以國中基本學力測驗成績探討班級規模效應

Investigating the Class Size Effect in Junior High Schools through Students' Basic Competence Test Scores

宋曜廷(Yao-Ting Sung)；邱佳民(Jia-Min Chiou)；劉欣宜(Hsin-Yi Liu)；曾芬蘭(Fen-Lan Tseng)；陳柏熹(Po-Hsi Chen)

城鄉差異 ； 班級規模 ； 國中基本學力測驗 ； urbanization ； class size effect ； Basic Competence Test

教育科學研究期刊

54卷2期（2009 / 06 / 01）

59 - 83

繁體中文

班級規模對教學歷程和學習成果的影響向來在教育政策和教學研究文獻中備受矚目，但臺灣目前探討班級大小和學生學習成就之關係的實徵研究十分有限。本文之研究目的有三：一、探究臺灣地區國民中學階段班級規模與學生學習成就的關聯；二、探討如果班級規模效應存在，學校的屬性（公私立）會不會影響此種效應的大小；三、探討如果班級規模效應存在，學校的所屬城鄉的都市化程度會不會影響此種效應的大小？本研究以參加2005年國中基本學力測驗的273,418名應屆畢業國三學生為對象，透過線性階層模式（Hierarchical Linear Modeling, HLM）探討班級大小、學校屬性、學校所在地都市化程度等主要變項對於學生國中基測成績的影響。研究結果發現，臺灣地區的國中，班級規模愈大，成績顯著愈高，且此種現象在公立國中比私立國中明顯，此種現象在低都市化所在地的學校較中都市化和高都市化所在學校更為明顯。這些發現與歐美各國所發現的小班效應有明顯不同，本研究提出「成就排比模型」（achievement-sorting model）來解釋相關發現。

Effects of class size on teaching progress and learning performance has been one of the most important research topics in the domains of educational policies and instructional research. However, in Taiwan, only limited numbers of empirical studies were conducted to investigate the relationship between class size and learning achievement. There are three objectives of this study. The first one is to investigate the effects of junior high school class size on students learning achievement in Taiwan. Secondly, if class size might influence students learning, this study aims to seek whether or not school characteristics (public or private) will intervene the effects. Finally, if class size might influence students learning, this research would also like to examine whether or not the degree of urbanization of schools will intervene the effects. The subjects of this study were 273,418 junior high schools graduates who participated in the Basic Competence Test in 2005. The Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was adopted to investigate the effects of class sizes, school characteristics, and school urbanization degree on students Basic Competence Test scores. The results show that students in large classes had significantly higher scores than those in small classes. This phenomenon is more evident when the students study in public schools. Furthermore, the phenomenon is also more evident when schools are located in low urbanized districts. These findings differ from the results of previous studies conducted in western countries. Not only the findings can complement the references of related research fields, it will also provide an alternative thinking for scholars and policy makers to design curriculum for different class sizes.

