本論文旨在探究現行九年一貫國中英語教科書的文法練習活動，分別針對各套書中文法活動比重、文法活動呈現方式的明顯程度與溝通程度、文法活動的涵蓋面以及文法句型的編排順序等向度，跨版本深入分析比較，以作為日後教科書評鑑、選擇、設計以及教師進行文法教學時的參考。
九年一貫實施以來‚隨著教科書市場開放‚教科書編寫改採審定制。各版本教科書編寫有不同的單元主題編排‚而英語教科書的編寫在選取適合該單元的主題內容或語言溝通功能時‚文法句型的編排順序為何？各版本之間的文法順序及涵蓋面有何異同？文法活動呈現又是否具溝通性及明顯性？這些問題都是實際上第一線教師選擇版本及進行教學時關心的問題。這也提供了研究者的研究動機。
本研究取樣自現行九年一貫國中英語教科書中已發行完整六冊標準版者。由含研究者共四人在初步樣本評估時建立評分標準及共識‚以提供研究者在評估時的基準。四人皆為教學經驗豐富的在職教師‚其中不乏教育部九年一貫深耕計畫的種子教師。正式做評估則由研究者與其中一位種子教師進行‚並計算研究者間信賴度。其目標評估項目為文法活動的界定及比重﹑文法活動呈現方式的明顯性﹑文法活動的溝通程度以及文法句型的順序﹑涵蓋面在各版本中的異同。研究者同時將九年一貫課程實施前所用的末代部編版列入比較‚以探究九年一貫實施後‚民間版教科書中前述各向度‚是否與前一套的部編版有所不同。
本研究主要發現如下：
1.整體而言‚五套版本中的文法練習活動比重比前一套部編版減少。大致在30%至40%間。其中何嘉仁文法練習活動比重最多‚達50%且高於部編版。南一版最少。
2.就文法活動呈現的明顯性而言‚五套教科書皆有60%以上的文法活動採文法解釋﹑例子說明等明顯方式進行。但整體而言‚仍比部編版減少。其中佳音翰林比重最高且高於部編版。朗文版最低。
3.就文法活動的溝通程度而言‚五套教科書的文法活動皆集中於有意義的練習活動 (meaningful activity)‚比重皆高於部編版。機械式的練習活動 (mechanical activity)比重‚則皆低於部編版。溝通式的練習活動 (communicative activity)比重‚朗文﹑南一﹑何嘉仁高於部編版。佳音翰林低於部編版‚康軒則和部編版相差不多。
4.就文法句型呈現順序而言‚南一﹑康軒與部編版最相似‚朗文﹑佳音翰林差異最大。
5.就文法練習活動句型種類的涵蓋面而言‚佳音翰林的文法活動練習的句型種類最多。何嘉仁最少。本研究結果只計算以文法活動呈現的句型種類。 出現在對話﹑課文中的認識結構或當作單字﹑片語呈現的文法句型則不列入本研究統計範圍。整體而言‚五套教科書中共有141個不同種類以文法活動呈現的句型‚其中有58.85%是四套以上的教科書共同涵蓋的文法句型種類。
本研究結果顯示出各版本的文法活動比重及呈現方式的明顯程度與溝通程度
的異同。提供教師在文法教學上‚針對學生的需求及程度做適當的設計。文法句型的呈現順序與涵蓋面相關資料‚更進一步提供教師在教科書評鑑時的參考依據‚以期教師皆能選出一套最適合自己學生的教科書。本研究建議教師在教學過程中‚不斷檢視各版本的異同及優缺點‚擇長補短地讓自己的教學更得心應手‚學生學習更有效果。

The present study is aimed at investigating grammar activities in junior high school English textbooks in the Nine-year Integrated Curriculum (NIC). The issues explored in this study include the proportion of grammar activities, the explicitness and communicativeness of grammar activity presentation, and the coverage and sequencing of grammar points. The comparison of the issues mentioned above among the target textbooks can provide a reference for textbook evaluation, selection, and compilation. Furthermore, detailed information about grammar activities in this study can be a referential source for teachers in grammar teaching.
