本研究主要探討在合作學習過程中，不同的分組方式是否對國中學生產生不同的學習效果和影響。近年來，合作學習教學法不斷地被老師們採用來取代傳統的講述教學方式，然而，實行合作學習教學法時，老師們常須面對是否幫同學們指派組別或是讓同學們能自行找組的難題，其中老師指派又常以異質能力的分組方式為分組的依據，然而，合作的對象也常是同學們實行合作學習時關心的焦點，因此，在本研究中，除了自選和老師指派不同的分組方式之外，可能影響合作學習的同儕關係和同學們在選擇同儕時所考慮的因素亦是本研究的重點。本研究採用的資料來源包括問卷調查、學生訪談、以及課堂觀察，而問卷調查結果除了以變異係數分析法分析高中低不同英文能力同學之間對合作學習的看法外，亦採用相關係數分析和獨立樣本t 檢定來考驗分組方式和合作學習之間的相關和相異性。
    本研究對一所新北市的國中挑選其中四個七年級的班級共128 位的學生，利用英文聽力與閱讀課進行不同分組方式的合作學習教學法，其中兩個班級隨機選為學生可自選小組的班級，另外兩個班級為老師指派小組，進行為期共14 週的合作學習教學活動。研究結果顯示：第一，低英文成就的學生對於合作學習法有最正面的認知，而中成就的學生認為合作學習法增加了他們表達自我想法的機會，高成就的學生則認為自己在合作學習中最常扮演「教練員」的角色引導其他同學。第二，在學生自選小組的班級中同學們對合作學習有較高的評價，但平均來說同學們對老師指派組別亦有正面看法。第三，「個性」、「英文能力」和「興趣」分別為前三名同學們選擇組員優先考量的依據。本研究結果希望提供老師們採用合作學習時，有效幫助同學們分組的參考依據。

The study tries to investigate in cooperative learning different grouping methods have any different effect on junior high school students. In recent years, cooperative learning has been widely adopted as alternative teaching method in place of teacher speech all the time in traditional classrooms. However, when cooperative learning is implemented, teachers often face the difficulty if they assign students into heterogeneous ability groups or students select the group they like. Moreover, the peer relationship, in other words, the factor that influences students to select group members is often the concentration during the process of grouping. Therefore, in addition to the teacher-assigned and student-selected grouping methods, the peer relationship is also the main focus in the study. The study adopted two ways to present the results. First, the questionnaire was used to analyze the data. The analyzing instrument included ANOVA Analysis of Variance to investigate the different attitudes of high, intermediate and low English achievers toward cooperative learning, and Correlation Analysis and Independent T-test to explore the relationship between the grouping methods and cooperative learning.
In the study, 128 seventh-grade participants from one junior high school at New Taipei City participated in the experiment. Two classes were selected randomly as teacher-assigned grouping classes, and the other two classes as student-selected grouping classes. The experimental process lasted for fourteen weeks. Finally, the results of the study indicated that first, low English achievers had the highest perception on cooperative learning. As for intermediate achievers, they thought they expressed more in cooperative learning, and high achievers thought that most of time they played the role of “coach”in cooperative learning. Second, the participants in student-selected groups had higher perception on cooperative learning compared with teacher assigned groups. However, in average, the result showed that students had positive attitude toward teacher-assigned grouping methods. Third, when the participants select group members, “personality,” “English proficiency,” and “interest” were the three main factors. Therefore, the study suggested before the teachers group students, different learning needs of students need to be considered. The study is hoped to offer teachers when implementing cooperative learning, a suggestion and reference.

