本論文研究動機是高中英文教師通常在教材中選擇若干課不做課堂講解，只要求學生自習，研究目的是想探討哪一類型的課次較容易略過不教以及其原因，主要作法是以問卷調查各高中英文科召集老師。
在主要實驗開始之前先做了兩次測試(pilot tests)，第一次是以研究者之前的同學同事為對象，第二次則是從台灣公私立高中挑出20所寄給英文科召集老師，藉以修改問卷及預知回收率。在2006年五月，318份問卷分別既給318所台灣各地的高中英文科召集老師，回收113份問卷。主要是用質的方法來分析，回收的問卷根據公私立學校來看是否挑選課次及其主要原因，同時分年級來看挑選的版本，並將所有課次分類，比較不同類別平均略過不教的頻率(average frequency of skipping)是多少，之後將三個主要高中英文版本共18冊課本每一課依跳過不教的頻率(frequency of skipping)排列，並分析受測老師對每一課不教的評語，之後綜合看每一類別主要跳過不教的原因是什麼，並分析這些不教的課次是否列入段考。
研究結果發現將近60%的受測老師都有略過不教的情形，其中80%是公立高中的老師；另一方面，每課都仔細講解的老師占40%，其中有60%是發生在私立學校。在選擇版本方面，遠東版在高中三個年級的挑選次數均高過龍騰版和三民陳版，授試老師沒有選擇其他的版本。在跳過不教的類別方面，對話類是不教比率最高的，但這個類別只出現在遠東舊版裡，大部分授試老師都覺得對話類很簡單，或很無趣。從平均略過不教的頻率(average frequency of skipping)來看，詩歌類(poetry)及故事類(story)不教的比率高過其他類別，但分冊來看，一般說來只要沒有對話類(the topic of conversation skills)的課本，故事類是最多被挑出不教的類別，這些不教的故事通常都被認為太冗長，缺乏啟發性，容易理解，或其中有太多對話。相反的，英文老師最常在課堂講解的類別是實用類(the topic of practical skills/knowledge)的，因為所提供的資訊可以馬上應用在生活當中。大部分不教的類別都被認為是簡單適合學生自學，但這些不教的課次有60%還是列入學校段考，有些授試老師表示雖然課文跳過不教，但字彙片語句型還是列入段考。
本研究結果可以作為書商編選課本文章及英文老師在挑選課次教學時的參考，建議教育單位可以要求書商每冊少編幾課，或給予較為彈性的教學時數，且建議將來的研究可以加入對受測老師的訪談，可以更瞭解老師選課背後的原因，其次，可以將不教頻率較高的一些課次用電腦軟體作可讀性(readability)的分析，這樣可以用具體數據表示出該課的難易度。學校所在地區及學校的規模也可能影響老師的選擇，或學生對課文類別的喜好也可列入研究的項目。

High school English teachers in Taiwan tend to skip some textbook lessons in class under instructional time constraints and ask the students to study on their own. This thesis tries to investigate what topics/text types of lessons tend to be skipped by English teachers and the reasons behind the selection. The participants are the teachers in charge of the English subject from all the senior high schools in Taiwan. The questionnaire is the main instrument.
Two pilot tests were done before the formal test was conducted. In May 2006, 318 copies of questionnaires were sent to 318 different high schools in Taiwan, and 113 copies were collected for data analysis. The qualitative method was employed to analyze the data. The received questionnaires and the general reasons to skip lessons or to teach every lesson were analyzed in terms of public and private schools. The researcher then classified the skipped lessons into several topics/text types. The average frequency of skipping of each topic/text type was compared. Then every lesson in every textbook volume was listed based on its frequency of skipping, and analyzed according to its topic/text type and teachers’ comments.
The findings show that nearly 60 percent of the teacher participants skip lessons in class, and there are up to 80 percent of public school teachers doing this. On the other hand, the teacher participants who teach every lesson are fewer in number in this study, and over 60 percent of the private high school teachers do this in class. In the selection of textbooks, Far East series are used by more high school grades of students than Lungteng and San-min (Chen) series are. As for the skipping of topics/text types, the topic of conversation skills is skipped most frequently in the textbook volumes with this topic, and it is only found in Far East series. This topic is mostly considered easy for independent study, or not interesting to students. In general, story is the most frequently skipped topic/text type in the volumes without the topic of conversation skills. The stories which are frequently skipped by teachers are usually considered too long or not encouraging enough. The topic of practical skills/knowledge is most of the times English teachers’ last choice to skip because it provides useful tips for students to apply in their lives.
Most of the topics/text types are skipped for their easiness for independent study, and 60 percent of the skipped lessons are still included in school exams. This thesis can offer useful information for textbook material writers, and the suggestion for further research on such projects is to analyze the readability of the skipped lessons with computer software, so that the difficulty level of the reading passages can be revealed with concrete numbers.

English Works
Allwright, R. L. (1981). What do we want teaching materials for? ELT Journal 36(1), 5-19.
Breen, M. P. and Candlin, C. N. (1987). Which materials? A consumer’s and designer’s guide. In Sheldon, L. E. (Ed.), ELT Textbooks and Materials.
Calderhead, J. (1987). Exploring teachers’ thinking. London: Cassell.
Chambers, F. (1997). Seeking consensus in coursebook evaluation. ELT Journal, 51(5), 29-35.
Chen, C. T. (2002). Textbook selection for senior high school students in greater Taipei area. Unpublished master’s thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Chen, M. H. (1986). An evaluation of two sets of English textbooks for industrial vocational high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Cheng, L. Y. (2002). The backwash effect on classroom teaching of changes in public examinations. In S. J. Savignon (ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. (pp. 91-111). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Clark, C. M. and Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought process. In M. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd ed. (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
Cunningsworth, A. (1984). Evaluating and selecting EFL Teaching Materials. London: Heinemann.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dudley-Evans, T. and John, M. St. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 51(1), 36-42.
Fogerty, J. L., Wang, M. C., and Creek, R. (1983). A descriptive study of experienced and novice teachers’ interactive thoughts and actions. Journal of Educational Research 77, 22-32.
Gary P. D. (1992). Consumers of textbooks: Concerns from the classroom. In John G. H. (Eds.), The textbook controversy: Issues, aspects and perspectives (pp. 137-145). US: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Grant N. (1987). Making the most of your textbook. New York: Longman.
Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of English language teaching. New York: Longman.
Hsieh, K. P. (2001). San-Ming Senior High School English Book. Taipei: San-Ming
Hutchinson, T. and Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal 48(4), 315-329.
Johnson, K. E. (1992). The instructional decisions of pre-service English as a second language teachers: New directions for teacher preparation programs. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, and S. Hsia (eds.), Perspectives on second language teacher education. (pp. 115-134). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
Lee, W. Yuk-chun (1995). Authenticity revisited: Text authenticity and learner authenticity. ELT Journal, 49(4), 323-328.
Leithwood, K. A., Ross, J. A. and Montgomery, D. J. (1982). An investigation of teachers’ curriculum design making. In K. A. Leithwood (Ed.), Studies in curriculum design making (pp. 14-26). Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Li, H. C. (2003). Predictive evaluation, use, and retrospective evaluation of an EFL textbook by junior high school teachers: A case study in Taipei. Unpublished master’s thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Liao, C. C. (1999). The study of textbook and teaching methods usage by secondary school English teachers. Unpublished master’s thesis. Tainan: National Chen Kung University.
Livingston, C. and Borke, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications: Journal of Teacher Education 40(4), 36-42.
Low, G. (1987). The need for a multi-perspective approach to the evaluation of foreign language teaching materials. Evaluation and Research in Education 1(1), 19-29.
Lu, H. M. (2004). The use and evaluation of teaching materials for vocational high schools in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
McDonough, J. and C. Shaw. (1993). Materials and Methods in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mera Rivas, R. M. (1999). Reading in recent ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal 53(1), 12-21.
Minicz, Elizabeth A. Watson (1983). Is there life after new horizons. NAAESC Occasional Papers, 1/2 Northern Area Adult Education Service Center. Dekalb: Northern Illinois UP.
Rea-Dickins, P. (1994). Evaluation and ELT. Language Teaching, 27(2), 7-20.
Richards, J. C. (1993). Beyond the text book: The role of commercial materials in language teaching. RELC Journal 24(1), 1-14.
Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., Tung, P., and Ng, P. (1992). The culture of the English language teacher: A Hong Kong example. RELC Journal 23(1), 81-103.
Robinson, P. C. (1980). ESP (English for Specific Purposes). Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd.
Romero, R. M. (1975). What textbook shall we use? English Teaching Forum, 13(5), 362-363.
Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sheldon, Leslie E. (1987). ELT textbooks and materials: Problems in evaluation and development. Oxford: Modern English Publications.
Sheldon, Leslie E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(4), 237-246.
Shih, S. C. (1999). Are you good at textbook selection? Caves English Teaching, 21, 18-20 (in Chinese).
Shih, Y. H. (2000). English textbook evaluation in elementary school. A collection of papers presented in the Seventeenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei: the Crave Publishing Co., Ltd (in Chinese).
Skierso, A. (1991). Textbook selection and evaluation. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English a s a Second or Foreign Language (2nd ed.). (pp. 432-453). New York: Heinle and Heinle.
Smith, C. B., ed. (2003). Selecting reading materials for high school students. Eric research summary. Institute of educational science, Washington, DC. [ED482406]
Stodolsky, S. (1989). Is teaching really by the book? In P. W. Jackson and S. Haroutunian-Gordon (eds.), From Socrates to software: The teacher as text and the text as teacher. (pp. 159-184). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Su, Y. H. (1997). Needs survey and evaluation scheme for industrial vocational high school English textbook. Unpublished master’s thesis. Taipei: National Chengchi University.
Ulichny, P. (1996). What’s in a methodology? In D. Freeman and J. C. Richards (eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching. (pp. 178-196). New York: Cambridge University.
Widdowson, H. G. (1976). ‘The authenticity of language data’ in J. F. Fanselow and R. H. Crymes (eds). On TESOL ’76. Washington: TESOL.
Williams D. (1983). Developing criteria for textbook evaluation. ELT Journal, 37(3), 251-255.
Wang, C. C. (2002). Innovative teaching in EFL contexts: The case of Taiwan. In S. J. Savignon (ed.), Communicative language teaching in translation: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. (pp. 131-153). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wong, Viola, Kwok Peony, and Choi Nancy (1995). The use of authentic materials at tertiary level. ELT Journal, 49(4), 318-322.
Woodward, A. (1993). Introduction: Learning from textbooks. In B. K. Britton, A. Woodward, and M. Binkley (eds.), Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Chinese Works
Chou, C-T. (1998). 周中天。(民87)。國中英語新教材試用一年回顧。敦煌英語教學雜誌第19期。頁6-8。台北：敦煌。
Li, C-C. (1084). 李振清。（民73）。實用功能取向的英語教材設計— 高中英語教材編纂的一些新構想。第一屆中華民國應與文教學研討會論文集。台北：文鶴。
Lin, M-S. (1995). 林茂松。(民84)。中華民國技職教育體系與普通教育體系英語文教學比較研究（Ⅰ）：高中高職篇。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
Lin, M-S. (1996). 林茂松。(民85)。中華民國高中高職英文教學現況比較研究。中華民國第五屆英語文教學研討會論文選集。頁59-79。台北：文鶴。
Shih, Y-H. (2000). 施玉惠。 (民89)。國小英語教材之評審–資格審vs.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。