國家教育研究院

研究目的：本文探討扶弱適性分組、英語文素養導向閱讀技巧教學介入長度、學校地區對國中學生的英語文閱讀策略使用及知能之影響，並呈現教師和校長對於分組教學、課程共備文化之觀點。
研究設計：學生參與者來自臺北市一所國中(77名學生)、花蓮縣一所國中(約102名學生)皆參與縣市扶弱適性分組教學方案；參與教師共為10位。本文採用融合研究法之解釋型序列設計，依據前一年教師質性訪談指出的課程設計建議實施教學，本文先分析學生量性的學習結果，再搭配質性訪談重點：學生上課情形和閱讀技巧使用反思、教師對適性分組教學的反思，主任、校長知覺到課程共備文化的形塑。研究工具為閱讀理解測驗、接續的閱讀策略後設認知問卷(含整體、支援、問題解決三個構念)、英語文素養導向成就測驗(含聽力和閱讀)、教師日誌、訪談問題等。實驗班的教學介入包含以下面向：分組教學、閱讀技巧教學，結合學生學習與生活應用，提供實踐力行的練習等。另有對照班為普通的國中英語教學。依據學校課務安排的變動，將學生分成接受一年、接受一年半的實驗介入，並分析學生的英語文知能、閱讀技巧及策略的變化。
研究結果：(一)實驗班的扶弱組學生的字母拼讀技能於延宕後測中(八上期末)高於前測(七上期末)。(二)扶弱適性分組教學顯示有跨校的差異。臺北B國中實驗班和對照班的差異不顯著(僅實施1年的教學介入)，而實驗班扶弱組學生在回原班上課後，卻顯示較好的英語文知能(4測、5測)， 比起對照班扶弱組。花蓮A國中實驗班的學生的表現進步量優於對照班(實施1年半的教學介入)，且實驗班的教師實施教學介入的忠實度越高，則學生進步量越多。又實驗班的扶弱組學生也顯示較好的英語文知能(1測、2測、5測)，比起對照班扶弱組。(三)教學介入僅對臺北B國中學生帶來較高的進步量，特別是整體策略、問題解決策略使用。此校實驗班扶弱組問題解決策略的進步量上，也高於對照班扶弱組。上述發現支持教學介入對實驗班普通組、扶弱組學生皆有些許的成效。(四)臺北實驗班學生似乎比較能學會不同的閱讀技巧與策略(如:找文章大意)，花蓮實驗班學生有時會卡在較難的文法結構、單字中，而無法理解課文大意。(五)扶弱適性分組教學教師認為對扶弱組、普通組學生的適性學習都有幫助; 實驗班的教師也通常會利用領域共備時間，討論分組教學和評量的範圍等，讓差異化評量能更到位。共備習慣的關鍵可能在於樂於貢獻或分享新的教案、學習單、評量內涵。(六)兩所研究合作學校皆為鼓勵學生多元適性發展的學校，學校行政樂於提供課務行政支持，以落實扶弱適性分組教學，且兩校英語文科有共備課程和評量的傳統，因而更容易落實分組教學的共備。
可行應用：研究發現依據學生英語文知能、閱讀技巧之變化，以及教師、主任、校長所提的課程共備模式及文化，進而提出地區性、通則性扶弱適性及閱讀技巧教學等建議。
政策建言：文末提出四個政策建議。一、實證資料支持七年級開始進行英語抽離式補救教學之可行性。但有關國小教育階段的英語文扶弱適性分組教學成效，猶待未來研究，特別需要英語文扶弱適性分組教學的長期追蹤研究。二、推廣跨縣市教師增能共備的模式。三、提倡直接英語文閱讀技巧與閱讀策略教學。四、建置英語文部定課程的長期研究機制。
 

Purpose: The purpose of the three-year study is twofold: (1) to examine the longitudinal effects of remedial-based and mix-ability grouping and English competence-oriented reading-skill instruction on the English reading-strategy use, English comprehension of junior high school students over 1.5 years; (2) and to describe the curriculum-collaboration culture perceived by teachers and principals. 
Method: The study adopted the explanatory sequential design of the mixed-method research  that first administered the qualitative interview protocol probing teachers’ suggestions for the curriculum and instruction design, then analyzed quantitative data on English reading skills and strategy use of the students at several time-points, and finally adopted the interview protocol probing teachers’ and principal’s perception and evaluation of the instructional intervention and curriculum-collaboration culture. Participating students were Grade 7 students from a Taipei junior high schools (around 77 students), and Grade 7 students from a Hualien junior high school (around 102 students), and 10 teachers. The two schools are participating in a project of English re-grouping instruction in their city or county. The instruction intervention of the experimental group mainly addressed the curriculum suggestions of the new guidelines, in comparison with the control/baseline group. Instruments included the metacognitive awareness of reading-strategy inventory, the reading skill tests, the English proficiency tests, the teaching-log contents, and the interview questions. 
Results: The results are detailed below. First, the slower learners in the experimental group gained higher phonics skills after the 1-year or 1.5-year experimental intervention. Second, there was a cross-school difference in the progress of English proficiency (i.e., listening and reading skills) of the students. In the Taipei school, no significant difference was found between the experimental and control groups. But the slower learners in the experimental group outperformed their counterpart in the fourth and fifth tests. In the Hualien school, the experimental group outperformed the control in terms of their progress in the English proficiency. Also the slower learners in the experimental group outperformed their counterpart in the first, second, and fifth tests. Third, particularly in the Taipei school, the experimental group outperformed the control group in terms of their use of overall and problem-solving strategies. Also the slower learners in the experimental group outperformed their counterpart. Fourth, the students in the Taipei school reported the better use of the reading skills and strategies (e.g., identifying the main ideas), while the students in the Hualien school encountered difficulties in doing so due to their difficulties in recognizing vocabulary and grammar at the sentence level. Fifth, the teachers in the experimental group perceived the positive effects of the instruction intervention on both the regular and slower students. They also reported a routine practice in co-constructing lesson-plans, in-class worksheets, and assessment items in their professional learning community at school. Sixth, the school administration in the two schools are willing to support the remedial-based and mix-ability grouping English program by all means, so as to help each student in their schools reach their fullest potential. 
Conclusion: The findings provide empirical support the preliminary, longitudinal effects of the competence-based remedial-based and mix-ability grouping English program. On the basis of these findings, four policy implications are drawn:(1) Provide empirical data to support the feasibility of implementing the remedial-based and mix-ability grouping instruction at Grade 7. Yet future research is much needed, particularly for the longitudinal research on the instructional effects on the English proficiency and reading strategy use of the elementary school students in Taiwan. (2) Promote a lesson-planning mode by teachers from different counties. (3) Promote the explicit, skill/strategy-based English reading instruction for junior high school students. (4) Develop a mechanism evaluating the program effectiveness by the longitudinal research.