國三學生對公民與道德科經濟教材經濟認知成效之評估－以附加價值法探討

An Evaluation of the Effect of Economics Materials on Economic Understanding in Junior High School Third Grade Civics Course: A Value-added Approach

黃美筠

《公民訓育學報》 12期 (2002/07) Pp. 59-108

https://doi.org/10.6231/CME.2002(12)03

摘要

我國的教育決策者理解到經濟教育的特殊需求，自民國七十五年起國中『公民與道德』課程中即大幅增加國民生活必須的經濟學教材。由於現行國中公民與道德第三冊是國中階段最基本、完整的經濟學教材，而學生是此統一教材的最終消費者，因此教材的良窳可由學生的學習成效，來作最佳的評斷。此外，使用該教材的教師亦可在實務上對此教材作最佳的評鑑。緣此，本研究以公立國中三年級學生為對象，採用問卷調查法蒐集學生學習此教材前後（附加價值法）對經濟知識認知程度的相關資料，以及任課教師對該教材的評估資料。以經濟知識測驗、初中經濟學教材評估準則與二份基本資料問卷為評量工具。本研究採用二階段抽樣，首先依東、北、中、南地區比例分配隨機抽取17 所公立國中。再採叢集取樣34 班，有效樣本共計1,205 名學生。研究結果有以下的發現：一、本研究之TVTEK 前後測分數差異達顯著水準，顯然現行經濟教材（即公民與道德第三冊教科書）的確對學生的經濟知識有所增進。事實上，也改變了學生對經濟學的態度。二、在四項經濟內容類目中，國中學生答對百分比最高的是「基本」經濟概念，其次為「國際」和「個體」的經濟學概念，最差的則為「總體」經濟學概念。三、在三個認知層次中，學生答對百分比最高的是「理解」層次，其次為「應用」，表現最差的則為「知識」層次。四、台灣國三學生的經濟知識測驗平均分數顯著高於美國修習過經濟學的九年級學生。五、使用現行教材的國三學生的經濟知識測驗平均分數顯著低於使用舊教材的國三學生。六、台灣和美國國中生在經濟知識的四項內容類目及三個認知層次（除了個體經濟學類目及知識層次外）的平均答對百分比皆呈顯著差異，而台灣學生在各方面表現均較美國學生為佳。七、使用現行教材和舊教材的學生在經濟知識的四項內容類目及三個認知層次（除了基本經濟概念類目外）的平均答對百分比皆呈顯著差異，而使用舊經濟教材的學生在各方面表現均較使用現行教材的學生為佳。八、前後測分數差（附加價值）逐步多元迴歸分析顯示，有七項變項可解釋國三學生經濟知識測驗分數的變異情形。所有的有效預測變項合計僅能解釋非常低之4%的分數變異情形。九、後測逐步多元迴歸分析顯示，有十二項變項可解釋國三學生經濟知識測驗分數的變異情形。其中最佳的預測變項是「學期成績」，和其他與之共同解釋經濟知識分數的有效預測變項合計可解釋大約38%的分數變異情形。十、依據本研究所提供的15 項準則，公民與道德教師對現行經濟教材（即第三冊教科書）的評估顯示：現行教材最符合「正確地使用經濟概念和原則」、「鼓勵學生在學習中積極的參與」與「列舉明確的可以做得到的目標」這三項準則，而評估等級最差的則為「教師指引很完整」、「鼓勵學生做抽象地推理」二項。現行經濟教材的綜合平均等級為3.36，相對於一五分等級量表，還算差強人意。十一、根據本研究分析結果，學生在學習上與教師在教學上都覺得困難的經濟概念，大多數集中於該冊教科書第四課、第九課及第十課。