CHINESE ABSTRACT…………………………………………………i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT…………………………………………………ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………v
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………viii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ................................1
Background...............................................1
Statements of the Problem ...............................5
Purpose of the Study ....................................8
Research Questions................................................9
Significance of the Study ...............................10
Definition of Terms......................................11

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW............................14
Theoretical Background Related to Cooperative Learning ..14
Theoretical Underpinnings................................14
Definition of Cooperative Learning.......................22
The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning ...............23
Essential Components.....................................24
Teachers’ and Students’ Roles in Cooperative Learning  
  Classrooms ............................................29
The Teacher’s Role ......................................29
The Student’s Role.......................................32
The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning in Taiwan......34
The Main Cooperative Learning Method and Techniques used in 
  the Study..............................................35
Achievers with Different Proficiency in Cooperative 
  Learning Classrooms ...................................37
Different Grouping Criteria Mentioned in the Study.......40
Teacher-Assigned Heterogeneous English Ability Grouping..40
Student-Selected Grouping ...............................44

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY...............................50
Participants............................................50
Material ...............................................53
Instruments.............................................54
Questionnaire on Attitudes toward Cooperative Learning and  
  Grouping Methods......................................54
Group- and Self-evaluation Sheet........................56
Questions for an In-depth Interview with Students ......56
Classroom Observation...................................58
Procedure ..............................................58
Data Collection ........................................64
Data Analysis ..........................................64

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND FINDINGS.......................66
Quantitative Results....................................66
Overall Results of Participants’ Attitudes toward 
  Cooperative Learning..................................67
Results of Participants’ Attitudes toward Cooperative 
  Learning..............................................69
Results of Participants’ Involvement in Cooperative 
  Learning .............................................77
Results of Participants’ Attitudes toward the Group- and
  Self-Evaluation Sheet.................................80
Results of Participants’ Perceptions toward Roles They Had 
  Played................................................81
Results of Participants’ Perceptions on the Grouping 
  Methods...............................................84
Student-selected Grouping Method .......................84
Teacher-assigned Grouping Method .......................89
Results of Relations between Cooperative Learning and the 
  Grouping Methods......................................94
Attitudes of Participants in Different Grouping Methods   
  toward Cooperative Learning...........................94
Perceptions of Participants on Cooperative Learning and the 
  Grouping Types........................................95
Results of Factors of How Participants Choose Group 
  Members ..............................................96
Summary of Qualitative Data ............................98
Effects of Cooperative Learning.........................99
The Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students’learning99
The Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students’ 
  Interrelationships....................................101
The Effect of Cooperative Learning on Teachers..........102
Effects of Different Grouping Methods...................103


CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSION, AND IMPLICATION...105
Discussions ............................................105
Effects of Cooperative Learning.........................105
Effects of Cooperative Learning on Different English 
  Proficient Achievers..................................106
Effects of the Grouping Methods.........................108
Effects of Peers on Learning........................... 111
Conclusions and Implications............................112
Limitations ............................................114
Recommendations for Further Research....................115

References..............................................118

Appendices
Appendix A Questionnaire (Chinese Version) .............125
Appendix B Questionnaire (English Version) .............128
Appendix C Group- and Self-evaluation Sheet 
(Chinese Version) ......................................132
Appendix D Group- and Self-evaluation Sheet 
(English Version).......................................133
Appendix E (Schedule of the Class) .....................134
Appendix F (Seat Arrangement) ..........................136
Appendix G (Observation Form) ..........................137

