臺灣閱讀教育治理之城鄉差異探究

Urban-Rural Differences in Governance of Reading Education in Taiwan

10.6209/JORIES.202212_67(4).0003

謝卓君(Chuo-Chun Hsieh)；閔詩紜(Shih-Yun Ming)

城鄉差異 ； 政策工具 ； 教育治理 ； 閱讀教育 ； 閱讀教育政策 ； rural-urban differences ； policy instruments ； education governance ； reading education ； policy on reading education

教育科學研究期刊

67卷4期（2022 / 12 / 01）

73 - 104

英文

鑑於國際閱讀評比與國內閱讀力調查報告屢屢提及我國閱讀教育表現呈現城鄉差距的情況，本研究從教育治理的理論觀點出發，分析臺灣地方政府推動閱讀教育之策略與治理特性，進而探究改善閱讀教育城鄉差異的可能途徑。研究採取多重個案研究法，依據極端案例抽樣、最大變異抽樣與理論為本抽樣等三原則，篩選出四個個案縣市，並針對2010～2020年中央與地方政府的政策與官方文件，挑選符合重要政治性抽樣、準則抽樣和資料適足性等三個原則之政策文本，進行內容分析。本研究的主要結論為：一、縣市閱讀教育治理的城鄉特性：（一）閱讀表現優異的個案縣市展現法制治理特性；（二）閱讀表現優異的都會個案傾向反映市場治理特性；（三）偏鄉地方政府政治能力會影響閱讀教育治理策略的多元化。二、閱讀教育城鄉差異的改善途徑：（一）偏鄉地方可藉由政治能力填補政府技術能力的不足；（二）偏鄉地方可透過網絡治理彌補政府技術能力的不足。本研究亦根據研究結果對於當前教育政策實務與未來研究提出建議。

Research Background and Purposes. International studies and domestic education surveys have identified considerable gaps in reading performance between the rural and urban regions of Taiwan. In contrast to extant studies, the present study, from a macroscopic perspective, explored possible explanations for the urban-rural discrepancies and focused on government intervention for improving adult reading ability and student reading performance. Based on theories of governance and public policy, the developed an analytical framework to understand the strategies adopted by local governments in Taiwan to promote reading education, identify the characteristics of local reading education governance in Taiwan, and suggest potential approaches to resolving rural-urban differences in reading education. Theoretical Perspectives and Framework. This study considered governance as a dynamic process of power exercise and decision-making. In a democracy, governance refers to an interactive process through which the government, stakeholders, and civil society determine educational policies and affairs. Specifically, the study defined education governance as the collective behavior of the government and relevant actors in the formation and implementation of educational policies. If stakeholders from the public, the private, and the third sectors become progressively involved in developing education policies, governments may no longer be the sole and dominant policy actors in the education domain. Accordingly, this study considered reading education governance in Taiwan to be the collective interaction process between the government and relevant stakeholders on reading education policy development. Because policy instruments or tools are perceived as a governmental approach to achieving policy goals and addressing policy problems, scholars have viewed education governance from the perspective of public policy as involving the process of selecting and implementing policy instruments. This study developed an analytical framework for education governance, which comprises two key components, namely governance models and governance strategies. Both components were determined by Christopher Hood's NATO (nodality-authority-treasure-organization) model, which is regarded as the most representative classification structure in the literature on public administration and policy. The NATO model covers almost all aspects of government actions that may affect the people through four approaches and accordingly divides policy instruments into four categories: (1) nodality, (2) authority, (3) treasure, (4) and organization. Furthermore, the present study divided governance models into four categories depending on which types of policy instruments are selected and implemented by the government. The main categories of education governance in the classification framework are outlined as follows: (1) legal governance, which relies on the legitimacy of law orders to generate control and obedience, reflects the administrative logic of the traditional bureaucratic system; (2) corporatist governance, in which the government plans and negotiates education policies under organizational and national systems, reflects the characteristics of traditional public administration; (3) market governance, in which the government prefers to adopt market mechanisms to generate competition and incentives, reflects the logic of new public management