With the development of the open market and NIC policy, textbooks are now designed by individual private publishers and need to be approved by the National Institute for Compilation and Translation. Individual publishers may have different ways of writing textbooks. When they design the textbooks considering useful topics and communicative functions, what are the sequencing and coverage of grammar points in the textbooks? What is the extent of the explicitness and communicativeness of grammar activity presentation? Are there differences and congruence in these aspects among these commercial textbooks? These are the issues concerning teachers when they make textbook selections and consider grammar teaching.
The textbooks evaluated in this study are the standard versions of five approved commercial textbooks (L, N, J, H, K) from Volumes 1 to 6. Four raters participated in the process of rating including the researcher herself and her three colleagues. These teachers are all experienced teachers; three of them are members of the Compulsory Education Advisory Group of Hsinchu Municipal Department of Education and one is also a seed teacher for the nine-year elementary education program hosted by the Ministry of Education (MOE).
The raters first built up a consensus on the criteria for the classification of grammar activities using a rating system. Then the formal rating was conducted by the researcher and one other rater on the basis of these criteria and some scholars’ classifications. The inter-rater reliability was calculated to see if it reached an acceptable level. The target items for rating were the definition and proportion of grammar activity, the explicitness of grammar presentation (overt and covert), and communicativeness of grammar activity (mechanical, meaningful, and communicative). Additionally, the sequencing and coverage of grammar points were also explored. For comparison, the researcher adopted the MOE textbook as a referential baseline to see the differences and congruence among these target textbooks. Furthermore, a comparison among the MOE textbook and other textbooks was also conducted to see differences in grammar activities in textbooks after the implementation of NIC.
The major findings of this study are as follows:
1. On the whole, the proportions of grammar activities in these commercial textbooks are reduced in comparison to the MOE textbook. Textbook H has the greatest proportion, higher than 50%, and is greater than the MOE textbook. Textbook N has the smallest proportion.
2. In terms of explicitness of grammar activities, these textbooks all have over 60% of grammar activities adopting explicit methods of grammar teaching, namely, grammatical explanation and example elucidating. On the whole, the proportions of explicit grammar activities in these commercial textbooks are smaller than in the MOE textbook. Textbook J has the largest proportion and it is larger than in the MOE textbook. Textbook L has the smallest proportion of explicit grammar activities.
3. In terms of the communicativeness of grammar activities, the grammar activities in these commercial textbooks are mainly meaningful activities. The proportions of these meaningful activities are all greater than in the MOE textbook. These textbooks all have smaller proportions of mechanical activities than the MOE textbook. As for the proportion of communicative activities, Textbooks L, N, and H have greater proportions than the MOE textbook. Textbook J has a smaller proportion than the MOE textbook. Textbook K has a similar proportion to the MOE textbook.
4. In the aspect of grammar sequencing, Textbooks N and K are the most similar to the MOE textbook. Textbooks L and J are the most different from the MOE textbook.
5. In respect of coverage of grammatical items, Textbook J covers the most grammatical items in grammar activities. Textbook H covers the fewest. The present study only deals with the grammatical items presented in complete grammar activities. As for what are introduced as sentence structures for recognition or vocabulary/ phrases in dialogues and readings, the present study does not include them in the calculation. Among 141 different grammar points presented in the grammar activities of these textbooks, 58.85% of them are covered in more than four textbooks.
The findings regarding grammar proportion, explicitness and communicativeness of grammar activity in this study can serve as a reference for teachers to design suitable methods that meet students’ needs and levels. The findings regarding grammar sequencing and coverage can further provide a referential base for teachers and schools in textbook selection. It is hoped that they can all select one suitable set of textbooks for students and make adaptations according to students’ needs and levels.

