跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.221.70.232) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/05/29 04:20
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:姜博彥
研究生(外文):Chang Po-Yen
論文名稱:高雄區國中基本學力測驗登記分發入學採計在校成績之調查研究
指導教授:羅文基羅文基引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:教育學系
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2003
畢業學年度:91
語文別:中文
論文頁數:233
中文關鍵詞:在校成績登記分發入學國中基本學力測驗
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:15
  • 點閱點閱:331
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:50
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
摘 要
本研究旨在透過問卷調查方式,藉著問卷調查法,瞭解受試者對於採計國中在校成績之可行性意見,並探討高雄區登記分發入學制度規劃上有關之可行措施。分析而言,主要的目的有五:1.探討國一學生、家長、教師兼行政 、教師、校長與學者專家對登記分發入學採計國中在校成績的看法。2.分析不同背景變項的家長對登記分發入學採計國中在校成績的看法。3.分析不同背景變項的教師對登記分發入學採計國中在校成績的看法。4.彙集學者專家與校長對登記分發入學採計國中在校成績的開放性意見。5.根據研究結果,提出結論和建議,以作為相關單位規劃高中高職及五專多元入學制度之參考。
本研究之研究對象分佈高雄縣市,包括國一學生,家長,教師兼行政 (包含組長、主任),教師(包含導師及專任教師),校長,學者專家(包含教改團體、民間教育社團、教育行政人員及教授等)為樣本。本研究使用的問卷乃是自編的「高雄區高中高職及五專登記分發入學採計國中在校成績之可行性研究調查問卷」為調查工具。針對每一問題計算受試者選填意見的人數及百分比之外,並對受試者進行意見差異之卡方(X2)考驗。
壹、結論部份
一、贊成採計國中在校成績是受試者的意見趨向
二、觀念再造才能破除採計國中在校成績的阻力
三、發揮多元入學精神應可考慮採計國中在校成績
四、採計方式宜兼顧到文化不利地區的教育發展
五、國中基本學力測驗功能宜定位清楚
六、期盼教學正常化是推動採計的動因
貳、建議部份
根據本研究所得之各項結論、開放性意見彙整結果及考量現階段教育改革趨勢,加以歸納整理,提出建議臚列如下。
一、營造採計國中在校成績的有利情境
(一)落實教學正常化回歸教育本質
(二)加強宣導藉助意見交流建立共識
(三)建立周全的配套措施以排除可能遭遇的困難
二、研議採計國中在校成績的入學制度
(一)成立專案研究單位進行行動研究
(二)成立試辦專責單位以作遠程規劃
(三)審慎規劃採計國中在校成績的具體措施
(四)健全回饋機制
三、試辦國中基本學力測驗加計在校成績的登記分發入學方式
參酌本研究的結論規劃採計國中在校成績的登記分發入學方式,審慎決定國中在校成績佔登記分發入學成績之比率,國中在校成績中各年級應佔的比率,國中在校成績應包括的項目,國中在校成績的計算方式等,並針對應先行解決的問題謀求最佳的配套作法。
四、實施登記分發入學採計國中在校成績應有的配套措施
(一)修訂合宜之國民中學學生成績考查辦法
(二)提昇教師專業以建立客觀合理的評分制度
(三)落實實施國民中學學生基本學力測驗
(四)提昇各校水平平衡城鄉差距
(五)高雄縣市共同規劃同步實施
Abstract
The purpose of this research is, through questionnaires, to understand the practicable opinions of subjects on adopting the school grades and discuss the practicable steps about policies for students to register and to be assigned to senior high schools according to test scores in Kaohsiung City. To be specific, the main purposes can be separated into five parts: 1. To discuss the opinions of freshmen in junior high school, parents, teachers with administrative duties, teachers, principals, scholars and experts on policies for students to register and to be assigned to senior high schools according to test scores taking in junior-high-school grades. 2. To analyze the opinions of parents with different background variables on policies for students to register and to be assigned to senior high schools according to test scores taking in junior-high-school grades. 3. To analyze the opinions of teachers with different background variables on policies for students to register and to be assigned to senior high schools according to test scores taking in junior-high-school grades. 4. To compile the opening opinions of scholars, experts and principals on adopting junior-high-school grades. 5. According to the results of this research, to broach conclusions and suggestions for reference of the concerned authorities while programming the policies for multi-admissions of senior high schools, vocational schools and junior colleges.
