臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討結構式小組學習對國中九年級學生英語口說能力、英語口說自我效能及小組互動學習的影響。本研究採用準實驗研究法之不等組前後測實驗設計，研究對象為新北市某國中九年級四個班級共80位學生，考量上課節數的一致性，將二個班級分派為實驗組（共40名學生），二個班級分派為控制組（共40名學生）。實驗組學生接受結構式小組學習，控制組學生則接受非結構式小組學習，進行為期八週共三十二堂之教學實驗，使用的研究工具為「英語口說能力測驗」、「英語口說自我效能量表」及「小組學習環境量表」。
透過英語口說能力測驗、英語口說自我效能量表及小組學習環境量表前後測，進行資料蒐集，並使用SPSS軟體進行單因子及二因子共變數分析，同時輔以訪談紀錄，藉以了解實驗組與控制組在教學後的差異情形及小組互動學習情形，並進行結果討論。本研究歸納結果如下:
一、結構式小組學習能有效提升學生英語口說能力：
1.實驗組全體學生在英語口說能力測驗中的「短句複誦」、「短文朗讀流暢度」、「短文朗讀正確率」及「回答問題」後測成績皆顯著優於控制組。
2.不同成就學生:
(1)高成就部分，實驗組學生「短句複誦」、「短文朗讀流暢度」、「短文朗讀正確率」及「回答問題」後測成績皆顯著優於控制組。
(2)低成就部分，實驗組學生「短句複誦」、「短文朗讀流暢度」、「短文朗讀正確率」及「回答問題」後測成績皆顯著優於控制組。
二、結構式小組學習能有效提升學生英語口說自我效能:
1.實驗組全體學生在英語口說自我效能量表「總分」、分量表「朗讀」、「溝通」後測分數皆顯著優於控制組。
2.不同成就學生:
(1)高成就部分，實驗組學生在英語口說自我效能量表「總分」、分量表「朗讀」後測成績顯著優於控制組，但「溝通」層面則無顯著差異。
(2)低成就部分，實驗組學生在英語口說自我效能量表「總分」、分量表「朗讀」、「溝通」後測分數皆顯著優於控制組。
三、結構式小組學習能有效增進學生小組正向主動互學行為:
1.實驗組全體學生在小組學習環境量表「總分」及量表中「課堂小組學習機會」、「教師鼓勵學生互學」、「個人分組學習興趣」、「同儕主動互學情形」、「小組活動和諧程度」、「教師學習支持」、「教師公平性」、「課堂常規秩序」、「同儕親和性」及「學業自我概念」十個層面後測分數顯著優於控制組。
2.不同成就學生:
(1)高成就部分，實驗組學生在小組學習量表「總分」、及量表中「教師鼓勵學生互學」、「個人分組學習興趣」、「小組活動和諧程度」、「教師公平性」、「課堂常規秩序」、「同儕親和性」及「學業自我概念」七個層面後測分數皆顯著優於控制組，而「課堂小組學習機會」、「同儕主動互學情形」及「教師學習支持」則無顯著差異。
(2)低成就部分，實驗組學生在小組學習環境量表「總分」及量表中「課堂小組學習機會」、「教師鼓勵學生互學」、「個人分組學習興趣」、「同儕主動互學情形」、「小組活動和諧程度」、「教師學習支持」、「教師公平性」、「課堂常規秩序」、「同儕親和性」及「學業自我概念」十個層面後測分數皆顯著優於控制組。