Table of Contents

Chinese Abstract..........................................i
English Abstract........................................iii
Acknowledgements.........................................vi
Table of Contents.......................................vii
List of Tables............................................x
List of Figures.........................................xii
Chapter One Introduction.................................1
Background of the Study...............................1
Motivation for the Study..............................2
Purpose of the Study..................................5
Significance of the Study.............................5
Organization of the Study.............................7
Chapter Two Literature Review............................8
Historical Changes in ELT and Textbook Development in
Taiwan................................................8
The Role of Grammar Teaching and the Shift of ELT
Approaches...........................................14
Grammar teaching in Grammar Translation Method...15
Grammar teaching in Audiolingual Approach........15
Grammar teaching in Communicative Approach.......16
Communicative competence.........................16
Features and principles of Communicative Language
Teaching.........................................20
Strong version vs. weak version of CLT...........21
Form-focused instruction.........................23
The Role of Formal Grammar Instruction...............25
Cons for grammar instruction.....................25
Pros for grammar instruction.....................26
Explicitness of instruction......................28
The Communicativeness of Grammar Activity............30
Sequencing of Grammatical Items......................34
Chapter Three Research Method...........................38
The Raters...........................................38
Target Textbooks for Evaluation......................38
Definition of Grammar Activity.......................41
Title of activity................................41
Repetitiveness and focus on grammar..............41
Specifications in teacher’s manual..............42
Discussion and consensus among raters............42
Data Analysis........................................43
Calculation for proportion and explicitness of
target grammar activity..........................43
Calculation for communicativeness of target grammar
activity.........................................45
Mechanical grammar activity....................45
Meaningful grammar activity....................46
Communicative grammar activity.................47
Inter-rater Reliability..............................50
Sequencing of Grammatical Items......................52
Chapter Four Results and Findings.......................58
Proportion of Grammar Activity.......................59
Explicitness of Grammar Activity Presentation........61
Communicativeness of Grammar Activity................64
Sequencing of Grammatical Items......................69
Chapter Five Discussion.................................76
Proportion, Explicitness, and Communicativeness of
Grammar Activity.....................................76
Proportion of grammar activity...................76
Explicitness of grammar activity.................79
Communicativeness of grammar activity............81
Comparison for Grammar Sequencing across Textbooks...83
Comparison for Coverage of Grammatical Items.........91
Chapter Six Conclusions, Implications, and Suggestions...98
Conclusions..........................................98
Proportion of grammaractivity....................98
Explicitness of grammar activity presentation....99
Communicativeness of grammar activity...........101
Sequencing and coverage of grammatical items....104
Summary of findings.............................105
Implications and Suggestions........................108
Pedagogical implications........................108
Limitations of the study and suggestions for future
research........................................109
References..............................................111
Appendices..............................................120
Appendix A Checklist for the Raters.....................120
Appendix B Original Data for Sequence of Grammatical Items...................................................121
Appendix C Grammatical Items That Go Beyond the MOE Textbook................................................125
Appendix D Figures of Comparison for Grammar Sequencing in Each Volume.............................................128

List of Tables
Table 1 Curriculum Objectives and the Major ELT Approaches in Taiwan................................................10
Table 2 Approved Standard Versions of Junior High English Textbooks................................................39
Table 3 Results of Pilot Study on Grammar Activity Proportion...............................................41
Table 4 The Numbers of General Activity and Grammar Activity and Their Ways of Presentation in Target Textbooks................................................44
Table 5 The Classification of Grammar Activity: Mechanical, Meaningful, and communicative............................49
Table 6 Agreements on Classification of Grammar Activity.51
Table 7 Agreements on Classification of Covertness.......52
Table 8 Agreements on Classification of Communicativeness........................................52
Table 9 Comparison for Grammar Point Sequence between MOE and Target textbooks.....................................54
Table 10 Agreements on Classification of Grammar Activity.................................................58
Table 11 Agreements on Classification of Covertness......58
Table 12 Agreements on Classification of Communicativeness........................................59
Table 13 Numbers of General Activity and Grammar Activity in Textbook L............................................59
Table 14 Numbers of General Activity and Grammar Activity in Textbook N............................................60
Table 15 Numbers of General Activity and Grammar Activity in Textbook J............................................60