The targets in this research, sampled from freshmen in junior high school, parents, teachers with administrative duties (including group-chefs and chairmen), teachers (including homeroom teachers and full-time teachers), principals, scholars and experts (including educational reform advancing groups, nongovernmental educational clubs, educational administrators and professors etc.), scatter in Kaohsiung City and County. The questionnaire used in this research is self-edited “Questionnaire on Feasibility Study of Policies for Students to Register And to Be Assigned to Senior High Schools, Vocational Schools And Junior Colleges According to Test Scores Taking in Junior-High-School Grades.” I calculate both the numbers and percentages of each single question the survey-takers choose to fill and also enforce the test of X2 about opinion diversities.
I. Conclusive Part
A. The survey-takers tend to approve to adopt junior-high-school grades.
B. Only conceptual reform can break the obstacle of adopting junior-high-school grades.
C. To exert the spirit of multi-admission, adopting junior-high-school grades should be taken into consideration.
D. The methods of adopting had better cover the educational development of less civilized areas.
E. The functions of “The Basic Competence Test for Junior High School Students” should be clearly positioned.
F. Expecting teaching normalization is the motive of animating adoption.
II. Suggestive Part
According to the gotten results, opening opinions, results of compiling and the tendency of current educational reform, I conclude and make suggestions as followed:
A. To build the advantageous situation for adopting junior-high-school grades
1. To concretize teaching normalization and to return the essence of education
2. To intensify advocating and to build up consensuses by exchanging opinions
3. To set up complete correlative steps in order to eliminate possible difficulties
B. To consult the admission policies for adopting junior-high-school grades
1. To form case-studying unit to do action research
2. To form trial-planning unit to do long-term programming
3. To plan circumspectly the concrete steps of adopting junior-high-school grades
4. To perfect the feedback systems
C. To trial the policies for students to register and to be assigned to senior high schools according to test scores with considering both the scores of “The Basic Competence Test for Junior High School Students” and the school grades
The results of this research can be referenced while the concerned authorities are programming the policies for students to register and to be assigned to senior high schools according to test scores taking in the school grades, the percentage of grades in admission policies, deciding the percentage of grades in each junior high school year, the items included in the school grades, and the way to mark the school grades etc. Besides, to find the best correlative steps to the nearest problems is necessary.
D. To enforce the necessarily correlative steps of the policies for students to register and to be assigned to senior high schools according to test scores taking in the school grades
1. To emend proper grading systems and laws for junior high school students
2. To improve teachers’ profession to build up objective and just grading systems
3. To concretize enforcing “The Basic Competence Test for Junior High School Students”
4. To upgrade every schools’ level and to balance the differences between cities and countries
5. To plan and to enforce both in Kaohsiung City and County at the same time
目 錄