The purpose of this study aimed to explore the effects of structured and unstructured small-group learning on English speaking ability, English oral self-efficacy, and group interactive learning of ninth graders. Eighty-ninth graders of four classes at junior high school in New Taipei City took part in the program for eight weeks. The experimental group of two classes received structured small group learning, while the control group of two classes received unstructured small group learning. The experimental instruction was implemented in thirty-two classes in total. The research adopted the quasi-experimental method. The experimental instructions were pre-and post-tests of English speaking proficiency, English oral self-efficacy, and a group interactive learning questionnaire.
The pretest and post-test data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and two-way ANOVA of SPSS to understand participants' English speaking ability, English oral self-efficacy, and group interactive learning toward structured and unstructured small group learning. The qualitative data was collected through students' interviews to know their interaction, behavior, and perception in small group learning. The major findings were as follows:
1. Structured small group learning effectively improved students' English speaking ability:
(1)The post-test scores of "sentence repetition", "essay reading fluency", "essay reading accuracy" and "answering questions" in the English speaking ability test of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group.
(2)Students with different achievements:
(a)The post-test scores of the high-achieving students in the experimental group in terms of "sentence repetition", "essay reading fluency", "essay reading accuracy" and "answering questions" are all higher than those of the high-achieving students in the control group.
(b)The post-test scores of the low-achieving students in the experimental group in terms of "sentence repetition", "essay reading fluency", "essay reading
accuracy" and "answering questions" are all higher than those of the low-achieving students in the control group.
2. Structured small group learning effectively improved students' English oral self-efficacy:
(1)The post-test scores of "total score", "reading" and "communication" in the English-speaking oral self-efficacy scale of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group.
(2)Students with different achievements:
(a)The post-test scores of the high-achieving students in the experimental group in terms of "total score" and "reading" in the English-speaking oral self-efficacy scale are higher than those in the control group, but there was no significant difference in the level of "communication".
(b)The post-test scores of the low-achieving students in the experimental group in terms of "total score", "reading" and "communication" in the English-speaking oral self-efficacy scale are higher than those in the control group.
3. Structured small group learning effectively enhanced the positive and active mutual learning behavior of student small groups:
(1)The post-test scores of "total score", "classroom group learning opportunities", "teacher encourage students to learn from each other", "individual group learning interest", "peer active mutual learning", "activity harmony", and "teacher learning support", "teacher fairness", "classroom routine order", "peer affinity", and "academic self-concept" of the experimental group in the group learning environment scale were higher than those in the control group.
(2)Students with different achievements:
(a)The post-test scores of the high-achieving students in the experimental group in terms of "total score", "teacher encourages students to learn from each other", "individual group learning interest", "activity harmony", "teacher fairness", "classroom routine order", "peer affinity", and "academic self-concept" were higher than those in the control group, but there were no significant differences in the level of "classroom group learning opportunities", "peer active mutual learning", and "teacher learning support".
(b)The post-test scores of the low-achieving students in the experimental group in terms of "total score", "classroom group learning opportunities", "teacher encourages students to learn from each other", "individual group learning interest", "peer active mutual learning", "activity harmony", "teacher learning support", "teacher fairness", "classroom routine order", "peer affinity", and "academic self-concept" in the group learning environment scale were higher than those in the control group.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 5
第三節 名詞釋義 7
第四節 研究範圍與限制 8
第二章 文獻探討 11
第一節 英文口說能力教學與評量方式之探討 11
第二節 小組學習的原理與方法之探討 21
第三節 合作學習與英語口說之相關研究 31
第三章 研究方法 37
第一節 研究對象 37
第二節 研究架構與設計 39
第三節 教學設計 44
第四節 研究工具 49
第五節 研究流程 65
第六節 資料蒐集與分析 66
第七節 研究倫理 69
第四章 研究結果與討論 71
第一節 實驗組與控制組在英語口說能力之差異 71
第二節 實驗組與控制組在英語口說自我效能之差異 88
第三節 實驗組與控制組在小組互動學習之差異 102
第四節 綜合討論 154
第五章 結論與建議 163
第一節 結論 163
第二節 建議 165
參考文獻 169
中文部分 169
英文部分 173
附錄
附錄一 英語口說能力測驗 179
附錄二 英語口說自我效能量表 185
附錄三 小組學習環境量表 187
附錄四 小組學習訪談大綱 190
附錄五 結構式小組學習教學流程教案 191
附錄六 教學活動課程學習單 199
附錄七 家長同意書 209