Table 16 Numbers of General Activity and Grammar Activity in Textbook H............................................60
Table 17 Numbers of General Activity and Grammar Activity in Textbook K............................................61
Table 18 Numbers of Overt and Covert Grammar Activity in Textbook L...............................................62
Table 19 Numbers of Overt and Covert Grammar Activity in Textbook N...............................................62
Table 20 Numbers of Overt and Covert Grammar Activity in Textbook J...............................................63
Table 21 Numbers of Overt and Covert Grammar Activity in Textbook H...............................................63
Table 22 Numbers of Overt and Covert Grammar Activity in Textbook K...............................................64
Table 23 Numbers of Mechanical, Meaningful, and Communicative Grammar Activity in Textbook L.............64
Table 24 Numbers of Mechanical, Meaningful, and Communicative Grammar Activity in Textbook N.............65
Table 25 Numbers of Mechanical, Meaningful, and Communicative Grammar Activity in Textbook J.............66
Table 26 Numbers of Mechanical, Meaningful, and Communicative Grammar Activity in Textbook H.............66
Table 27 Numbers of Mechanical, Meaningful, and Communicative Grammar Activity in Textbook K.............67
Table 28 Proportions of Grammar Activity, Explicitness, and Communicativeness in the MOE Textbook....................68
Table 29 Conflated Version for Comparison of Grammar Sequencing between the MOE and Target Textbooks..........71
Table 30 Proportions of Grammar Activities in Target Textbooks................................................75
Table 31 The Explicitness in Target Textbooks............79
Table 32 The Communicativeness in Target Textbooks.......81
Table 33 Results of Formula 5.1 from GP 1-17 (Volume 1 in the MOE Textbook)........................................85
Table 34 Results of Formula 5.1 from GP 18-29 (Volume 2 in the MOE Textbook)........................................85
Table 35 Results of Formula 5.1 from GP 30-44 (Volume 3 in the MOE Textbook)........................................86
Table 36 Results of Formula 5.1 from GP 45-57 (Volume 4 in the MOE Textbook)........................................87
Table 37 Results of Formula 5.1 from GP 58-79 (Volume 5 in the MOE Textbook)........................................87
Table 38 Subtotals of Tables 33 to 37....................88
Table 39 Numbers of Grammatical Items in Different Textbooks................................................90
Table 40 Grammatical Items not Practiced in Grammar Activity in the Target Textbooks.........................91

List of Figures

Figure 1 Procedure of curriculum design/textbook compilation, selection and evaluation....................13
Figure 2 Canale and Swain’s theoretical scheme of communicative competence.................................18
Figure 3 Bachman and Palmer’s theoretical scheme of communicative competence.................................18
Figure 4 Continuum for levels of grammar emphasis........25
Figure 5 Consciousness-raising in language learning......28
Figure 6 Proportional approach to course design based on the principle of balance.................................78
Figure 7 Comparison for grammar sequencing across textbooks............................................... 84

Bachman, L. & Palmer, A. (1982). The construct validation
of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL
Quarterly, 16(4), 449-464.
Brown, H.D. (1994). Principles of language learning and
teaching. Eaglewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive
approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of
communicative approaches to second language teaching and
testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Language teaching approaches: An
overview. New York: Newbury House.
Chang, Li-yu. (2001). Communicative language teaching:
Senior high school english teachers’ beliefs and
practices. Unpublished MA thesis, Tamkang University,
Taiwan.
Chen, Chen-ting. (2002). Textbook selection for senior high
school students in greater Taipei area. Unpublished MA
thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Cheng, Di-Ling. (2003). The case study in the process of
editing and the content Writing of the English textbook
in junior high school. Unpublished MA thesis, National
Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford:
Heinmann.
Davies, Alan. (1989). Communicative competence as language
use. Applied Linguistics 10(2), 157-169.
Day, E. & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and
functional approaches in language teaching in French
immersion: An experimental study. Language learning, 4
(1), 25-58.
Doughty, Catherine & Williams, Jessica. (1998). Pedagogical
choices in focus on form. In Doughty & Williams (Ed.).
Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar
rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic
system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3),
379-410.
Dubin, F. & Olshtain E. (1986). Course design: Developing
programs and materials for language learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language
learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit
knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5,
289-318.
Ellis, Rod. (1984). Classroom second language development.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Ellis, Rod. (1988). Classroom second language development.
London: Prentice Hall.
Ellis, Rod. (1990) Instructed second language acquisition.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, Rod. (1993). Second language acquisition and
language pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, Rod. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language
teaching material. ELT, 51(1), 36-41.
Felix, S. (1981). The effect of formal instruction on
second language acquisition. Language Learning, 31, 87-
112.
Fotos, S (1993). Integrating grammar instruction and
communicative language use through grammar
consciousness raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-
351.
Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in
the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 52(4), 301-307.
Fotos, S. and Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about
grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25,
605-628.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. New
York: Newbury House.
Grant, N. (1987). Making the most of your textbook. New
York: Longman.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hammerly, H. (1987). Synthesis in second language teaching:
An introduction to linguistics. Burnaby, B.C.: Second
Language Publications.
Harmer, Jeremy. (1986). Teaching and learning grammar. New
York: Longman.
Higgs, T. V. & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward
communication. In Higgs, T.V. (Ed.), Curriculum,
competence, and the foreign language teacher (pp. 51-
79). Lincolnwood: National Textbook.
Howatt, A. P. R.(1984). A history of English language
teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D.H. (1971). On communicative competence.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and
methodology. Oxford: Pergamon.
Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second
language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach. San
Francisco: Alemany Press.
Lai, Shu-jing. (2004). High school English teachers’
beliefs on grammar instruction in Taiwan. Unpublished
MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Issues in the teaching of
grammar. In Celce-Murcia, M. & Mclntosh, L. (Eds.),
Teaching English as a second or foreign language.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Li, Hsiao-ching. (2003). Predictive evaluation, use, and
retrospective evaluation of an EFL textbook by junior
high school teachers: A case study in Taipei.
Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal
University.
Li, Yu-Chi. (2003). Effects of the ‘focus on form’
approach on EFL learning in an immersion program in
Taiwan. Unpublished MA thesis, National Tsing Hua
University.
Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between
developmental and instructional sequences in L2
acquisition. In Seliger and Long (Ed.), Classroom
Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition.
Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Lightbown, P. (1992). Getting quality input in the second
and foreign language classroom. In C. Kramsch & S.
McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-
disciplinary and cross-cultural perspectives on
language study (pp.187-197). Lexington, MA: Heath.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1991). Focus on form and
corrective feedback in communicative language teaching:
Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429-448.
Littlewood, William. (1981). Communicative language
teaching: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Littlewood, William T. (1985). Foreign and second language
learning: Language-acquisition research and its
implications for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development.
In Issues in Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Leslie
M. Beebe. New York: Newbury House, 115-41.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in
language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R.
Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language
research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52).
Amsterdam: John Benfamins.
Long, M. H. & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-
based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.
Nunan, David. (1987). The learner-centered curriculum. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Pan, P. S. (2004). Evaluation of learning activities in
junior high school English textbooks for Nine-year
Integrated Curriculum. Unpublished MA thesis, National
Taiwan Normal University.
Paulston, Christina Bratt & Bruder, Mary Newton. (1976).
Teaching English as a second language: Techniques and
procedures. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Pienemann, M. (1985). Psychological constraints on the
teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 6, 186-214.
Politzer, R. L. & McGroarty, M. (1983). An exploratory
study of learning behaviors and their relationship to
gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL
Quarterly, 19, 103-124.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Reber, A. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 118(3), 219-235.
Reber, A. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An
essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Richards, J. C. (2002). Curriculum development in language
teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. & Rogers T. S. (1986). Approaches and
methods in language teaching. Cambridge University
Press.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second
language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search
and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18, 27-68.
Rubin, J. & Thompson, I. (1982). How to be a more
successful language learner. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Savignon, S. (1990). Research on the role of communication
in cassroom-based foreign language acquisition: On the
interpretation, expression, and negotiation of meaning.
In Freed, B. F. (Ed.). Foreign language acquisition
research and the classroom. Lexington: D. C. Heath.
Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State
of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 261-275.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second
language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic
conversational ability in a second language. In R. Day
(Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the
second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 11, 159-
169.
Skierso, A. (1991). Textbook selection and evaluation. In
Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.) Teaching English as a second or
foreign language. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of
comprehensive input and comprehensive output in its
development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp.235-253). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Terrell, T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a
communicative approach. Modern Language Journal, 75(1),
52-63.
Thompson, Geoff. (1996). Some misconceptions about
communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50(1), 9-
15.
Thornbury, Scott. (1998). Comments on Marianne Celce-
Murcia,. Zoltán Dörnyei,and Sarah Thurrell’s “Direct
Approaches in L2 Instruction: A Turning Point in
Communicative Language Teaching?”. TESOL Quarterly, 32
(1), 109-114.