LIST OF TABLES
4.1 Overall Means and Standard Deviation of Participants’ Attitudes toward Cooperative Learning 67
4.2 Overall Analysis of Variance of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Perceptions toward Cooperative Learning 68
4.3 Overall Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Perceptions toward Cooperative Learning 68
4.4 Analysis of Variance of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Cooperative Learning 69
4.5 Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Cooperative Learning 69
4.6 Analysis of Variance of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Discussion in Cooperative Learning 70
4.7 Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Discussion in Cooperative Learning 70
4.8 Analysis of Variance of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Searching Answers and Understanding Questions in Cooperative Learning 71
4.9 Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Searching Answers and Understanding Questions in Cooperative Learning 71
4.10 Analysis of Variance of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Having Higher Interest and Motivation in English in Cooperative Learning 72
4.11 Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Having Higher Interest and Motivation in English in Cooperative Learning 73
4.12 Analysis of Variance of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Interaction with Other Classmates in Cooperative Learning 73
4.13 Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Interaction with Other Classmates in Cooperative Learning 74
4.14 Analysis of Variance of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Expression of Personal Ideas and Viewpoints in Cooperative Learning 74
4.15 Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Expression of Personal Ideas and Viewpoints in Cooperative Learning 75
4.16 Analysis of Variance of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Following the Instruction in Cooperative Learning 76
4.17 Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Following the Instruction in Cooperative Learning 76
4.18 Analysis of Variance of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Speaking in English in Cooperative Learning 77
4.19 Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Speaking in English in Cooperative Learning 77
4.20 Analysis of Variance of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Contribution in Cooperative Learning 78
4.21 Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Contribution in Cooperative Learning 78
4.22 Analysis of Variance of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Previewing in Cooperative Learning 79
4.23 Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Previewing in Cooperative Learning 79
4.24 Analysis of Variance of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Participation in Cooperative Learning 80
4.25 Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Attitudes toward Participation in Cooperative Learning 80
4.26 Means and Standard Deviation of Participants’ Attitudes toward the Feedback Given on “The Evaluation Sheet of Peers and Selves” 81
4.27 Means and Standard Deviation of Participants’ Attitudes toward Roles They Played in Cooperative Learning 81
4.28 Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Roles They Played in Cooperative Learning 82
4.29 Analysis of Variance of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Roles They Played in Cooperative Learning 83
4.30 Means and Standard Deviation of Different English Proficiency Participants’ Roles Played as a Coach in Cooperative Learning 84
4.31 Means and Standard Deviation of Participants’ Perceptions on Student-Selected Grouping Method 85
4.32 Percentage Presented on the Questionnaire about Participants’ Responses to Each Question on the Part of Student-Selected Grouping Method 85
4.33 Means and Standard Deviation of Participants’ Perceptions on Teacher-Assigned Grouping Method 90
4.34 Percentage Presented on the Questionnaire about Participants’ Responses to Each Question on the Part of Teacher-Assigned Grouping Method 92
4.35 Differences between Cooperative Learning and Two Grouping Methods 95
4.36 Correlations between Cooperative Learning and Two Grouping Methods 95
4.37 Factors that the Participants Choose the Group Members 97