第一章 緒論···································································································1
第一節 問題背景與研究動機···································································1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題···································································4
第三節 名詞界定·······················································································7
第四節 研究範圍與限制···········································································9
第二章 文獻探討························································································11
第一節 高中高職及五專多元入學制度探源·········································11
第二節 參採國中在校成績的理論基礎與發展沿革·····························21
第三節 採計國中在校成績的相關研究·················································30
第三章 研究方法與實施程序··································································37
第一節 研究架構·····················································································37
第二節 研究對象·····················································································40
第三節 研究工具·····················································································44
第四節 實施程序·····················································································46
第五節 資料蒐集及整理分析·································································47
第四章 研究結果之分析與討論·····························································48
第一節 國中在校成績佔登記分發入學成績之比率·····························48
第二節 國中在校成績中各年級成績應佔的比率·································70
第三節 採計國中在校成績應包括的項目·············································89
第四節 採計國中在校成績的計算方式···············································114
第五節 採計國中在校成績其他有關意見···········································151
第五章 結論與建議··················································································175
第一節 研究發現···················································································176
第二節 結論···························································································183
第三節 建議···························································································185
參考書目·········································································································190
附錄··················································································································194
一、本研究調查問卷「專家意見並試填」說明信函····························194
二、本研究「專家意見並試填」調查問卷············································195
三、本調查問卷「專家意見」之專家名單與惠請指導信函················202
四、本調查問卷「專家意見並試填」之修正意見彙整························203
五、本研究調查問卷正式版····································································212
六、學者專家對採計國中在校成績的綜合看法彙整····························219
七、校長對採計國中在校成績的綜合看法彙整····································224
表 目 次
表2-1.1各學年度多元入學前進的方向················································································13
表2-1.2高中多元入學方案修正簡併及各方案比較表························································19
表2-1.3各種入學管道採計國中在校成績現況表································································20
表2-2.1各國後期中等學校入學方式考量方式比較表························································21
表2-3.1「台北區公立高中聯招採計國中在校成績可行性研究」可引導性意見摘要·····31
表2-3.2採計國中在校成績的相關研究結果摘要彙整表····················································34
表3-2.1本研究樣本分配統計表····························································································41
表3-2.2本研究問卷回收統計表····························································································41
表3-2.3本研究樣本分配表(高雄市部分) ··········································································42
表3-2.4本研究樣本分配表(高雄縣部分) ··········································································43