that emphasizes flexible principles and efficient methods to achieve policy goals; and (4) network governance, in which the government prefers operations not related to bureaucratic or hierarchical principles, involves the collaborative interaction of multiple actors in the educational domain. Research Methods. Because of the lack of literature on how local governments govern reading education, this study adopted an exploratory research orientation to obtain a comprehensive understanding of this topic. A comparative case study approach was applied to provide a more thorough description of the change in governance and policies regarding reading education. Specifically, the study adopted focused case comparisons and followed the principle of multiple-case holistic analysis. To expand the depth and breadth of research data, this study applied a two-stage intentional sampling method. The first stage involved extreme or deviant case sampling to extract useful information from successful case experiences. This stage entailed searching for local counties and cities with excellent reading performance. The second stage involved selecting cases that offer valuable insights into the understanding of governance characteristics and strategies related to local government promotion of reading education. The cases were selected from those that stood out in the first stage based on the principles of maximum variation sampling. In addition, the principle of theory-based sampling was adopted for case selection in the second stage. Finally, the study selected four cases that exhibited considerable differences in their local governments in terms of governance capacity. This study perceives governance capability as a collective term that refers to a government's political capability and technical capability and is a crucial factor affecting the choice and effectiveness of governance strategies. In accordance with the principles of sampling politically important cases, criterion sampling, and data sufficiency, this study collected prominent policy and official documents published during 2010-2020 by four individual local governments and then conducted a comparative content analysis. Research Results and Implications. The study yielded five major findings. First, all cases with high performance reflected the features of legal governance when promoting reading education. Second, reading education in urban counties with high performance was inclined to exhibit strategies relating to market governance. Third, local governments' political capacity was influential in the diversification of governance strategies for promoting reading education in rural counties. Fourth, rural counties could compensate for their insufficient technical capacity with political capacity. Fifth, rural counties could compensate for their insufficient political capacity through network governance. The study findings can contribute to the understanding of differences in local governments' governance strategies and characteristics related to the promotion of reading education. This study argues that when local governments prefer to use bidding and tax incentives as policy instruments for achieving their policy goals and attach great importance to the effective use of resources and the control of cost efficiency, their local communities would be more vulnerable to problems of sacrificing social justice in the governance process. In addition, local governments in rural regions with insufficient financial resources and funds for education still produce effective reading education governance if the local government and council heads are affiliated with the same political party; this is because affiliation with the same political party engenders a considerable degree of political capacity for local governments. Finally, the introduction of civil assistance and resources would contribute to narrowing the rural-urban gap in reading education and performance through the implementation of specific governance strategies (such as setting up interdisciplinary teams, promoting private sector sponsorship and cooperation, and implementing other organizational policy tools that demonstrate the characteristics of network governance).