關鍵字

經濟教育 ； 經濟認知 ； 經濟知識 ； 經濟學教材

並列摘要

Recognizing the value of teaching economics to students, Taiwanese high schools have provided a mandated course in economics since 1986. Specifically junior high school students are required to take the course titled ”civics” for one semester in ninth grade. Since the single textbook is the primary instructional tool in Taiwan junior high school classrooms, the quality of this economics materials should have a critical influence on the effectiveness of economic education. Students, however are the ultimate consumers of the standardized curriculum materials and the quality of its best judged by the achievement outcome of student's economic learning. Therefore, this study utilized the survey method to collect data regarding economic concepts and cognitive levels of third grade junior high school students before and after taking the course（value-added Approach). And the civics teachers also were invited in using a specific set of criteria developed by this study to evaluate the economics materials. The instrument that were used are the Test of Economic Knowledge, Criteria for Reviewing Junior High School Economics Materials with two information questionnaire.Two-stage sampling procedures were used in selecting the sample. A sample of seventeen junior high schools were contacted. A total of 34 third grade classes with 1,205 students were utilized as the sample in this study.This study drew the following conclusions:1. Data analysis revealed significant differences in the mean economic knowledge scores between the post-and pre-test. Therefore, the current economics materials（the Textbook) seemed to improve students' economics learning and change attitudes toward economics.2. Of the four economics content categories, students correctly answered the highest percentage of questions in the area of ”fundamental” economic concepts, followed by ”International”, ”Microeconomic”. ”Macroeconomic” is the area of the weakest performance by students.3. Of the three cognitive levels students had the greatest percentage of correct responses to question at the ”Comprehension” level, followed by ”Application” and ”Knowledge” level.4. Taiwanese ninth graders mean score significantly higher on the Test of Economic knowledge than do United States ninth graders with economics instruction.5. Ninth graders with current economic materials mean score significantly lower on the TEK than do ninth graders with past-used economic materials.6. Data analysis revealed significant differences in the average percentage of correct responses from the four content categories and the three cognitive levels（except for the ”Microeconomic” area and ”knowledge” level) of the test items between junior high schools students in Taiwan and in the United States consistently favoring Taiwan students.7. Data analysis revealed significant differences in the average percentage of correct responses from the four content categories and the three cognitive levels（except for the ”fundamental” area) of the test items between ninth graders with current and past-used economic materials consistently favoring past-used materials students.8. The post-pre（Value-added) stepwise multiple regression procedure revealed seven characteristics that were significant in explaining a portion of variance in the knowledge scores of the respondents. The overall significant predictors in combination only accounted for a very low about 4% of the variance in economic knowledge scores.9. The post stepwise multiple regression procedure revealed twelve characteristics that were significant in explaining a portion of variance in the knowledge scores of the respondents. The best predictor is the students' ”overall GPA”. The other significant predictors in combination with students' GPA accounted for about 38% of the variance in economic knowledge scores.10. Using a specific set of criteria provided from this study, the current economics materials（the Textbook) was evaluated by civics teachers. The Textbook performs well on such variables as ”Accurate economic concepts”, ”Active student involvement” and ”Specific objectives”. The Textbook, However, was also rated as having disadvantages on such variables as ”Completeness of teacher directions” and ”Encourages abstract reasoning”. The overall mean ranking of the Textbook was a little less well 3.36 on a 5 point scale.11. According to the findings of this study, the specific concepts that present the most difficult to students 'learning and teacher' instructions are mostly included in Lesson 4, 9 and 10 of the Textbook.

參考文獻

Agency for Instructional Television(1986).(Give & take: What the Research is Saying(Research Report No.95)).

Agency for Instructional Television(1981).Trade-offs: What the Research is Saying(Research Report No.82).(Trade-offs: What the Research is Saying(Research Report No.82)).,::Agency for Instructional Television.

Bansazak, R. A.,M. C. Schung (Ed.)(1985).Economics in the School Curriculum, K-12.Washington, DC:National Education Association and joint Council on Economic Education.

Buckles, S.,Freman, V.(1984).A Longitudinal Analysis of a Developmental Economics Education Program.Journal of Economic Education.15(1),5-10.

Bybee, R. W.,Sund, R. B.(1982).Piaget for Educators.Columbus OH:Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.