表4-1.1不同身分的受試者對高中高職的意見差異比較表················································49
表4-1.2不同身分的受試者對五專的意見差異比較表························································50
表4-1.3不同教育程度的受試者對高中高職的意見差異比較表········································51
表4-1.4不同教育程度的受試者對五專的意見差異比較表················································52
表4-1.5不同教育程度的家長對高中高職的意見差異比較表············································54
表4-1.6不同教育程度的家長對五專的意見差異比較表····················································55
表4-1.7不同職業的家長對高中高職的意見差異比較表····················································56
表4-1.8不同職業的家長對五專的意見差異比較表····························································57
表4-1.9擔任不同職務的教師對高中高職的意見差異比較表············································58
表4-1.10擔任不同職務的教師對五專的意見差異比較表··················································59
表4-1.11不同學習領域的教師對高中高職採計比率的意見差異比較表··························60
表4-1.12不同學習領域的教師對五專採計比率的意見差異比較表··································62
表4-1.13高雄縣市國一學生對高中高職採計比率的意見差異比較表······························63
表4-1.14高雄縣市國一學生對五專採計比率的意見差異比較表······································64
表4-1.15高雄縣市家長對高中高職採計比率的意見差異比較表······································64
表4-1.16高雄縣市家長對五專採計比率的意見差異比較表··············································65
表4-1.17高雄縣市教師對高中高職採計比率的意見差異比較表······································66
表4-1.18高雄縣市教師對五專採計比率的意見差異比較表··············································66
表4-2.1不同身分的受試者對高中高職的意見差異比較表················································70
表4-2.2不同身分的受試者對五專的意見差異比較表························································72
表4-2.3不同教育程度的受試者對高中高職的意見差異比較表········································73
表4-2.4不同教育程度的受試者對五專的意見差異比較表················································74
表4-2.5不同教育程度背景的家長對高中高職的意見差異比較表····································75
表4-2.6不同教育程度背景的家長對五專的意見差異比較表············································76
表4-2.7不同職業的家長對高中高職的意見差異比較表····················································77
表4-2.8不同職業的家長對五專的意見差異比較表····························································78
表4-2.9擔任不同職務的教師對高中高職的意見差異比較表············································79
表4-2.10擔任不同職務的教師對五專的意見差異比較表··················································80
表4-2.11不同學習領域背景的教師對高中高職的意見差異比較表··································81
表4-2.12不同學習領域背景的教師對五專的意見差異比較表··········································82
表4-2.13高雄縣市國一學生對高中高職的意見差異比較表··············································83
表4-2.14高雄縣市國一學生對五專的意見差異比較表······················································84
表4-2.15高雄縣市家長對高中高職的意見差異比較表······················································84
表4-2.16高雄縣市家長對五專的意見差異比較表······························································85
表4-2.17高雄縣市教師對高中高職的意見差異比較表······················································86
表4-2.18高雄縣市教師對五專的意見差異比較表······························································86
表4-3.1不同身分受試者對高中高職採計應包括項目的意見差異比較表························89
表4-3.2不同身分受試者對高中高職同時採計學習領域及日常生活表現評量比率分
配的意見差異比較表······························································································91
表4-3.3不同身分受試者對五專採計應包括項目的意見差異比較表································92
表4-3.4不同身分受試者對五專同時採計學習領域及日常生活表現評量比率分配的
意見差異比較表······································································································93
表4-3.5不同教育程度的受試者對高中高職的意見差異比較表········································94
表4-3.6不同教育程度的受試者對五專的意見差異比較表················································95
表4-3.7不同教育程度背景的家長對高中高職的意見差異比較表····································97
表4-3.8不同教育程度背景的家長對五專的意見差異比較表············································98
表4-3.9不同職業背景的家長對高中高職的意見差異比較表············································99
表4-3.10不同職業背景的家長對五專的意見差異比較表················································100