1. Biggs, J.(1998).Learning from the Confucian heritage: So size doesn't matter?.International Journal of Educational Research,29,723-738.
2. Blatchford, P.,Bassett, P.,Goldstein, H.,Martin, C.(2003).Are class size differences related to pupils' educational progress and classroom process? Findings from the institute of education class size study of children aged 5-7 Years.British Educational Research Journal,29,709-730.
3. Blatchford, P.,Goldstein, H.,Martin, C.,Browne W.(2002).A study of class size effects in English school reception year classes.British Educational Research Journal,28,169-185.
4. Blatchford, P.,Moriarty, V.,Edmonds, S.,Martin, C.(2002).Relationship between class size and teaching: A multimethod analysis of English infant schools.American Educational Research Journal,39,101-132.
5. Desimone, L. M.,Smith, T.,Baker, D.,Ueno, K.(2005).Assessing barriers to the reform of U.S. mathematics instruction from an international perspective.American Educational Research Journal,42,501-535.
6. Ehrenberg, R. G.,Brewer, D. J.,Gamoran, A.,Willms, J. D.(2001).Class size and student achievement.Psychological Science,2,1-30.
7. Finn, J. D.,Achilles, C. M.(1999).Tennessee's class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,21,97-109.
8. Glass, G. V.,Smith, M. L.(1979).Meta-analysis of research on class size and achievement.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,1,2-16.
9. Grissmer, D.(1999).Class size effects: Assessing the evidence, its policy implications, and future research agenda.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,21,231-248.
10. Hanushek, E. A.(1999).Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,21(2),143-164.
11. Jin, L.,Cortazzi, M.(1998).Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China.International Journal of Educational Research,29,739-761.
12. Lindahl, M.(2005).Home versus school learning: A new approach to estimating the effect of class size on achievement.Scandinavian Journal of Economics,107,375-394.
13. Mosteller, F.(1995).The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades.Future of Children,5,112-127.
14. Nye, B.,Hedges, L. V.,Konstantopoulos, S.(2001).Are effects of small classes cumulative? Evidence from a Tennessee experiment.Journal of Educational Research,94,336-352.
15. Pong, S. L.,Pallas, A.(2001).Class size and eighth-grade math achievement in the United States and abroad.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,23,251-273.
16. Raudenbush, S. W.,Bryk, A. S.(2002).Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods.Newbury Park, CA:SAGE.
17. Raudenbush, S. W.,Bryk, A. S.,Cheong, Y. F.,Congdon, R.,du Toit, M.(2004).HLM6: Hierarchical linear & nonlinear modeling.Lincolnwood, IL:Scientific Software International.
18. Wen, M. L.(2002).MO.,University of Missouri-Columbia.
19. Class-size effects in school systems around the world: Evidence from between-grade variation in TIMSS
20. Zahorik, J.(1999).Reducing class size leads to individualized instruction.Educational Leadership,570,50-53.
21. 王淑珍(2005)。小班教學之政策分析。國教新知，52，56-68。
22. 吳清山、蔡菁芝(2001)。中美兩國降低班級人數政策之研究。初等教育學刊，10，1-28。
23. 李咏吟(2001)。加州小班教學的實施成效及其對臺灣教育的啓示。文教新潮，6，17-27。
24. 洪欽國(1998)。國小如何實施小班教學精神。現代教育論壇，5，49-53。
25. 徐世瑜(2000)。小班教學精神的理論與實務。臺北市立師範學院學報，31，93-103。
26. 國民中學學生基本學力測驗推動工作委員會(2000)。基本學力測驗的分數。飛揚期刊，6，10-15。
27. 教育部(1998)。發展小班教學精神計畫。
28. 教育部(1998)。精緻國民教育方案。臺北市:教育部國教司。
29. 陳利銘、許添明(2003)。我國小班政策之檢討與改進建議。教育政策論壇，6，1-20。
30. 黃義良(2002)。實施「小班教學」對國小師生互動與學童學習動機影響之研究。人文及社會學科教學通訊，13，143-153。
31. 翟本瑞(2004)。小班教學與學習成效影響之研究。教育社會學通訊，56，6-11。
32. 翟本瑞、薛淑美(2005)。臺灣降低國民中小學班级人數成效及現況。教育社會學通訊，64，9-14。
33. 劉介宇、洪永泰、莊義利、陳怡如、翁文舜、劉季鑫(2006)。臺灣地區鄉鎮市區發展類型應用於大型健康調查抽樣設計之研究。健康管理學刊，4，1-22。

1. 蔡振州、吳毓瑩(2014)。東南亞裔新移民女性之子女的學業成就真的比較差嗎？與本地對照組比較之三年追蹤探究。教育研究集刊，60(1)，77-113。
2. 黃毅志、陳順利(2015)。解除 Coleman 等人報告書的魔咒：學校中的班級因素對學業成績之影響。教育科學研究期刊，60(2)，111-138。
3. 李俊仁(2015)。你的少男少女時代－班級大小與教學的改變。教育脈動，4，165-169。
4. 歐宗霖、溫福星、張毓仁、柯華葳、邱皓政(2011)。教師閱讀教學行為與學生閱讀態度和閱讀能力自我評價對於閱讀成就之跨層次影響：以PIRLS 2006為例。教育科學研究期刊，56(2)，69-105。
5. 潘佩妤、宋曜廷(2010)。混合研究在教育研究的應用。教育科學研究期刊，55(4)，97-130。
6. 闕月清,李柏昂(2023)。個人與社會責任模式融入偏鄉國小飛盤課程之研究。中等教育，74(2)，46-67。
7. 楊雅婷、陳奕樺(2016)。臺灣國小行動學習計畫的學生自評學習效益影響因素探討。教育科學研究期刊，61(3)，99-129。
8. 趙子揚,宋曜廷(2019)。中學生考試壓力與個人特性：潛在類別分析。教育科學研究期刊，64(3)，203-235。
9. (2018)。臺灣後期中等教育因應少子女化策略規劃及行動方案之研究。教育政策論壇，21(2)，25-55。
10. (2020)。公立中小學教師人事成本國際比較。教育行政與評鑑學刊，27，61-106。
11. (2023)。以參與課外活動滋養正向少年發展：潛在剖面分析及都市化脈絡的觀察。當代教育研究季刊，31(4)，41-74。