華人地區數學素養教育效率比較

Educational Efficiency of Mathematical Literacy: A Comparison of Four Ethnically Chinese Regions

10.6209/JORIES.201812_63(4).0001

鄭永福(Yung-Fu Cheng)；許瑛玿(Ying-Shao Hsu)；李哲迪(Che-Di Lee)

效率分解 ； 教育效率 ； 資料包絡分析 ； 數學素養 ； 國際學生能力評量計畫 ； data envelopment analysis ； decomposition of efficiency ； educational efficiency ； mathematical literacy ； PISA

教育科學研究期刊

63卷4期（2018 / 12 / 01）

1 - 28

繁體中文

本研究利用國際學生能力評量計畫2012年資料比較臺灣（只包括人口數大於100萬的七個大城市）、上海、香港與新加坡等四個華人地區的數學素養教育效率，並從教育效率的角度探討這四個地區數學教育的公平性。資料包絡分析法及效率分解法之分析結果顯示，臺灣與上海的「綜合效率」（含地區、學校與個人教育效率）、「地區與學校效率」與「地區系統效率」都是最高。然而，歸因於個人之無效率以臺灣與上海最高，歸因於學校之無效率在四個地區無顯著差異，歸因於地區之無效率以香港最高。在四個地區教育公平性方面，在高與低綜合教育效率學生之間，個人、學校與地區三個層級的無效率存在差異。具體而言，在個人層級，臺灣的無效率差異最大、上海次之；在學校層級，新加坡的無效率差異最大、臺灣次之；在地區層級，僅上海存在差異。總結而言，臺灣雖是數學素養教育效率最佳的兩個地區之一，然而，歸因於個人之無效率仍有相對較高的數值，且個人與學校之無效率也存在高與低教育效率學生之間差異過大的問題。此結果顯示，臺灣在個人和學校層級的教育效率仍有改進的空間。

This study uses data from the Programme for International Student Assessment 2012 to compare the educational efficiency of mathematical literacy and explore the educational equality of mathematics with educational efficiency across four ethnically Chinese regions, including Taiwan (containing seven cities with a population greater than 1 million), Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Data envelopment analysis and decomposition of efficiency revealed that Taiwan and Shanghai have the highest overall efficiency (the total of the regional, school, and individual levels), regional plus school efficiency (the total of the regional and school levels), and regional system efficiency. However, Taiwan and Shanghai have the most inefficiency at the individual level, and Hong Kong has the most inefficiency at the regional level. At the school level, there was no significant difference in terms of inefficiency among the four regions. Regarding educational equality among the four regions, there were significant differences in educational inefficiency at the individual, school, and regional levels between students with high and low overall educational efficiency. Specifically, at the individual level, Taiwan had the largest inefficiency difference between students with high and low overall efficiency, followed by Shanghai. At the school level, Singapore had the largest inefficiency difference, followed by Taiwan. At the regional level, only Shanghai had a significant difference in inefficiency. In summary, although Taiwan is one of the top two of these four regions in terms of the educational efficiency of mathematical literacy, it has the most educational inefficiency at the individual level and higher inefficiency differences at the individual and school levels between students with high and low overall efficiency. This indicates that Taiwan can still improve its educational efficiency.