表4-3.11擔任不同職務背景的教師對高中高職的意見差異比較表································101
表4-3.12擔任不同職務背景的教師對五專的意見差異比較表········································102
表4-3.13不同學習領域背景的教師對高中高職的意見差異比較表································103
表4-3.14不同學習領域的教師對五專的意見差異比較表················································104
表4-3.15高雄縣市國一學生對高中高職的意見差異比較表············································105
表4-3.16高雄縣市國一學生對五專的意見差異比較表····················································106
表4-3.17高雄縣市家長對高中高職採計應包括項目的意見差異比較表························107
表4-3.18高雄縣市家長對五專採計應包括項目的意見差異比較表································108
表4-3.19高雄縣市教師對高中高職的意見差異比較表····················································109
表4-3.20高雄縣市教師對五專的意見差異比較表····························································110
表4-4.1不同身分受試者對高中高職採計學習領域評量成績計分方式的意見差異比
較表························································································································114
表4-4.2不同身分受試者對五專採計學習領域評量成績計分方式的意見差異比較表··116
表4-4.3不同身分受試者對高中高職採計項目加權處理方式的意見差異比較表··········117
表4-4.4不同身分受試者對五專採計項目加權處理方式的意見差異比較表··················118
表4-4.5不同身分的受試者對高中高職採計日常生活表現評量成績加權計分的意見
差異比較表············································································································120
表4-4.6不同身分的受試者對五專採計日常生活表現評量成績加權計分的意見差異
比較表····················································································································121
表4-4.7不同教育程度背景的家長對高中高職採計學習領域評量成績計分方式的意
見差異比較表········································································································122
表4-4.8不同教育程度背景的家長對五專採計學習領域評量成績計分方式的意見差
異比較表················································································································124
表4-4.9不同教育程度背景的家長對高中高職採計項目加權處理方式的意見差異比
較表························································································································125
表4-4.10不同教育程度背景的家長對五專採計項目加權處理方式的意見差異比較表127
表4-4.11不同教育程度背景的家長對高中高職採計日常生活表現評量成績加權計
分的意見差異比較表····························································································128
表4-4.12不同教育程度背景的家長對五專採計日常生活表現評量成績加權計分的
意見差異比較表····································································································129
表4-4.13不同職業背景的家長對高中高職採計學習領域評量成績計分方式的意見
差異比較表············································································································131
表4-4.14不同職業背景的家長對五專採計學習領域評量成績計分方式的意見差異
比較表····················································································································132
表4-4.15不同職業背景的家長對高中高職採計項目加權處理方式的意見差異比較表133
表4-4.16不同職業背景的家長對五專採計項目加權處理方式的意見差異比較表········135
表4-4.17不同職業背景的家長對高中高職採計日常生活表現評量成績加權計分的
意見差異比較表····································································································136
表4-4.18不同職業背景的家長對五專採計日常生活表現評量成績加權計分的意見
差異比較表············································································································137
表4-4.19不同學習領域背景的教師對高中高職採計學習領域評量成績計分方式的
意見差異比較表····································································································138
表4-4.20不同學習領域背景的教師對五專採計學習領域評量成績計分方式的意見
差異比較表············································································································140
表4-4.21不同學習領域背景的教師對高中高職採計項目加權處理方式的意見差異
比較表····················································································································141
表4-4.22不同學習領域背景的教師對五專採計項目加權處理方式的意見差異比較表143
表4-4.23不同學習領域背景的教師對高中高職採計日常生活表現評量成績加權計
分的意見差異比較表····························································································144
表4-4.24不同學習領域背景的教師對五專採計日常生活表現評量成績加權計分的