Abrami, P., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., DeSimone, C., d'Apollonia, S., & Howden, J. (1995). Classroom connections: Understanding and using cooperative learning. Montreal: Harcourt Brace.
Adams, D. M., & Hamm, M. (1994). New designs for teaching and learning: promoting active learning in tomorrow’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Arnold, J. (1999). Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Chang, W. C. (2006). English education in Taiwan: Current status and reflection. Educational Research Journal Bimonthly, 69, 129-144.
Chiu, Y. H. (2002). Cooperative learning in one junior high school English classroom: An action research (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, ROC.
Christine, L., Maureen, N., & George, M.(1997), Cooperative learning in the thinking classroom: Research and theoretical perspectives. Paper presented at the International Conference on Thinking, Singapore.
Coelho, E. (1992a). Cooperative learning: Foundation for a communicative curriculum. In C. Kessler (Ed.), Cooperative language learning: A teacher's resource book (pp. 31-49). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Coelho, E. (1992b). Jigsaw: Integrating language and content. In C. Kessler (Eds.), cooperative language learning: A teacher's resource book (pp. 129-152). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cohen, E. (1994). Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Crumbaugh, Carol J., Elizabeth M. Frye, Robert C. Schlagal, Pamela W. Schram, & Woodrow R. Trathen. (2001). Instructional grouping: examples and issues. Yearbook of American Reading Forum 21.
Cuseo, J., B., (1992). Cooperative learning vs. small-group discussions and group projects: The critical differences. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 2(3), 4-9.
Department of Elementary Education, Ministry of Education. (1998). Plan for the development of small-class teaching. Retrieved from http://www.sses.chc.edu.tw/old/data10.html
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Dornyei, Z., & Malderez, A. (1999). The role of group dynamics in foreign language learning and teaching. In J. Arnold (Eds.), Affect in language learning (pp. 155-169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language acquisition: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold. 
Hanham, J., & McCormick, J. (2009). Group work in schools with close friends and acquaintances: Linking self-processes with group processes. Learning and Instruction, 19, 214-227.
Harel, Y., (1992). Teacher talk in the cooperative learning classroom. In C. Kessler (Eds.), Cooperative language learning: A teacher’s resource book (pp. 153-162). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Jacobs, G. M. (2010). The academic controversy technique: Towards cooperative debates. Online Submission. Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED510818
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Encouraging thinking through constructive controversy. In N. Davidson & T. Worsham (Eds.), Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning (pp.120-137). NY: Teachers college.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cultural diversity and cooperative learning. In J. W., Putnam (Eds.),  Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. J. (1994a). Cooperative learning in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. J. (1994b). The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom and school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15-29.
Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning resources for teacher. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.
Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1994). The structural approach: Six keys to cooperative learning. In S. Sharan (Eds.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 115-133). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Korinek, L., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (1999). Collaboration to support students’ success. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(3), 1-18.
Leahy, W. M. (2009). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: An outline of the theory and reflections on a need for new directions to cater for individual differences and motivation. In J. E. Larson (Eds.), Educational psychology: Cognition and learning, individual differences and motivation (pp. 243-257). Nova Science Publishers.
Liang, T. L. (2002). Implementing cooperative learning in EFL teaching process and effects (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, ROC.
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and Instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
McDonell, W. (1992a). Language and cognitive development through cooperative group work. In C. Kessler (Eds.), Cooperative language learning: A teacher’s resource book (pp. 51-64). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
McDonell, W. (1992b). The role of the teacher in the cooperative learning classroom. In C. Kessler (Eds.), Cooperative language learning: A teacher’s resource book (pp. 163-174). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
McGroarty, M. (1989). The benefits of cooperative and individualistic experiences among disabled and normal children. Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 177-83.
Ministry of Education. (2010). Contemporary educational policy [Electronic version]. Retrived March 10, 2010, from
http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/EDU01/990310%E7%95%B6%E5%89%8D%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E6%94%BF%E7%AD%96%E6%96%B9%E5%
90%91%EF%BC%88%E7%B6%B2%E9%A0%81%E7%89%88%EF%BC%89_1.pdf
Mitchell, S. N., Reilly, R., Bramwell, F. G., Solnosky, A., & Lilly, F. (2004). Friendship and choosing groupmates: Preferences for teacher-selected vs. student-selected groupings in high school science classes. Journal of Instructional Psychology. Retrieved March 1, 2004, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCG/is_1_31/ai_n6073185/?tag=content;col1
Olsen, R., & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In C. Kessler (Eds.), Cooperative language learning: A teacher’s resource book (pp. 1-30). New York: Prentice Hall.
Pan, C. Y. (2007). Study of the application of visual design engaged in enterprise web-design and experiential marketing for Dongliville Inc (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ming Chuan University, Taipei, ROC.
Presseisen, B. Z. (1992). A perspective on the evolution of cooperative thinking. In N. Davidson and T. Worsham (Eds.), Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning (pp. 1-6). New York: Teachers College Press.
Putnam, J. A. (1993). Cooperative learning strategies and strategies for Inclusion: Celebrating diversity in the classroom (1st ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
Putnam, J. A. (1998). Cooperative learning strategies and strategies for Inclusion: Celebrating diversity in the classroom (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
Quiocho, M. L. (2002). Cooperative group learning as a form of creativity. In J. S. Thousand, R. A. Villa & A. I. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers (pp.105-109). Maryland: Paul H. Brookes.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. (2nd ed). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P. A. (1971). Group processes in the classroom. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown.
Sheppard, S., & Kanevsky, L. S. (1999). Nurturing gifted students’ metacognitive awareness: Effects of training in homogeneous and heterogeneous classes. Roeper Review, 21(4), 266-272. Retrieved December 15, 2006, from FirstSearch database.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Slavin, R. E. (1994). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Thanh-Pham, T. H., & Gillies, R. (2010). Group composition of cooperative learning: Does heterogeneous grouping work in Asian classrooms? International Education Studies, 3(3), 12-19.
Tsao, C. H. (2003). The impact of ability grouping on foreign language learners: A case study. Hwa Kang Journal of TEFL, 9, 79-102.
Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78 – 89.
Tseng, S. F. (2004). Cooperative approaches to EFL teaching and learning. Journal of Cheng Shiu General Education, 1, 245-270.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Woolfolk, A. (1995). Educational psychology (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Wright, T. (1987). Roles of teachers and learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.