1. 吳宜貞, I.-C.(2002)。家庭環境因素對兒童閱讀能力影響之探討。教育心理學報，34(1)，1-19。
   連結：
2. 吳訓生, S.-S.(2002)。國小高、低閱讀理解能力學生閱讀理解策略之比較研究。特殊教育學報，16，65-104。
   連結：
3. 吳訓生, S.-S.(2002)。國小高、低閱讀理解能力學生閱讀理解策略之比較研究。特殊教育學報，16，65-104。
   連結：
4. 呂淑華, S.-H.,張芬芬, F.-F.(2013)。分享式閱讀教學對國小二年級學童閱讀態度及理解之成效研究。教育研究與發展期刊，9(2)，91-115。
   連結：
5. 柯華葳, H.-W.(2020)。臺灣閱讀策略教學政策與執行。教育科學研究期刊，65(1)，93-114。
   連結：
6. 洪月女, Y.-N.,楊雅斯, Y.-S.(2014)。讀報結合閱讀理解策略教學對國小四年級學童學習成效之研究。教育科學研究期刊，59(4)，1-26。
   連結：
7. 唐淑華, S.-H.,蔡孟寧, M.-N.,林烘煜, H.-Y.(2015)。臺灣青少年對大問題關心程度、學習信念、閱讀習慣與其心理適應之關聯。課程與教學，18(2)，1-25。
   連結：
8. 張芳華, F.-H.(2017)。學校推廣閱讀活動對國小四年級學童課後閱讀參與的影響：以悅讀101計畫為例。教育研究集刊，63(2)，101-133。
   連結：
9. 張毓仁, Y.-J.,柯華葳, H.-W.,邱皓政, H.-J.,歐宗霖, T.-L.,溫福星, F.-H.(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。
   連結：
10. 陳明蕾, M.-L.(2018)。課文本位閱讀策略教學對國小學童閱讀表現與策略使用覺知情形之影響。教育心理學報，49(4)，581-609。
    連結：
11. 陳明蕾, M.-L.(2019)。台灣十年來教師閱讀教學與學生閱讀表現關係之探討：來自PIRLS 2006、2011與2016的證據。教育心理學報，51(1)，51-82。
    連結：
12. 陳海泓, H.-H.(2015)。CORI融入社會領域教學對國民小學五年級學生閱讀成效的影響。教育科學研究期刊，60(1)，99-129。
    連結：
13. 陳素燕, S.-Y.(2001)。提昇兒童自發性課外閱讀行為及態度～國小童書臨床教學之行動研究。課程與教學，4(3)，35-52+192。
    連結：
14. 陸怡琮, I.-C.(2011)。摘要策略教學對提升國小五年級學童摘要能力與閱讀理解的成效。教育科學研究期刊，56(3)，91-118。
    連結：
15. 楊麗秋, L.-C.,黃秀霜, H.-S.,陳惠萍, H.-P.(2009)。書談閱讀學對國小國語科低成就學童閱讀動機影響之研究。課程與教學，12(3)，153-186。
    連結：
16. 劉潔玲, K.-L.(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：
17. 蔡逸芬, Y.-F.,陳品華, P.-H.(2015)。國小高年級學童課外閱讀自我決定動機之研究。教育心理學報，46(3)，425-448。
    連結：
18. 謝卓君, C.-C.(2017)。從政策工具選擇省思臺灣高等教育治理。教育研究集刊，63(3)，41-75。
    連結：
19. (2009).親子天下0~15歲閱讀力實戰關鍵（特刊）.
20. (2002).中華民國九十一年圖書館年鑑.國家圖書館=National Central Library.
21. Allen, J.,Carr, G.(2002).The tangled web-neighborhood governance in post-fordist era.Urban governance, institutional capacity and social milieux
22. Bovaird, T.,Löffler, E.(2002).Moving from excellence models of local service delivery to benchmarking "Good Local Governance.".International Review of Administrative Sciences,68(1),9-24.
23. Burns, T.(Ed.),Köster, F.(Ed.)(2016).Governing education in a complex world. Educational research and innovation.OECD Publishing.
24. Campbell, J. L.(2004).Institutional change and globalization.Princeton University Press.
25. Capano, G.(2011).Government continues to do its job: A comparative study of governance shifts in the higher education sector.Public Administration,89(4),1622-1642.
26. Capano, G.(2018).Policy design spaces in reforming governance in higher education: The dynamics in Italy and the Netherlands.Higher Education,75(4),675-694.
27. Capano, G.,Lippi, A.(2017).How policy instruments are chosen: Patterns of decision makers’ choices.Policy Sciences,50(2),269-293.
28. Crabtree, B. F.,Miller, W. L.(2002).Doing qualitative research.Sage.
29. Druckman, D.(2005).Doing research: Methods of inquiry for conflict analysis.Sage.
30. Floden, R. E.(2003).Introduction: Policy tools for improving education.Review of Research in Education,27,ix-xii.
31. Hannaway, J.,Woodroffe, N.(2003).Policy instruments in education.Review of Research in Education,27,1-24.
32. Heinrich, C.(Ed.),Lynn, L.(Ed.)(2000).Governance and performance: New perspectives.Georgetown University Press.
33. Hood, C.,Margetts, H. Z.(2007).The tools of government in the digital age.Palgrave Macmillan.
34. Howlett, M.(2009).Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design.Policy Sciences,42(1),73-89.
35. Landman, T.(2008).Issues and methods in comparative politics: An introduction.Routledge.
36. McGinn, N. F.(2002).International and national trends in local governance of education.UNESCO.
37. Pierre, J.,Peters, B. G.(2000).Governance, politics and the state.Macmilan.
38. Rhodes, R. A.(1996).The new governance: Governing without government.Political Studies,44,652-667.