意見差異比較表····································································································146
表4-5.1不同身分受試者對國中在校成績採計比率決定單位的意見差異比較表··········151
表4-5.2不同身分受試者對採計國中在校成績開始實施年度的意見差異比較表··········153
表4-5.3不同身分受試者對採計國中在校成績產生正面影響的意見統計表··················155
表4-5.4不同身分受試者對採計國中在校成績遭遇困難的意見統計表··························158
表4-5.5不同身分受試者對採計國中在校成績配合措施的意見統計表··························161
表4-5.6不同身分受試者對採計國中在校成績的意見統計表··········································163
表4-5.7學者專家對高雄區登記分發入學採計國中在校成績贊成之理由彙整表··········164
表4-5.8校長對高雄區登記分發入學採計國中在校成績贊成之理由彙整表··················165
表4-5.9學者專家對高雄區登記分發入學採計國中在校成績不贊成之理由彙整表······167
表4-5.10校長對高雄區登記分發入學採計國中在校成績不贊成之理由彙整表············168
表4-5.11學者專家對高雄區登記分發入學採計國中在校成績應先行解決的問題彙
整表························································································································169
表4-5.12校長對高雄區登記分發入學採計國中在校成績應先行解決問題之理由彙
整表························································································································170
圖 目 次
圖3-1.1本研究之研究架構圖································································································39
參 考 書 目
丁亞雯(1998)。改變考試入學的歷史:高中多元入學方案。高中教育,2,22-27。
丁亞雯(2000)。為孩子做好準備:檢視台北市實施高中入學方案。師友,392,11-14。
九十二學年度五專聯合登記分發入學委員會(2003)。九十二學年度五專聯合登記分發入學簡章。
九十二學年度南區五專聯合甄選委員會(2003)。九十二學年度南區五專聯合甄選入學簡章。
王文科(2001)。教育研究法。台北:五南書局。
王家通(1997)。中等教育。高雄:麗文文化。
方炎明、吳怡萱(2001)。高中多元入學方案機制之探討。台灣教育,603,2-13。
中華科技整合研究會(2001)。撰寫博碩士論文實戰手冊。台北:正中書局。
行政院教育改革審議委員會(1996)。教育改革總諮議報告書。台北:行政院。
吳京(1999)。吳京教改心。台北:天下文化。
吳明隆(2002)。SPSS統計應用實務。台北:松崗電腦圖書資料股份有限公司。
吳俊憲(2001)。高中多元入學的爭議與檢討。台灣教育,605,49-53。
吳裕益(2000)。多元評量與入學改變。高雄市教育學會第五屆第二次會員大會計新世紀教師的新形象學術研討會會議手冊,45-54。
林生傳(1989)。教育研究計畫與報告的撰寫。國立高雄師範大學:教育研究研討會資料。
林生傳(1993)。主要國家後期中等學校入學方式之比較研究。教育部教育研究委員會委託國立高雄師範大學研究。
林全義(2002)。台灣地區高級中學入學方式之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系:碩士論文。
林昭賢(1995a)。台北區公立高中聯招採計國中在校成績現況。教育研究資訊,3(1),20-28。
林昭賢(1995b)。對「高中入學改革」主題之綜合回應(三)。教育研究資訊,3(1),49。
林清山(2000)。心理與教育統計學。台北:東華書局。
胡正華(1998)。廢除高中聯招---多元入學之我見。高中教育,2,28-32。
胡家祥等(1995)。教育改革的展望。台北:師大書苑。
高雄市政府教育局(1990)。試辦自願就學方案報告。高雄:高雄市政府。
高雄市政府教育局(1996)。國中在校成績併計統一考試成績作為高中職及五專入學依據可行性之探討。高雄:高雄市政府。
高雄市政府教育局(1997)。邁向二十一世紀高雄市教育發展計畫。高雄:高雄市政府。
高雄市政府教育局(1998a)。通往高中高職10條大道宣導資料。高雄:高雄市政府。
高雄市政府教育局(1998b)。高雄區公立高級中等學校多元入學制度研究報告:採計國中在校成績之入學制度規劃研究。高雄:高雄市政府。
高雄市政府教育局(1998c)。高雄市高級中等學校多元入學方案。高雄:高雄市政府。
高雄市政府教育局(1999)。高雄市八十九學年度高職免試登記入學宣導研習會手冊。高雄:高雄市政府。
高雄市政府教育局(2001a)。高中職申請暨甄選入學研究報告。高雄:高雄市政府。
高雄市政府教育局(2001b)。高雄市2001年高中高職多元入學方案宣導研習手冊。高雄:高雄市政府。
高雄區九十二學年度高中高職聯合登記分發入學委員會(2003)。高雄區九十二學年度高中高職聯合登記分發入學簡章。
高雄區九十二學年度高級中等學校聯合申請入學委員會(2003)。高雄區九十二學年度高中高職聯合申請入學招生簡章彙編。
高雄區九十二學年度高級中學數理資優生聯合甄選入學委員會(2003)。高雄區九十二學年度高級中學數理資優生聯合甄選入學簡章彙編。
郭生玉(1993)。心理與教育研究法。台北:精華書局。
郭生玉(1995)。對「台北區公立高中聯招採計國中在校成績現況」一文之討論(二)。教育研究資訊,3(1),32-33。
教育部(1994)。國民中學課程標準。台北:教育部。
教育部(1995)。中華民國教育報告書:邁向二十一世紀的教育遠景。台北:教育部。
教育部(1996)。第六次中華民國教育年鑑。台北:教育部。
教育部技術及職業教育司(1997a)。高職免試多元入學方案。台北:教育部。
教育部(1997b)。高職免試多元入學方案Q&A宣導資料。台北:教育部。
教育部國民教育司(1998)。國民中學學生成績考查辦法說明手冊。台北:教育部。
教育部(2001)。九十學年度高中職多元入學方案宣導手冊。台北:教育部。
國立高雄師範大學實習輔導處、教育學系等(1999)。教育問題與改革動向研討會研習手冊。高雄:國立高雄師範大學。
國立臺北師範學院(2000)。教育行政研究方法與評量工具。台北:教育資料館。
張振成(2001)。高中多元入學方案的評議。師友,404,19-22。
張紹勳(2000)。SAS For Windows 統計分析:初等統計。台北:松崗電腦圖書資料股份有限公司。
陳天寶(2001)。台北市公立高工多元入學學生智育成績之比較研究。國立台北科技大學:碩士論文。
曾憲政(1995)。對「台北區公立高中聯招採計國中在校成績現況」一文之討論(一)。教育研究資訊,3(1),29-31。
黃炳煌、林世華、閻自安等(2002)。高中職登記分發入學參採國中在學表現之可行性研究。台北:教育部中等教育司。
楊思偉(2000)。高中職入學方式多元化的思考。師友,392,5-9。
簡成熙(1999)。我國學競爭的機制與變革:以近年來高中入學制度為例。教育研究資訊,7(6),61-84。
顏火龍(2000)。APA格式在我國學術研究的應用。台南:國立臺南師範學院初等教育學系。
羅文基、朱湘吉、陳如山等(1995)。生涯規劃與發展。台北;國立空中大學。
羅清水(2000)。多元入學與高職教育的發展。師友,392,19-21。
蘇德祥(1998)。高級中學多元入學方案配套措施之規劃。高中教育,2,14-16。
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top