本研究的主要目的是透過國外量化素養的文獻探討後，試著發展出一套適合評量我國中學生量化素養的工具，在工具效化的階段，初步以410位台北地區的高一學生為施測對象。本研究進行的方式是，先採用內容分析法對國外量化素養之相關文獻作探討，再透過一份自編的評量量化素養工具與一份學生背景相關問卷蒐集資料，並進行量的分析，以下是本研究主要的發現：
一、透過文獻探討得知量化素養的意涵為個人能合理地應用量化技能，去處理或解決日常生活中與量有關的問題，而大多數學者認為所應包含的量化技能有解釋資料、估算、測量和解決日常生活中不確定性的問題。

二、本研究透過量化素養的相關文獻探討後，以四個面向來設計評量中學生的量化素養的工具(分別為量化素養中量化技能、量化素養中能力指標、量化素養中實踐情境和以不同方式呈現量化素養的題目)。本研究樣本的中學生，在量化技能中的解釋資料方面表現最好，而在估算方面表現較差；在能力指標中的量化資料詮釋上表現最好，表現較差是在量化資料的產生；在衣食住行育樂五個實踐量化素養的情境中，學生在衣方面表現最優，在行方面則表現較不理想；最後，在以文字、圖形和表格三種方式呈現量化素養的題目時，中學生在表格和圖形方面都表現不錯，而在文字方面表現較差一點。

三、在進行量化素養工具的施測過程中有些特別的發現。首先，是在施測時間方面，由於量化素養的評量並非測驗學生的作答速度，所以試題之數量要配合作答的時間，才不會使學生的答題表現受到影響；再者，是在設計量化素養的題目時，一定要留意編寫題目的情境是否是中學生在日常生活中常遇到的情形，需讓學生在答題時有身歷其境的感覺，這才符合量化素養的基本精神；最後，還有一點發現就是，若要更進一步瞭解中學生的量化素養，除了紙筆測驗外，還可再加上一些實作評量的試題，或將題目設計成兩階段式評量，可瞭解學生選擇該選項的原因。

四、由學生的背景相關問卷與量化素養的答題表現發現，愈認為學習數學是很容易的學生，他們在量化素養題本中的表現反而偏低，與部分國外學者的觀點一致，數學不好並不代表就不具有量化素養。

五、本研究除了探討整體中學生在量化素養四個面向的答題表現外，亦從學生的性別深入分析，結果發現男女生在量化素養各方面的表現上，大多沒有顯著差異，除了量化素養的能力指標「能透過估算的方法產生量化資料」外，程度相當的男女生在該量化素養的能力指標之表現有顯著差異。此結果與國外的量化素養文獻有些不同，因為量化素養是一般大眾都應具備的基本能力之一，理論上來說，不會因性別不同而有能力上的差別，就像閱讀和書寫的能力，並不會因為男女而有所不同。

There are two purposes of this research. The first is to define the meaning of quantitative literacy and the second is to develop the most suitable instrument to assess high school students’ quantitative literacy in our country. On the validity of instrument stage, initially there are 410 high school students involved in this research. They are all chosen from senior high schools in Taipei . After I went through the foreign literature on this subject by content analysis, information gathered from the research include students’ performance in quantitative literacy and questionnaires of students’ background. On this study, quantitative analysis is the primary means for data analysis. On the following are the results we get from this research.

1.Quantitative literacy empowers people to use quantitative skills to solve and handle quantitative problems they meet on their daily life. Most scholars are of the view that quantitative skills should include data interpretation, estimation, measurement and uncertainty.

2.There are four aspects of designing the quantitative literacy instrument---the quantitative skills, indicators, practice contexts of quantitative literacy and different ways to present quantitative literacy problems. Students chosen on this research receive the highest grade on data interpretation; otherwise they get the lowest one in calculation. In addition, students do the best on data explanation and show the worst on data generation. In the topic of practice contexts, students perform well on clothing and do the worst on transportation. And the last but not the least, we can not recognize much difference from their performance on words, graphs, and tables.