39. Rueschemeyer, D.(2003).Can one or a few cases yield gains.Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences
40. Schneider, A. L.,Ingram, H. M.(1990).Behavioral assumptions of policy tools.The Journal of Politics,52(2),510-529.
41. Suri, H.(2011).Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis.Qualitative Research Journal,11(2),63-75.
42. Sykes, G.,Schneider, B.,Plank, D. N.(2009).Handbook of education policy research.Routledge.
43. van Vught, F. A.(1995).Policy models and policy instruments in higher education. The effects of governmental policy-making on the innovative behaviour of higher education institutions.Political Science Series,26,1-50.
44. Wilson, R. H.(2000).Understanding local governance: An international perspective.Revista de Administração de Empresas,40(2),51-63.
45. Yin, R. K.(2009).Case study research: Design and methods.Sage.
46. 中央選舉委員會=Central Election Commission(2019)。中央選舉委員會（2019）。歷屆公職選舉資料。選舉資料庫。https://db.cec.gov.tw 【Central Election Commission. (2019). Information on each election for public office. Election Database Website. https://db.cec.gov.tw】。https://db.cec.gov.tw
47. 王麗雲, L.-Y.(2007)。地方教育治理模式分析。教育政策論壇，10(1)，189-228。
48. 朱景鵬, C.-P.,朱鎮明, C.-M.,魯炳炎, P.-Y.(2004)。,行政院研究發展考核委員會=Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, Executive Yuan。
49. 行政院主計總處（2019，8月30日）。各直轄市及縣（市）政府財力級次表（主預補字第1080102140號函）。https://law-out.mof.gov.tw/Download.ashx?FileID=45788 【Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics of Executive Yuan. (2019, August 30). Financial rank and order table of municipalities and county (city) governments (NO. 1080102140). https://law-out.mof.gov.tw/Download.ashx?FileID=45788】
50. 柯華葳、張郁雯、丘嘉慧、詹益綾、游婷雅（2012）。PIRLS 2011報告：臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養。國立中央大學。https://sites.google.com/site/reading8learning01/pirls/pirls-2011 【Ko, H.-W., Chang, Y.-W., Chiu, C.-H., Chan, Y.-L., & Yu, T.-Y. (2012). PIRLS 2011 report: The reading literacy of grade-4 students in Taiwan. National Central University. https://sites.google.com/site/reading8learning01/pirls/pirls-2011】
51. 柯華葳, H.-W.,張郁雯, Y.-W.,詹益綾, Y.-L.,丘嘉慧, C.-H.(2017)。,國立中央大學=National Central University。
52. 柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤、游婷雅（2008）。臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養（PIRLS 2006報告）。國立中央大學。https://sites.google.com/site/reading8learning01/pirls/pirls-2006 【Ko, H.-W., Chan, Y.-L., Chang, C.-Y., & Yu, T.-Y. (2008). The reading literacy of grade-4 students in Taiwan (PIRLS 2006 report). National Central University. https://sites.google.com/site/reading8learning01/pirls/pirls-2006】
53. 國家圖書館圖書館事業發展組=National Central Library Librarianship Development Division(2021)。,國家圖書館=National Central Library。
54. 張瀞文, C.-W.(2010)。台灣25縣市教育力大調查。親子天下雜誌，14，58-67。
55. 張瀞文, C.-W.(2010)。南投縣：弱勢縣市的民間力量。親子天下雜誌，14，90-91。
56. 陳世文, S.-W.,楊文金, W.-G.(2006)。以系統功能語言學探討學生對不同科學文本的閱讀理解。師大學報：科學教育類，51(1, 2)，107-124。
57. 陳盈螢, Y.-Y.(2020)。國中生閱讀素養比國小生堪憂！。親子天下雜誌，113，56-59。
58. 新聞行銷處公共關係科（2021，3月7日）。「整體閱讀力躍升城市」評比，嘉義縣「縣市人口50萬以上組」第1名。嘉義縣政府縣府新聞。https://www.cyhg.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=20C1A3DAF6A74FCE&s=75A56E06226B5D85 【News Marketing Department Public Relationship Section. (2021, March 7). In “overall reading ability improves cities” evaluation, Chiayi county got a first in groups with a population of more than 500,000. Chiayi county government news. https://www.cyhg.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=20C1A3DAF6A74FCE&s=75A56E06226B5D85】
59. 劉坤億, K.-I.(2003)。地方治理與地方政府角色職能的轉變。國立空中大學空大行政學報，13，233-268。
60. 審計部（2019）。總決算審核報告。https://www.audit.gov.tw/p/412-1000-97.php?Lang=zh-tw 【National Audit Office. (2019). General final audit report. https://www.audit.gov.tw/p/412-1000-97.php?Lang=zh-tw】