第六十一輯.第四期 - 2015-12-31

學生數學表現的城鄉差異

Rural-Nonrural Differences in Student Mathematics Performance

作 者:
黃敏雄 / Min-Hsiung Huang
關鍵字:
城鄉差異、國際數學與科學教育成就趨勢調查、臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫、數學表現 / rural-nonrural differences, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, Taiwan Educational Panel Survey, mathematics performance
  • 摘要
  • 英文摘要
  • 參考文獻
  • 學術引用
有關學生學習表現的城鄉差異,一般普遍性的看法是:城鄉差異很大,只要能消除城鄉差異,就可以大幅減少學習成就差異;大都市裡的學生表現相差懸殊,而鄉村地區的學生則是表現普遍低落;由大都市到城鎮,到一般鄉村,再到偏遠鄉村,學生的學習表現遞減;學習表現的城鄉差異會隨著年級提升而加劇,而且學生學習表現的城鄉差異有愈來愈嚴重的趨勢。 本研究分析結果與上述數項世俗認知不符:一、城與鄉在平均表現上雖有差異,但學習表現差異大多是發生在城或鄉之內,而不是在城與鄉之間。二、鄉村地區的學習表現在懸殊程度上,與都市或城鎮沒有明顯區別。三、約只有四分之一到三分之一的數學表現落後學生是來自鄉村或偏遠地區,其他落後學生都是來自都市或城鎮。最後,小學階段的城鄉學習差異,從2003到2011年,並沒有逐年擴大的趨勢。
In Taiwan, the public opinion on rural-nonrural differences in student achievement is shown in five observations. First, there is a large gap in student performance between rural and nonrural areas, therefore, eliminating differences between rural and nonrural areas would largely reduce variation in student performance. Second, students in urban areas vary greatly in performance, but those in rural areas are generally poor performers. Third, from cities to towns to rural areas, there is a gradual decline in average student performance. Fourth, rural-nonrural differences in student performance expand as students progress through school grades. Finally, rural-nonrural gaps in student performance widen over time. The findings of this study challenge some of the observations on which the public opinion rests. First, variation in student performance predominantly occurs within rural and nonrural areas, not between them. Second, students in rural areas vary in performance to about the same degree as students in nonrural areas. Third, most lowperforming students are located in cities and towns, and only about one-quarter of the low-performing students are located in rural areas. Finally, among fourth-graders, a widening gap in student performance between rural and nonrural areas was not observed over the period from 2003 to 2011.

內政部戶政司(2014)。鄉鎮市區戶口數。取自http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/month/ml-o7.xls

[Department of Household Registration. (2014). Population for township and district. Retrieved from http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/month/ml-o7.xls]

巫有鎰(1999)。影響國小學生學業成就的因果機制—以臺北市和臺東縣作比較。教育研究集刊,43,213-242。

[Wu, Y.-I. (1999). Mechanism affecting elementary school students’ achievement: A comparison between Taitung County and Taipei Municipality. Bulletin of Educational Research, 43, 213-242.]

李秀如、王德睦(2007)。係貧窮的原罪?或係城鄉差距?談影響兒童英語學習機會的因素。教育與社會研究,12,113-135。

[Lee, S.-L., & Wang, T.-M. (2007). Determinants of children’s English-learning opportunities: Poverty vs. residence. Formosan Education and Society, 12, 113-135.]

陳奕奇、劉子銘(2008)。教育成就與城鄉差距:空間群聚之分析。人口學刊,37,1-43。

[Chen, Y.-C., & Liu, T.-M. (2008). Educational attainment and urban/rural discrepancy: An analysis of spatial cluster. Journal of Population Studies, 37, 1-43.]

陳婉琪(2012)。再探臺灣的都市教育優勢:集體社會化論的可能性。載於謝雨生、傅仰止(主編),臺灣的社會變遷19852005:社會階層與勞動市場(臺灣社會變遷基本調查系列三之3)(頁143-184)。臺北市:中央研究院社會學研究所。

[Chen, W.-C. (2012). Urban educational advantage in Taiwan: The perspective of collective socialization. In Y.-C. Fu & Y.-S. Hsieh (Eds.), Social change in Taiwan, 1985-2005: Social stratification and labor market (pp. 143-184). Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica.]

傅仰止、杜素豪(主編)(2010)。臺灣地區社會變遷基本調查計畫:第五期第五次調查計畫執行報告。臺北市:中央研究院社會學研究所。

[Fu, Y.-C., & Tu, S.-H. (Eds.). (2010). 2009 Taiwan social change survey report (Round 5, Year 5). Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica.]

彭森明(2006)。大專校院招生能兼顧卓越與公平嗎?考試學刊,1,11-28。

[Peng, S.-M. (2006). Can college admissions process achieve both excellence and equity? Bulletin of Testing and Assessment, 1, 11-28.]

楊孟麗、譚康榮、黃敏雄(2003)。心理計量報告:TEPS 2001分析能力測驗。臺北市:中央研究院調查專題研究中心。

[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.]

甄曉蘭(2007)。偏遠國中教育機會不均等問題與相關教育政策初探。教育研究集刊,53(3),1-35。

[Chen, H.-L. (2007). The issues of inequality of educational opportunity in rural junior high schools and related educational policies: A preliminary investigation. Bulletin of Educational Research, 53(3), 1-35.]

Adams, R. J., & Gonzalez, E. J. (1996). The TIMSS test design. In M. O. Martin & D. L. Kelly (Eds.), Third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS) technical report. Volume I: Design and development (pp. 3-1-3-26). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Brunello, G., & Checchi, D. (2007). Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New international evidence. Economic Policy, 22(52), 781-861.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Academic achievement of rural school students: A multi-year comparison with their peers in suburban and urban schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 15, 31-46.

Fuchs, T., & Woessmann, L. (2007). What accounts for international differences in student performance? A re-examination using PISA data. Empirical Economics, 32(2-3), 433-464.

Liao, P. A., Chang, H. H., Wang, J. H., & Horng, T. H. (2013). Do rural students really perform worse than urban students do? Empirical evidence from a university entrance program in Taiwan. Rural Sociology, 78(1), 109-131.

Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.

Schuetz, G., Ursprung, H. W., & Woessmann, L. (2008). Education policy and equality of opportunity. Kyklos, 61(2), 279-308.

Williams, J. H. (2005). Cross-national variations in rural mathematics achievement: A descriptive overview. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(5), 1-18.

Woessmann, L. (2003). Schooling resources, educational institutions and student performance: The international evidence. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65(2), 117-170.

Woessmann, L. (2004). How equal are educational opportunities? Family background and student achievement in Europe and the United States (IZA Discussion Paper NO. 1162). Munich, Germany: CESifo.

Yamamoto, K., & Kulick, E. (2000). Scaling methodology and procedures for the TIMSS mathematics and science scales. In M. O. Martin, K. D. Gregory, & S. E. Stemler (Eds.), TIMSS 1999 technical report (pp. 237-264). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Zhang, L. C., & Sheu, T. M. (2013). Effective investment strategies on mathematics performance in rural areas. Quality & Quantity, 47(5), 2999-3017.