壹、中文部分

王金國（2016）。教學專業Update。臺北市：五南。
王秋芳 (2019)。國小學生正向情緒、班級氣氛與教師教學信念對學習自我效能感之多層次研究 (未出版之博士論文)。國立臺南大學，臺南市。
史嘉琳（2012）。提升聽力秘訣：每天請聽「回音」十分鐘。師德電子報，70。取自http://www.cet-taiwan.com/drcet/detail.asp?serno=73
曲延珮（2021)。運用繪本與讀者劇場進行英文課程對提升國中八年級學生英文朗讀能力之行動研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺北市立大學，臺北市。
呂佳玲（2017)。以VoiceThread平台實施合作學習策略於國中英語口說學習之影響研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立清華大學，新竹市。
佐藤學（2012）。學習的革命：從教室出發的改革。臺北市:天下。
林子斌（2021）。雙語教學:破除考科思維的20堂雙語課。臺北市:天下。
林達森 (2002)。合作學習在九年一貫課程的應用。教育研究資訊，10(2)，87-103。
林璟薇（2016）。讀者劇場融入英語教學設計對國小六年級學生英語口說能力與
學習動機之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺南大學，臺南市。
吳炎鈴（2018)。以全英語溝通教學提升國民小學四年級學童英語口說能力之行動研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
吳昀臻、鄭雅婷（2020)。淺談鷹架理論與課程的效益。臺灣教育評論月刊，9(2)，69-73。
周中天(2001)。聽說教學與評量。載於教育部，國民中小學英語教學活動設計與指引(頁218-252)。臺北市:教育局。
周啓葶、程玉秀、宋秋美（2009）。英語學習自我效能、英語學習焦慮與英語學習成就之相關研究－以台北市高中生為例。教育與心理研究，32 (2)，82-111。
邱靜怡（2019）。合作學習法對提升國中八年級學生英語聽說能力及學習態度成效之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺南大學，臺南市。
段德慧（2009）。從GEPT初級口說測驗探討提昇英文會話能力之方向與方法。亞東學報，23，1-7。
袁麗卿（2006）。探討英語學習策略輔導方案對國小英語科低成就學生之學習表現、學習策略運用及自我效能之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。
財團法人語言訓練測驗中心（2000）。全民英語能力分級檢定測驗初級測驗研究報告。取自: https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/thesis.htm
郭生玉（1999）。心理與教育研究法。新北市:精華。
陳虹汝（2015）。合作學習對七年級學生人際關係的影響及英文聽說讀寫能力之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中興大學，臺中市。
陳新豐 (2021)。教育測驗與學習評量。臺北市:五南。
教育部（2013）。分組合作學習教學手冊。取自:
https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Book/UpLoad/Book/2074/%E5%88%86%E7%B5%84%E5%90%88%E4%BD%9C%E5%AD%B8%E7%BF%92%E6%95%99%E5%AD%B8%E6%89%8B%E5%86%8A.pdf
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要-語文領域英語文。取自:https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/WebContent/index.aspx?sid=11&mid=7307
教育部（2020）。2030雙語國家政策(110年至113)。取自:
https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=D33B55D537402BAA&s=FB233D7EC45FFB37
國家教育研究（2016b）。國民中學課文本位英語朗讀流暢度指標研究報告。臺北市：教育部國民及學前教育署。
梁彩玲（2002）。合作學習在國中英語教學之實施及成效(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
張武昌（2014）。臺灣英語教育的「變」與「不變」：面對挑戰，提升英語力。中等教育,65(3), 6-17。
張春興（2008）。教育心理學。臺北市:東華。
張新仁（2014）。分組合作學習，改變課堂教學生態的希望工程。師友月刊，559，36-43。
黃平佩（2017）。線上英語口說訓練課程對國中八年級學生口說成效與口說焦慮之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。東海大學，臺中市。
黃永和（2019）。小組學習:環境、動機與公平性之研究。臺北市:五南。
黃政傑、林佩璇（2013）。合作學習。臺北市:五南。
曾盈琇（2018）。提升學生學習動機之策略。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(9)，138-142。
曾淑鳳（2006）。Developing Adult EFL Students' Speaking Abilities。正修通識教育學報，3，275-291。
新北市教育局（2020）。提升國民中小學英語教學成效計畫。取自: https://englishcenter.ntpc.edu.tw/nss/p/plan
鄒文莉、許美華（2009）。讀者劇場-最佳的英語補救教學法。臺北市:三民。
鄒純菁（2016）。使用iPad實施差異化教學探究國中學生的英語口語朗讀流暢度與學習反應之行動研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。
廖謙（2021）。動態評量語音辨識系統對國小學童英語口說能力、動機、學習焦慮及認知負荷之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
歐于菁（2013）。運用「讀者劇場」發展國中英語口說教學策略之行動研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
蔡宇晴（2014）。提升國中學生英語自我效能之行動研究(未出版之碩士論文)。淡江大學，新北市。
戴維揚（2003）。英語文課程革新的三大目標：文字、文學、文化。載於戴維揚、梁耀南主編，語言與文化（頁23-37）。臺北市：文鶴。

貳、英文部分

Alberto L. L (2019, February 22). Infographic: A world of languages and how many speak them. South China Morning Post. Retrieved July 10, 2021, from: https://www.scmp.com/infographics/article/1810040/infographic-world-languages

Asadu, E. U., Okoro, F.A.,& Kadiri, G. C. (2019). Analysis of intonation patterns of selected nigerian bilingual education speakers of English. English Language Teaching, 12(6), 45–54.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Brouwer, J. (2017). Connecting, interacting and supporting: Social capital, peer network and cognitive perspectives on small group teaching. (pp.12). Netherlands:Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Brown, H.D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.