1. Wu, M.(2011).Using PISA and TIMSS mathematics assessments to identify the relative strengths of students in Western and Asian countries.Journal of Research in Education Sciences,56(1),67-89.
   連結：
2. 任宗浩、譚克平、張立民(2011)。二階段分層叢集抽樣的設計效應估計：以TIMSS 2007 調查研究為例。教育科學研究期刊，56(1)，33-65。
   連結：
3. 張立民(2011)。透過PISA 與TIMSS 評比研究檢視西方與亞洲學生數學的相對強項。教育科學研究期刊，56(1)，67-89。
   連結：
4. 張良丞、許添明、吳新傑(2016)。國民中學適足教育經費：臺灣偏遠與非偏遠地區學校的比較。教育科學研究期刊，61(3)，43-67。
   連結：
5. 陳敏瑜、游錦雲(2013)。以TIMSS 資料檢視能力信念與任務價值對臺灣八年級學生數學成就之影響。教育科學研究期刊，58(3)，153-186。
   連結：
6. 陳嘉成、陳柏霖、洪兆祥、薛人華(2018)。劍的雙面刃─國中數學科不同成就學生學習組型差異之分析。教育科學研究期刊，63(3)，105-130。
   連結：
7. 彭開琼、張佳雯、李瑞生(2017)。OECD國家與臺灣之教育績效比較：以PISA 科學素養為例。教育科學研究期刊，62(4)，145-179。
   連結：
8. 劉潔玲(2009)。香港中學生在國際學生評估計畫的閱讀表現對語文課程改革的啟示。教育科學研究期刊，54(2)，85-105。
   連結：
9. Afonso, A.,St. Aubyn, M.(2006).Cross-country efficiency of secondary education provision: A semi-parametric analysis with non-discretionary inputs.Economic Modelling,23(3),476-491.
10. Agasisti, T.(2011).How competition affects schools' performances: Does specification matter?.Economics Letters,110(3),259-261.
11. Agasisti, T.(2014).The efficiency of public spending on education: An empirical comparison of EU countries.European Journal of Education,49(4),543-557.
12. Banker, R. D.,Charnes, A.,Cooper, W. W.(1984).Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis.Management Science,30(9),1078-1092.
13. Berger, M. C.,Toma, E. F.(1994).Variation in state education policies and effects on student performance.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,13(3),477-491.
14. Bessent, A.,Bessent, W.,Kennington, J.,Reagan, B.(1982).An application of mathematical programming to assess productivity in the Houston independent school district.Management Science,28(12),1355-1367.
15. Bogetoft, P.,Otto, L.(2015).Benchmarking with DEA, SFA, and R.New York, NY:Springer.
16. Chan, J. L.(Ed.),Patton, J. M.(Ed.)(1989).Research in governmental and nonprofit accounting.Bingley, UK:Emerald.
17. Charnes, A.,Cooper, W. W.,Rhodes, E.(1978).Measuring the efficiency of decision making units.European Journal of Operational Research,2(6),429-444.
18. Crespo-Cebada, E.,Pedraja-Chaparro, F.,Santín, D.(2014).Does school ownership matter? An unbiased efficiency comparison for regions of Spain.Journal of Productivity Analysis,41(1),153-172.
19. Dawson, W.(2010).Private tutoring and mass schooling in East Asia: Reflections of inequality in Japan, South Korea, and Cambodia.Asia Pacific Education Review,11(1),14-24.
20. Deutsch, J.,Dumas, A.,Silber, J.(2013).Estimating an educational production function for five countries of Latin America on the basis of the PISA data.Economics of Education Review,36,245-262.
21. Giménez, V.,Prior, D.,Thieme, C.(2007).Technical efficiency, managerial efficiency and objective-setting in the educational system: An international comparison.Journal of the Operational Research Society,58(8),996-1007.
22. Golany, B.,Roll, Y.(1989).An application procedure for DEA.Omega,17(3),237-250.
23. Hanushek, E. A.,Taylor, L. L.(1990).Alternative assessments of the performance of schools: Measurement of state variations in achievement.The Journal of Human Resources,25(2),179-201.
24. Jen, T.-H.,Lee, C.-D.,Chien, C.-L.,Hsu, Y.-S.,Chen, K.-M.(2013).Perceived social relationships and science learning outcomes for Taiwanese eighth graders: Structural equation modeling with a complex sampling consideration.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,11(3),575-600.
25. Jesson, D.,Mayston, D.,Smith, P.(1987).Performance assessment in the education sector: Educational and economic perspectives.Oxford Review of Education,13(3),249-266.
26. Liu, J.(2012).Does cram schooling matter? Who goes to cram schools? Evidence from Taiwan.International Journal of Educational Development,32(1),46-52.
27. Mancebón, M.-J.,Calero, J.,Choi, Á.,Ximénez-de-Embún, D. P.(2012).The efficiency of public and publicly subsidized high schools in Spain: Evidence from PISA-2006.Journal of the Operational Research Society,63(11),1516-1533.
28. Mayston, D.,Jesson, D.(1988).Developing models of educational accountability.Oxford Review of Education,14(3),321-339.
29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). PISA 2015 technical report. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2015-technical-report/
30. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 technical report. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA-2012-technical-report-final.pdf
31. Portela, M. C. A. S.,Thanassoulis, E.(2001).Decomposing school and school-type efficiency.European Journal of Operational Research,132(2),357-373.
32. Schümer, G.(1999).Mathematics education in Japan.Journal of Curriculum Studies,31(4),399-427.
33. Stevenson, D. L.,Baker, D. P.(1992).Shadow education and allocation in formal schooling: Transition to university in Japan.American Journal of Sociology,97(6),1639-1657.
34. Sue, S.,Okazaki, S.(1990).Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an explanation.American Psychologist,45(8),913-920.
35. Thanassoulis, E.(1999).Setting achievement targets for school children.Education Economics,7(2),101-119.
36. Thanassoulis, E.,Dunstan, P.(1994).Guiding schools to improved performance using data envelopment analysis: An illustration with data from a local education authority.Journal of the Operational Research Society,45(11),1247-1262.
37. Thieme, C.,Giménez, V.,Prior, D.(2012).A comparative analysis of the efficiency of national education systems.Asia Pacific Education Review,13(1),1-15.
38. White, K. R.(1982).The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement.Psychological Bulletin,91(3),461-481.
39. Zhang, L.-C.,Sheu, T.-M.(2013).Effective investment strategies on mathematics performance in rural areas.Quality & Quantity,47,2999-3017.
40. Zhou, Y.,Wang, D.(2015).The family socioeconomic effect on extra lessons in Greater China: A comparison between Shanghai, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao.The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,24(2),363-377.
41. 臺灣PISA國家研究中心(2015)。臺灣PISA 2012結果報告。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological。

1. 李靜儀(Ching-Yi Lee);林園修(Yuan-Hsiu Lin);張仁誠(Ren-Cheng Zhang)(2022)。國際學生能力評量計畫數學學習成就之系統性文獻分析。臺灣數學教育期刊。9(2)。1-32。