本研究主要探討暑期英語學習營的英語能力分級教學對科技大學學生英文學習之影響以及大學校院英語能力測驗與E-Touch能力分級測驗分數之關聯性。藉此探討經過英語分級測驗實施分級教學後，基礎班、中階班以及進階班學生英語學習成就之改變，藉由問卷調查瞭解學生對此英語學習營教學品質、課程、編班、行政服務、教科書意見以及學生自我評估之滿意度，以及探究此分級教學方式之可行性，做為未來教學研究之參考。
本研究以臺北市某科技大學一百零五位大一新生為對象，課前實行前測,做為能力分班之依據，依測驗分數高低分為基礎班、中階班以及進階班，依程度適性教學，課後進行後測以及課後問卷，調查結果分別採用敘述統計資料、單因子變異數、皮爾森相關係數與獨立樣本T檢定等統計方法加以分析學生實行六週密集英語課程後之學習成效。
研究結果顯示，大學校院英語能力測驗與E-Touch能力分級測驗分數有顯著的關聯性，所有的學生不論是聽力或閱讀測驗方面，學習成就均有顯著性差異，在單因子變異數分析上，基礎班學生在聽力及閱讀測驗結果顯示有顯著性差異。
問卷結果顯示，無論是學生性別、學習背景、開始學習英語的階段以及科系都跟英語能力沒有顯著的相關。將近85%的學生給予暑期英語學習營正向的回應；約80%的學生認為被編在適合班級且認為暑期英語學習營能提高英語學習興趣；63%的學生認為聽力及演說活動設計最能幫助英語學習，故有將近88%學生建議暑期英語學習營應加強聽力及演說之課程訓練；然而只有10%的學生認為文法教學能幫助英語學習。

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of SIEP (Summer Intensive English Program) and the correlation between CSEPT (College Student English Proficiency Test) and the E-Touch English proficiency test (EPT) for students at the University of Science and Technology. This study also compares the achievement in performance among basic, intermediate, and advanced groups. The SIEP questionnaires were presented as well, especially, the quality of instruction, curriculum, placement, management, overall impression of textbook and participants’ self-assessment.
The participants were 105 students at a university of Science and Technology. Participants were grouped based on the results of the pretest. According to EPT scores, from low to high, the participants were divided into basic, intermediate, and advanced groups. For each group, after six weeks SIEP training, participants took the posttest and also completed questionnaires after SIEP training. Descriptive statistics, One-way ANOVA, Person correlation and independent sample t test were used to analyze the collected data.
The results show that there had a significantly positive correlation between CSEPT and EPT score. According to their mean score, all the participants improved in listening and reading test after SIEP training. With the analysis of one-way ANOVA, the results show that basic group had a significantly positive correlation in listening and reading test.
The results of questionnaire show that there is no significantly positive correlation between participants’ English proficiency and their gender, learning background, the starting age of learning English and major. Nearly 85% of the participants agree that SIEP does help them in learning English efficiently; around 80% of the participants thought they were placed in right class and SIEP course training can arouse their learning interests; 63% of the participants consider that listening and speaking activity are the best way in helping to learn English, which is why 88% of the participants suggested that SIEP should emphasize speaking and listening lessons; however, only 10% of the participants support the grammar activity.
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract (Chinese)…………………………………………………i
Abstract (English)…………………………………………………ii
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………iii
Table of Contents……………………………………………………iv
List of Tables………………………………………………………vii
List of Figures………………………………………………………xi
List of Appendices……………………………………………………x
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Purposes of the Study 5
1.3 Research Questions 5
1.4 Research Hypotheses 6
1.5 Significance of the Study 6
1.6 Definition of Terms 7
CHAPTER TWO LITERATUREA REVIEW
2.1 Language Tests 9
2.2 Test Design 21
2.3 Test Analysis 27
2.4 Ability Grouping 37


CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 The Pilot Study 44
3.1.1 Participants 44
3.1.2 Instruments 45
3.1.3 Procedure 45
3.1.4 Results 46
3.1.5 Limitations 46
3.2 The Present Study 46
3.2.1 Research Hypotheses 46
3.2.2 Study Design 48
3.2.3 Participants 48
3.2.4 Procedure 51
3.2.5 Test Design 51
3.2.6 Instruments 52
3.2.6.1 CSEPT 53
3.2.6.2 E-Touch Online English Learning & Test System 55
3.2.6.3 SIEP 57
3.2.7 Questionnaire 59
3.2.8 Data Collection Procedures 60
3.2.9 Data Analysis 61

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 The Pilot Study 62
4.1.1 Correlations of Participants’ Performance between CSEPT and EPT 62
4.2 The Present Study 65
4.3 The Effects of Ability Grouping Teaching of SIEP 67
4.4 Results of the Questionnaire 73
4.4.1 The Correlations between EPT and Learning Background Information 73
4.4.2 Quality of Instruction 79
4.4.3 Curriculum, Placement, and Management 81
4.4.4 Overall Impressions of Textbooks 86
4.4.5 Student Self Assessment 88
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Summary of the Findings 92
5.2 Pedagogical Implications 93
5.3 Conclusions 95
5.4 Limitations of the Study 96
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research 96
REFERENCES 99