3.After researching the instrument of quantitative literacy, I obtain some critical findings. Because of not assessing students’ speed of answering questions, the quantity of questions should not be many. It is not expected to affect students’ performance of quantitative literacy, when they are on test. Moreover, when questions of quantitative literacy are being created, we have to pay much attention to the questions we make. The questions should be the living examples. When students are on test, they’ll experience like they are on daily life. . Except the paper-and-pen tests, we can also add some questions of further performance assessment. if we want to further understand the quantitative literacy of high school student. Or we also can realize why they choose this or that answer, if they take the two-tier test.

4.According to the results of students’ performance in quantitative literacy and questionnaires of students’ background, some discoveries are made. The more easily students learn mathematics, the lower grades they’ll get on the performance of quantitative literacy. That’s the same conclusion with some foreign professors. People who does not perform well on math may have better performance on quantitative literacy.

5. Finally, boys and girls only had difference in one of quantitative literacy indicators: “use estimating techniques to generate data”. Boys’ performance is
better than girls’. This result is not as the same as some foreign literature. They think quantitative literacy is one of basic skills everyone must have. Generally, there is no difference between boys and girls in quantitative literacy, just like reading and writing.

一、 中文部分
中國時報（2002）：6月1日至6月30日。
國民中學數學課本第六冊（2001）。國立編譯館主編。台北市：九十家書局。
陳順宇（1993）：中學統計課程之研究（I）。（國科會研究報告，計畫編號：NSC82-0111-S006-003）。
陳芷羚（2002）：探討中學生機率概念與判斷偏誤關係之研究。台北市：國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
教育部（2002）：教育部九年一貫課程綱要草案─數學學習領域。教育部：數學
科研究小組。
張芳全和余民寧（2002〉：開發中國家文盲率、國民所得與人口成長之關係。教
育與心理研究，第25期上冊，頁121-147。
孫繡霞和許桂敏（1990）：國民對數學基本素養調查研究。（國科會研究報告，計畫編號：NSC78-0111-S011-002-B）。
歐陽絳（譯）（1997）：Eves, H.著。數學史概論。台北市：曉園出版社。
譚寧君（1996）：國民小學數學科教學未來發展趨勢。國民教育，第37卷第2期，頁78-81。
盧雪梅（2002）：新世紀的必要技能—美國勞工部「獲致必要技能委員會」研究報告。教育研究月刊，第96期，頁64-74。
鄒聖馨（2000）：國小數學科統計課程設計之研究─真實解讀計劃（AEP）。台北
市：國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文。
謝新傳（2002〉：知識經驗與數學教育。菁莪，第14卷第3期，頁57-62。
貓頭鷹編譯小組（譯）（2002）。Borowski , E.& Borwein , J.著。數學辭典。
台北市：貓頭應出版社。

陳任廣和楊義明（譯）（1989）。Rowhtree, D.著。英漢教育辭典。台北市：
五洲出版社
胡作玄和劉明立（譯）（2000）。Steen L. A.著。站在巨人的肩膀上。上海：上海
出版社。

