:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名: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
書刊名:公民訓育學報
作者:黃美筠 引用關係
作者(外文):Huang, Mei-yun
出版日期:2002
卷期:12
頁次:頁59-108
主題關鍵詞:經濟教育經濟認知經濟知識經濟學教材
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(2) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:10
  • 點閱點閱:17
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、臺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就教材的國三學生。 六、臺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,而臺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。
Recognizing the value of teaching economics to students, Taiwanese high schools have provided a mandated course in econimics 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 Economic 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 percetage 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 Lession 4,9 and 10 of the Textbook.
期刊論文
1.Buckles, S.、Freman, V.(1984)。A Longitudinal Analysis ala Developmental Economics Education Program。Journal of Economic Education,15(1),5-10。  new window
2.Figgins, B.、Young G.(1986)。National Survey of High School Economics。Journal of Private Enterprise,Ⅱ,134-139。  new window
3.Leming, J. S.(1981)。Curricular Effectiveness in Moral/Values Education: A Review of Research。Jourmal of Moral Education,10(3),147-164。  new window
4.Miller, S. L.(1988)。Student Test Scores and Textbook Deficiencies: Is There a Relationship?。Journal of Private Enterprise,4,85-96。  new window
5.Schug, M. C.(1983)。The Development of Economic Thinking in Children and Adolescents。Social Education,47(2),141-145。  new window
6.Sehug, M. C.、Davis, J. E.、Wentworth, D. R.、Banaszak, R. A.、Robertson, D.(1989)。An Evaluation of Middle School Economics Curriculum Materials: Implications for Improving Quality。Theory and Research in Social Education,17(2),121-135。  new window
7.Thornton, D.、Vredeveld, G.(1977)。Inservice Education and Its Effects on Secondary Students。Journal of Economic Education,8(2),93-99。  new window
8.Waistad, W.(1980)。The Impact of “trade-off” and Teacher Training on Economic Understanding and Attitudes。Journal of Economic Education,12(1),41-48。  new window
9.Waistaci, W.、VanSeyoc, L.(1990)。The Effect of Textbooks on Economic Understanding and Attitudes in High School Economics Courses。Journal of Research and Development in Education,24(1),46-54。  new window
10.Waistad, W.、Soper, J.(1982)。A Model of Economics Learning in the High schools。Journal of Economic Education,13(1),40-54。  new window
11.Wass, P.(196504)。The Economics of Teenagers。NASSO Bulletin,49(300),29-33。  new window
學位論文
1.溫騰光(1992)。國民中小學經濟教育課程內涵之研究(博士論文)。中國文化大學,臺北。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Huang, M.(1997)。An assessment of the economic knowledge of ninth grade junior high school students in Taiwan(博士論文)。University of Missouri.。  new window
3.陳秀玲(1994)。臺灣國民中學經濟學教科書之研究--與美、日之比較分析(碩士論文)。國立師範大學。  延伸查詢new window
4.Kubelick, C.(1977)。A Study of the Effects of a Social Skill Intervention in the Cognitive Moral Development of 8, 9 and 10 Year Olds(博士論文)。University of Pittsburgh。  new window
5.Mupier, R. M.(1994)。Economic Education in the Secondary Schools of Zaire: A Problem- Driven Approach(博士論文)。Illinois State University。  new window
圖書
1.溫明忠(1999)。國中經濟教育的理論與實施。臺北:水牛圖書出版事業有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
2.Jenness, David(1990)。Making sense of social studies。New York:Macmillan Publishing Company。  new window
3.Saunders, P.、Gilliard, J. V.(1995)。A framework for teaching basic economic concepts with scope and sequence guidelines, K-12。New York:National Council on Economic Education。  new window
4.教育部(1983)。國民中學課程標準。台北:教育部。  延伸查詢new window
5.教育部國教司(1994)。國民中學課程標準。臺北:教育部。  延伸查詢new window
6.Saunders, Phillip、Bach, G. L.、Calderwood, James D.、Hansen, W. Lee(1984)。A Framework for Teaching the Basic Concepts。New York:Joint Council on Economic Education。  new window
7.Bybee, R. W.、Sund, R. B.(1982)。Piaget for Educators。Columbus, Ohio:Charles, E. Merrill, A Bell & Howell。  new window
8.Wentworth, Donald R.、Hansen, W. Lee、Hawke, Sharry H.(1977)。Perspectives on Economic Education: A report on Conference Proceedings。New York:Joint Council on Economic Education。  new window
9.國立編輯館(1999)。國民中學公民與道德教科書第三冊。臺北:臺灣書店。  延伸查詢new window
10.Furth, H. G.(1980)。The World of Grown-ups: Children’s Conceptions of Society。New York:Elsevier North Holland。  new window
11.NCEE, National Council on Economic Education(1997)。Voluntary National Content Standards In Economics。New York:National Council on Economic Education。  new window
12.Waistad, W.、Soper, J.(1987)。The Test of Economic Knowledge: Examiner’s Manual。New York:Joint Council on Economic Education。  new window
13.Yankelovich, Skelly、WhiteInc(1981)。National Survey of Economic Education。New York:Playback Assouiates。  new window
其他
1.Davis, J. E.(1987)。Teaching Economics to Young Adolescent: A Research-based Rationale(ED 281 822)。  new window
2.Bloomington(1986)。Give & take: What the Research is Saying(Report #95)。  new window
3.Bloom-ington(1981)。Trade-offs: What the Research is Saying(Research Report No. 82)。  new window
圖書論文
1.Patrick, J. J.(1982)。Junior high school students learning in social studies。Working papers from Project SPAN。Boulder, Colorado:Social Science Education Consortium。  new window
2.中國經濟學會教育委員會(1990)。國中教科書經濟概念之檢討。中國經濟學會論文集。  延伸查詢new window
3.教育部(2000)。國民中學概況。中華民國教育統計。臺北:教育部統計處。  延伸查詢new window
4.Bansazak, R, A.(1985)。Economics for Early Adolescents。Economics in the School Curriculum, K-12。Washington, DC:National Education Association and Joint Council on Economic Education。  new window
5.Dawson, G.(1977)。Research in Economic Education at the Precollege Level。Perspectves on Economic Education。New York:Joint Council on Economic Education。  new window
6.Helburm, S. W.(1985)。Ecnomics and Economic Education: the Selective Uses of Discipline Structures in Economics Curriula。Economics Education: Research and Development Issues。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top