Thornbury, Scott. (1999). How to teach grammar. England:
Longman. VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and
form in the input: An experiment in consciousness.
Studies in Second Language Acqquisition, 12(3), 287-301.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language
acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative
evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7
(2), 133-161.
Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Williams, D. (1983). Developing criteria for textbook
evaluation. ELT Journal,37(3), 251-255.
Yalden, J. (1987). The communicative syllabus. New York:
Prentice-Hall.
Yalden, J. (1987). Principles of course design for language
teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yang, A. & Cheung, C. (2003). Adapting textbook activities
for communicative teaching and cooperative learning.
English Teaching Forum, 41(3), 16-23.
Krause, A. & Cossu, G. (2004-2006)。國民中學第一，二，三，四，
五，六冊 Go SuperTeens!1-6 學生本 (標準版)。台北市：台灣培生
教育出版股份有限公司。
Krause, A. & Cossu, G. (2004)。國民中學第一冊 Go SuperTeens!1
習作 (標準版)。台北市：台灣培生教育出版股份有限公司。
田超英、林佳芳、舒若蘭 等編 (2004-2006)。Hot English國民中學英語
課本1上，1下，2上，2下，3上，3下。台北市：佳音事業有限公司。
田超英、林佳芳、舒若蘭 等編 (2004)。Hot English國民中學英語讀寫評
量本1上。台北市：佳音事業有限公司。
林家媛、黃小芳 等編 (2004-2006)。Hess 國民中學英語課本第一，二，
三，四，五，六冊 (標準版)。台北縣：何嘉仁實業股份有限公司。
林家媛、黃小芳 等編 (2004)。Hess 國民中學英語習作第一冊 (標準版)。
台北縣：何嘉仁實業股份有限公司。
林耀福、歐鴻章 等編 (2004-2006)。國民中學第一，二，三，四，五，六
冊 (標準版)。台南市：南一書局企業股份有限公司。
林耀福、歐鴻章 等編 (2004)。國民中學第一冊習作 (標準版)。台南市：南
一書局企業股份有限公司。
洪雯柔 (2000)。貝瑞岱比較教育研究方法之探析。台北: 揚智。
施玉惠 (1998)。高中英文科新課程標準的特色。英語教學。22卷3期︰43-
47頁。
施玉惠、周中天、陳淑嬌、朱惠美、陳純音、葉錫南 (1999)。 教育部委託
專題研究計畫成果報告: 國民中小學九年一貫課程英語科教學及評量模式
研究。國立台灣師範大學英語系。
施玉惠 (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。台北︰文鶴。
施玉惠 (2001)。溝通式教學法。載於教育部 (主編)‚國民中小學英語教學活
動設計及評量指引 (頁11-39)。台北:教育部。
國語日報新聞報 (2005)。同一學習階段 教科書限同版本。〔線上資料〕取
自 http://tw.letter.yahoo.com/one/latest.php
letter_id=4842&d=2005-12-08&old=1574。
彭道明、羅清玉、洪筱雯等編 (2004-2006)。國中英語 (標準版) 1上，1
下，2上，2下，3上，3下。台北縣：康軒文教事業有限公司。
彭道明、羅清玉、洪筱雯等編 (2004)。國中英語習作 (標準版) 1上。台北
縣：康軒文教事業有限公司。
教育部 (2000)。 國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要-語文領域。〔線上資料〕。
取自 http://eje.edu.tw/E-rule/E-main-frame.htm。
教育部 (2005)。九十四年國中基本學力測驗問與答。〔線上資料〕。取
自 http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/94test-q&aa.htm。
鄭玓玲 (2003)。國中英語教科書編輯歷程與內容編寫之個案研究。國立台灣
師範大學教育系碩士論文。未出版。台北。
鄭玓玲 (2004)。淺談「一綱多本」下的國中英語教學。翰林國中教學專刊。
第七期 〔線上資料〕。取自
http://www.hle.com.tw/bookmark/jhs_en/07/01.htm。
蘇順發 (2003)。國民中學英語教學革新現況與因應策略之研究。國立台灣師
範大學教育系博士論文。未出版。台北。