Criollo, L., & Beatriz, A. (2017). The effectiveness of the use Kagan cooperative learning structures “timed pair share, numbered heads together, and talking chips” in the development of EFL university students’ oral fluency [Unpublished master’s thesis] Centro Universitario Cuenca.

Davidson, E. (2013). Implementing Kagan cooperative learning groups to increase English language learner achievement and engagement [Unpublished master’s thesis] California State University.

Gahungu, O. N., (2007). The relationships among strategy use, self-efficacy, and language ability in language ability in foreign language learners. [Doctoral dissertation] Northern Arizona University.

Gibbons-lester, A. A. (2016). Evaluating the effects of Kagan structures on teaching strategies: An action research study. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Capella University.

Gillies, R. M. (2003). The behaviors, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 137–147.

Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and instruction, 14(2), 197-213.

Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 271–287.

Gillies, R. (2014). Cooperative learning: Developments in research.International Journal of Educational Psychology, 3(2), 125-140.

Hedge, T. (2003). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hinson, T. (2015). Perceptions on cooperative learning: A case study of Kagan cooperative learning structures in the classroom. [Doctoral dissertation]. East Carolina University.

Hymes, D.H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J.Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. (pp. 269-293). London: Penguin.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (2015). Kagan cooperative learning. Sam Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.

Kalaian, S. A., & Kasim, R. M. (2014). A meta-analytic review of studies of the effectiveness of small-group learning methods on statistics achievement.Journal of Statistics Education, 22(1).

Larsen, L. D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Leeming, P. (2017). A longitudinal investigation into English speaking self-efficacy in a Japanese language classroom. Asia-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2(12).

Lennon, P. (2000). The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Eds.), Perspectives on fluency. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Mohammad, A. H., & Mahinpo, B. (2012). Kagan cooperative learning model: The bridge to foreign language learning in the third millennium. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(6), 1134–1140.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.

National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Oziem, Y., & Ali, A. (2018). Cooperative learning in acquisition of the English language skills. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(3), 591–600.

Pai, H. H., Sears, D. A., & Maeda, Y. (2015). Effects of small-group learning on transfer: A meta-analysis. Educational psychology review, 27(1), 79-102.

Parker, R. E. (1985). Small-group cooperative learning- improving academic, social gains in the classroom. Nass Bulletin, 69 (479), 48-57.

Rasinski, T. V. (1989). Fluency for everyone: Incorporating fluency instruction in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 42(9), 690–693.

Rasinski, T.V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.

Rasinski, T.V. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 46-51.

Rasinski, T.V. (2006). Fluency: An oft-neglected goal of the reading program. In C.Cummins (ed.), Understanding and implementing reading first initiatives (pp.60-71). DE.: International Reading Association.

Richard, C. J. & Rodgers, S.T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.). Interpreting communicative language teaching (pp.1-16). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second language. In C. Doughty, & M. Long, (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382-408). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Siriphot, T., & Hamcumpai, S. (2020). The effect of cooperative learning on students’ speaking self-efficacy. KKU Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 8(2), 145–154.

Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2010). The impacts of cooperative learning on anxiety and proficiency in an EFL class. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7(11), 51–58.

Tan, R. K., Polong, R. B., Collates, L. M., & Torres, J. M. (2020). Influence of small group discussion on the English oral communication self-efficacy of Filipino ESL learners in central Luzon. TESOL International Journal, 15(1), 100–106.

Tutik, A. (2017). The correlation between speaking self-efficacy and speaking achievement of English education study program students of Uni Raden Fatah Palembang. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Islamic State University.

Wangda, K., Dorji, K., & Kinley. (2020). Teachers and students perception on the impact of Kagan cooperative learning structures at higher secondary school. ASEAN Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 100–116.

Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27.

Yürük, N. (2020). Using kahoot as a skill improvement technique in pronunciation.Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(1), 137–153.