, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=7039&ctNode=784&mp=2
    Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge:
    Cambridge University Press.
    Rubdy, R. (2003). Selection of materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 37-57). London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.
    Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw Hill.
    Saaty, T. L. (2005). Analytic Hierarchy Process. In P. Armitage and T. Colton (eds)
    Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. (2nd ed.) (pp.190-198). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    Saaty, T.L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
    Savignon, Sandra J. (2001). Communicative language Teaching for the Twenty-First Century. In Celce-Murcia, M. (3rd ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 13-28). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
    Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(4), 237-246.
    Skierso, A. (1991). Textbook selection and evaluation. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed.) (pp. 432-453). NY: Heinle and Heinle.
    Su, Y. H. (1997). Needs survey and evaluation scheme for industrial vocational high school English Textbooks. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Tandlichova, E. (1995). Coursebook evaluation in teacher training in Slovakia. Modern English Teacher, 4, 65-147.
    Tomlinson, B. (1998). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge, UK:
    Cambridge University Press.
    Tomlinson, B. (2001). `Materials development`, in R. Carter and D. Nunan (eds) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 66-71).Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Tomlinson, B. (2003). Developing materials for language teaching. London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.
    Tucker, C. Allen (1975). Evaluating beginning textbooks. English Teaching. Forum, 13 (3), 355-361.
    Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Vargas, L.G. (1990), An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications, European Journal of Operational Research, 48, pp. 2-8.
    Williams D. (1983). Developing criteria for textbook evaluation. ELT Journal, 37 (3), 251-255.
    Wu, S. T. (2002). An evaluation of the current set of junior high school English textbooks. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Yang, C.Y. (2010).A Study on development of professional teaching competence indicator for Taipei City elementary English teachers. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
    林玫玲、陳國彥 (Lin & Chen) (2003)。社會領域教科書選用規準之研究。載於中 華民國課程與教學學會(主編),教科書之選擇與評鑑,115-142。台北: 中華民國課程與教學學會。
    詹餘靜 (Chan) (2000)。國小英語教育發展趨勢及三‘教’—教師、教材、與教 法—相關問題研究。國立台北師範學院學報,16, 203-238。
    張玉芳 (Chang) (2002)。 國小英語教學師資,教材選用,及學童學習現況調查 研究—以苗栗縣為例。英語教學,26(4), 19-37。
    戴維揚 (Dai) (1999)。九年一貫英語科新課程新趨勢。教育研究資訊,7(4),1-17。
    國立編譯館 (NICT) (2012)。國民中小學100學年度教科圖書一覽表。
    Retrieved March, 10, 2012, from tp://review.nict.gov.tw/Bulletin/spic/100-1.doc
    施玉惠 (Shih) (2000)。國小英語教材之評審—資格審v.s.選用審。第十七屆
    中華民國英語文教學研討會論文集,213-225。台北︰文鶴。
    蘇復興 (Su) (2003)。英語教育的基礎建設。英語教學,28(2),1-17。
    鄧鈞文(Teng) (2002)。教科書自由化及其問題分析。課程與教學季刊,6(1),27-42。
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    英國語文學研究所
    96551017
    100
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096551017
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[英國語文學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML2450View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback