第六十二輯．第一期 - 2016-03-31

國中讀前段班有差嗎？能力分班對學習成就影響的反事實分析

Does It Make a Difference in Being Assigned to High-Ability Groups in Junior High? A Counterfactual Analysis of the Effects of Ability Grouping on Students’ Academic Achievement in Taiwan

作　者：
關秉寅 / Ping-Yin Kuan
關鍵字：
交叉分類隨機效應、能力分班、傾向分數配對、臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫 / cross-classification random effects model, ability grouping, propensity score matching, Taiwan Education Panel Survey
  • 摘要
  • 英文摘要
  • 參考文獻
  • 全文下載
本研究以「臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫」國中樣本兩波資料，分析八、九年級 讀前段班對九年級時學習成就的影響。本研究以就讀無能力分班措施學校且自認 從無分班經驗者為對照組，分別與學校無能力分班、學校只有部分年級有分班， 以及學校各年級均有分班措施等三類型學校內，自認於八及九年級與只有九年級 讀前段班者相比較，以評估讀前段班是否影響九年級的學習成就。分析模型包括 多層次線性、單層次傾向分數配對分析，以及結合單層次傾向分數配對與多層次 交叉分類隨機效應模型等。研究發現，以單層次傾向分數分析或此方法結合多層 次交叉分類隨機效應模型的結果觀之，只有就讀於部分年級有分班學校，且於八 及九年級讀前段班或只於九年級讀前段班會對正面影響九年級學習成就。
The present research assesses the causal effects of being assigned to high-ability groups in junior high according to 9th graders’ academic achievement in Taiwan. Using data gathered by the Taiwan Education Panel Survey in 2001 and 2003, the sample is divided into three school types: schools with no ability grouping, schools grouping students only at certain grades, and schools grouping students in all grades. Within each school type, this research focuses on estimating the average treatment effect (ATE) by comparing separately the achievement of 9th graders who have self-identified to high-ability groups in both 8th and 9th grade, or in 9th grade only, to those having no tracking experience and enrolled in schools without ability grouping. The research uses multilevel linear modeling, single-level propensity score matching (PSM), and the combination of single-level PSM and cross-classified random effects model (CCREM) to estimate the ATE of being assigned to high-ability groups. According to the analysis of the model combining PSM and CCREM, the research finds that only students assigned to high-ability groups at schools which group students at certain grades have positive impacts on their 9th grade achievement.

人本教育基金會（2002a）。2002年國中違反狀況調查報告。取自http://hef.yam.org.tw/research/08/08-03.doc

[Humanistic Education Foundation. (2002a). 2002 survey report on the situation of violations of normal class grouping in junior high. Retrieved from http://hef.yam.org.tw/research/08/08-03.doc]

人本教育基金會（2002b）。有教無類難，因材施教易。人本教育札記，161，16-19。

[Humanistic Education Foundation. (2002b). It is difficult to educate everyone, irrespective of social background, and easy to teach according to students’ aptitudes. Humanistic Education Journal, 161, 16-19.]

人本教育基金會（2003）。2003年各縣市升學編班狀況調查報告（台中縣市除外）。取自http://hef.yam.org.tw/news/45.doc

[Humanistic Education Foundation. (2003). 2003 survey report on the situation of ability grouping in counties and cities (except Taichung county and Taichung city). Retrieved from http://hef.yam.org.tw/news/45.doc]

林彥志（2006）。從學生學習權的角度談我國常態編班政策及展望。現代教育論壇，14，294-300。

[Lin, Y.-C. (2006). About the policy and the prospect of ability grouping in Taiwan from the perspective of student’s right to learn. Modern Education Forum, 14, 294-300.]

張苙雲（2011）。台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫：資料使用手冊（2011.12.01 版）、第一波（2001）國中學生問卷。取自http://survey.sinica.edu.tw/srda/teps/W1W2W3W4_JSF_manual_20111201.pdf

[Chang, L.-Y. (2011). Taiwan Education Panel Survey: Users’ guide and the first wave (2001). Student questionnaire for junior high school. Retrieved from http://survey.sinica.edu.tw/srda/teps/W1W2W3W4_JSF_manual_20111201.pdf]

楊孟麗、譚康榮、黃敏雄（2003）。台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫：心理計量報告：TEPS2001分析能力測驗【第一版】。臺北：中央研究院調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。

[Yang, M.-L., Tam, T., & Huang, M.-H. (2003). Psychometric report for the ability tests of TEPS 2001. Taipei, Taiwan: Center for Survey Research, Academia Sinica.]

謝小芩、楊挽北（2003）。「能力編班」長期追蹤調查—能力分班無法因材施教！人本教育札記，173，34-36。

[Hsieh, H.-C., & Yang, W.-B. (2003). A longitudinal study of ability grouping: Ability grouping could not teach students according to their aptitudes. Humanistic Education Journal, 173, 34-36.]

Abadie, A. (2005). Semiparametric difference-in-difference estimators. Review of Economic Studies, 72, 1-19.

Alexander, K. L., Cook, M., & McDill, E. L. (1978). Curriculum tracking and educational stratification. American Sociological Review, 43, 47-66.

Allison, P. D. (2009). Fixed effects regression models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ansalone, G. (2010). Tracking: Educational differentiation or defective strategy. Educational Research Quarterly, 34(2), 3-17.

Argys, L. M., Rees, D. I., & Brewer, D. J. (1996). Detracking America’s schools: Equity at zero cost? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(4), 623-645.

Ayalon, H., & Gamoran, A. (2000). Stratification in academic secondary programs and educational inequality: Comparison of Israel and the United States. Comparative Education Review, 44, 54-80.

Betts, J. R., & Shkolnik, J. L. (2000). The effects of ability grouping on student achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools. Economics of Education Review, 19, 1-15.

Broaded, C. M. (1997). The limits and possibilities of tracking: Some evidence from Taiwan. Sociology of Education, 70, 36-53.

Carbonaro, W. J., & Gamoran, A. (2002). The production of achievement inequality in high school english. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 801-827.

Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (1997). Children, school, and inequality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Figlio, D. N., & Page, M. E. (2002). School choice and the distributional effects of ability tracking: Does separation increase inequality? Journal of Urban Economics, 51, 497-514.

Galindo-Rueda, F., & Vignoles, A. (2005). The heterogeneous effect of selection in secondary schools: Understanding the changing role of ability (CEE Discussion Paper 52). London, UK: Centre for the Economics of Education, London School of Economics and Political Science.

Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60(3), 135-155.

Gamoran, A. (1992). The variable effects of high school tracking. American Sociological Review, 57, 812-828.

Gamoran, A. (1993). Alternative uses of ability grouping in secondary schools: Can we bring high-quality instruction to low-ability classes? American Journal of Education, 101, 1-22.

Gamoran, A. (2004). Classroom organization and instructional quality. In H. J. Walberg, A. J. Renolds, & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Can unlike students learn together? Grade retention, tracking, and group (pp. 141-155). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Gamoran, A. (2010). Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice. In M. W. Apple, S. J. Ball, & L. A. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 213-228). London, UK: Routledge.

Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57, 415-435.

Gamoran, A., & Mare, R. D. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality? American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1146-1183.

Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2015). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and application. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Hallinan, M. T. (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 79-84.

Hanushek, E. A., & Woßmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal, 116, 63-76.

Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. E. (1997). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Review of Economic Studies, 64, 605-654.

Heyns, B. (1974). Selection and stratification within schools. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 1434-1451.

Hoffer, T. B. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 205-227.

Huang, M.-H. (2009). Classroom homogeneity and the distribution of student math performance: A country-level fixed-effects analysis. Social Science Research, 38(4), 781-791.

Kelly, S. (2004). Are teachers tracked? On what basis and with what consequences. Social Psychology of Education, 7(1), 55-72.

Kerckhoff, A. C. (1986). Effects of ability grouping in British secondary schools. American Sociological Review, 51, 842-858.

Kerckhoff, A. C. (1993). Diverging pathways: Social structure and career deflections. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kim, T., Lee, J. H., & Lee, Y. (2008). Mixing versus sorting in schooling: Evidence from the equalization policy in South Korea. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 697-711.

Kubitschek, W., & Hallinan, M. T. (1996). Race, gender, and inequality in track assignment. In A. M. Pallas (Ed.), Research in sociology of education and socialization (Vol. 11, pp. 121-146). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415-428.

Kulik J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Kulik, J. A. (2004). Grouping, tracking, and de-tracking: Conclusions from experimental, correlational, and ethnographical research. In H. J. Walberg, A. J. Renolds, & M. C. Wang

(Eds.), Can unlike students learn together? Grade retention, tracking, and grouping (pp. 157-182). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Lee, V. E., Bryk, A. S., & Smith, J. B. (1993). The organization of effective secondary schools. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 19, pp. 171-267). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.

Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2012). PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html

Loveless, T. (1999). The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lucas, S. R., & Beresford, L. (2010). Naming and classifying: Theory, evidence, and equity in education. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 25-84.

Lucas, S. R., & Gamoran, A. (2002). Tracking and the achievement gap. In J. E. Chubb & T. Loveless (Eds.), Bridging the achievement gap (pp. 171-198). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2015). Counterfactuals and causal analysis: Methods and principles for social research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mulkey, L. M., Catsambis, S., Steelman, L. C., & Hanes-Ramos, M. (2009). Keeping track or getting offtrack: Issues in the tracking of students. In L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp. 1081-1099). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 570-608). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.

Schofield, J. W. (2010). International evidence on ability grouping with curriculum differentiation and the achievement gap in secondary schools. Teachers College Record, 112(5), 1492-1528.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293-336.

Slavin, R. E. (1990a). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-499.

Slavin, R. E. (1990b). Ability grouping in secondary schools: A response to Hallinan. Review of Educational Research, 60, 505-507.

Thoemmes, F. J., & West, S. G. (2011). The use of propensity score for nonrandomized designs with clustered data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 514-543.

Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Mijs, J. J. B. (2010). Achievement inequality and the institutional structure of educational systems: A comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 407-428.

Van Houtte, M. (2004). Tracking effects on school achievement: A quantitative explanation in terms of the academic culture of school staff. American Journal of Education, 110(4), 354-358.

VanderHart, P. G. (2006). Why do some schools group by ability? Some evidence from the NAEP. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 65(2), 435-462.

Wang, X., & Sobel, M. E. (2013). New perspectives on causal mediation analysis. In S. L. Morgan (Ed.), Handbook of causal analysis for social research (pp. 215-242). New York, NY: Springer.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometrics analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.