 

REFERENCES
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allan, S. (1991). Ability-grouping research reviews: what do they say about grouping and the gifted? Educational Leadership, 48(6), 60-65.
Argys, L. M. R., D. I., & Brewer, D. J. (1996). Detracking America's Schools: Equity at Zero Cost? Policy Analysis and Management 15(4), 623-645.
Association, A. P. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: assuring that what we count counts. Language Testing, 17(1), 1-42.
Bachman, L. F. a. P., A.S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benabou, R. (1996). Equity and effectiveness in human capital investment: the local connection. Review of Economic Studies, 63(237-264).
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy: New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices.
Canale, M. S., M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Carroll, J. B. (1968). The psychology of language testing. Davies, 46-69.
Clark, J. L. D. (1983). Language testing: past and current status - directions for the future. Modern Language Journal, 67(4), 431-443.
Ebel, R. L. F., D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Europe, C. o. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feldhusen, J. F. M., S.M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: issue and concerns. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 63-67.
Gamoran, A. (1992). Is Ability Grouping Equitable? Educational leadership, 50(2).
Goodwin, W. L., & Driscoll, L. A. (1980). Handbook for measurement and evaluation in early childhood education.
. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gronlund, N. E. (1985). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. New York: Macmillan.
Henning, G. (1987). A guide to language testing: development - evaluation - research. Language Testing, 4(2), 233-236.
Hollifield, J. (1987). Ability Grouping in Elementary Schools.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, J. E. S., F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newsbury Park: Sage Publications.
Ireson, J., Hallam, S and Hurley (2005). What are the effects of ability grouping on GCSE attainment? British Educational Research Journal 31(4), 443-458.
Ireson, J. a. S. H. (2001). Ability Grouping in Education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing
Ingram, E. (1977). Testing and experimental methods. Oxford: Oxford University.
KerlingerN.F. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Kitao, S. K. K., K. (2004). Validity and Reliability.
Kulik, C.-L. J. (1989). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement Equity and Excellence, 23(1-2), 22-30.
Kulik, J. A., Kulik, Chen-Lin C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Children Quarterly, 36(2), 73-77.
Lacity, M. J., M. A. (1994). Understanding qualitative data: A framework of text analysis methods. Journal of Management Information System, 11, 137-160.
Lado, R. (1961). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests. London: Longmans.
Madsen, H. S. (1983). Techniques in testing. New York: Oxford University Press. .
McNamara, T. (2000). Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morrow, K. (1979). Communicative language testing: revolution or evolution?
In Brumfit, C.J. and Johnson, K., editors, The communicative approach
Mousavi, S. A. (2002). An encyclopedic dictionary of language testing. Taiwan: Tung Hua Book Company.
Muraskin, L. (1993). Understanding Evaluation, The Way to Better Prevention Programs: Westat
North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York: Peter Lang.
Oller. (1979). Language tests at school. UK: Longman.
Oller, J. W., Jr., Kim, K., & Choe, Y. (2000). Testing verbal (language) and non-verbal abilities in language minorities: a socio-educational problem in historical perspective. Language Testing, 17(3), 341-360.
Pan, Y. C. (2007). Consequences and evaluation of test use: The washback of exit requirements on tertiary English education in Taiwan. .
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Research, W. I. f. H. S. (2002). Ability Grouping. The Blanced View, 6(2).
Roever, C., & Pan, Y.-C. (2008). Test review: GEPT: General English Proficiency Test. Language Testing, 25(3), 403-408.
Rossi, P. H. a. F., H.E. (1993). Evaluation : A Systematic Approach, . California: SAGE.
Spolsky, B. (1978). Approaches to language testing. Advances in Language Testing Series: 2. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Slavin, R. E. (1986). Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Baltimore.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-499.
Sukhnandan, L. a. B. L. (1998). Streaming, setting and grouping by ability: A review of literature. . Berkshire: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Thissen, D., & Wainer, H. (2001). Test Scoring: NJ: Erlbaum.
Thorndike, R. L. H., E. P. (1986). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. New York: Macmillan.
Understanding Evaluation, The Way to Better Prevention Programs], a publication written by Lana Muraskin, a consultant to Westat Inc. under contract to ED. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/primer1.html
Vandenberge, V. (2006). Achievement Effectiveness and Equity: the role of tracking, grade repetition and inter-school segregation. Applied Economics, 13, 685-693.
Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluation research: Methods for assessing program Effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How "untracking" can save America's Schools. New York: New Press.
Test (student assessment). (2008, December 2). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:51, December 2, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Test_(student_assessment)&oldid=255381271
Language assessment. (2009, May 2). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 08:14, May 2, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_assessment&oldid=287407751
Wu, J. (2005). The use of English language tests in the Taiwanese context-current situation and issues. Berlin: Second International Conference.