二、 英文部分
Bad maths blights bank holidays. BBC News.（n. d.）.Retrieved May 5, 2002, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/education/newsid_1967000/1967056.stm
Bernhardt, R.（1999）. Interviews about Quantitative Literacy . Retrieved October 18,
2002, from http://www.stolaf.edu/other/ql/intv.html.
Briggs, W. L.（2001）. What mathematics should All college students know ?
Retrieved November 5, 2002, from http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~wbriggs/
qr/chronicle.html.
Burrill, G..（1990）.Statistics and Probability. Mathematics teacher,83(2)
Cobb, G. W.（1997）.Mere Literacy Is Not Enough . In Steen, L. A（Ed）.Why Numbers
Count: Quantitative Literacy for Tomorrow’s America,（pp.75-90）.New York：
College Entrance Examination Board.
Cohen, P. C.（2001）.The emergence of numeracy. In Steen, L. A（Ed）. Mathematics
and Democracy：The Case for Quantitative Literacy ,（pp.23-29）. The National
Council on Education and the Disciplines（NCED）Press.
CUPM（1995）.A Report to the CUPM- from the quantitative literacy and service
course subcommittees. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from http://www.maa.org/news/cupm%5Fql.html
David, B.（1994）. Literacy : an introduction to the ecology of written language.
USA：Blackwell.
Denning, P. J.（1997）.Quantitative Practices. In Steen, L. A（Ed）.Why Numbers Count: Quantitative Literacy for Tomorrow’s America,（pp.45-59）.New York：College Entrance Examination Board.
Dossey, J. A.（1997）.Defining and Measuring Quantitative Literacy. In Steen, L. （Ed）. Why Numbers Count: Quantitative Literacy for Tomorrow’s America,（pp.173-186）.New York：College Entrance Examination Board.
Ewell, P. T.（2001）. Numeracy, Mathematics, and General Education. In Steen, L. A
（Ed）. Mathematics and Democracy：The Case for Quantitative Literacy ,
（pp.37-48〉. The National Council on Education and the Disciplines（NCED）
Press.
Forman ,M.（1999）. Interviews about Quantitative Literacy .Retrieved October 18,
2002, from http://www.stolaf.edu/other/ql/intv.html.
Forman, S. L.（1997）Through Mathematicians’ Eyes. In Steen, L. A（Ed）. Why
Numbers Count: Quantitative Literacy for Tomorrow’s America,（pp.161-172）.New
York：College Entrance Examination Board.
Gangne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W.&Yekovich, F. R.（1993）.The cognitive psychology of
school learning. New York：Harper Collins College Publishers.
Gal, I.,（2002a）.Adult’ Statistical Literacy：Meanings, Components, Responsibilities.
International Statistical Review, 70(1)
Gal, I.,（2002b）.Systemic Needs in Adult Numeracy Education. Adult Basic
Education, 12(1)
Hallett, D.H.（2001）.Achieving Numeracy：The Challenge of Implementation. In
Steen, L. A（Ed）.Mathematics and Democracy：The Case for Quantitative Literacy ,
（pp.93-98）. The National Council on Education and the Disciplines（NCED）
Press.

HRDC（2001）. Essential Skills Profiles. Retrieved October 29,2002,from http://www15.hrdc -drhc.gc.ca/english/intro.asp
Hu-Dehart, E. （1999）. Interviews about Quantitative Literacy .Retrieved October 18,
2002, from http://www.stolaf.edu/other/ql/intv.html.
Kolata, G.（1997）.Understanding the News.In Steen, L. A（Ed）.Why Numbers Count:
Quantitative Literacy for Tomorrow’s America,（pp.23-29）.New York：College
Entrance Examination Board.
MAA（1998）.Retrieved October 18, 2002, from http://www.maa.org/past/ql/
apdx_b.html
Manaster, A. B.（1997）.Mathematics and Numeracy: Mutual Reinforcement. In Steen,
L. A（Ed）.Why Numbers Count: Quantitative Literacy for Tomorrow’s America,
（pp.67-72）.New York：College Entrance Examination Board.
National Research Council（1989）. Everybody Counts, Washington. D.C.：National
Academy Press.
Nickles,D.（2002）.Math 100 quantitative literacy. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from
http://classes.csumb.edu/MATH/MATH100-01/world/
OECD（1995）. Literacy, Economy and Society：Results of the first international adult
literacy survey. Paris：Author.
OECD（2001）.Educational Policy Analysis 2001. Retrieved May 18, 2003,
http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/9601031E.PDF
Packer, A.（1997）. Mathematical Competencies that Employers Expect. In Steen, L. A（Ed）. Why Numbers Count: Quantitative Literacy for Tomorrow’s America,（pp.137-154）.New York：College Entrance Examination Board.
Paulos, J. A.（1988）.Innumeracy : mathematical illiteracy and its consequences.
Toronto：Collins Publishers.

Paulos, P.（1999）. Interviews about Quantitative Literacy .Retrieved October 18,
2002, from http://www.stolaf.edu/other/ql/intv.html.
Pollak, H. O.（1997）.Solving Problems in the Real World. In Steen, L. A（Ed）.Why
Numbers Count: Quantitative Literacy for Tomorrow’s America,（pp.91-105）.New
York：College Entrance Examination Board.
Price, G.（1997）.Quantitative Literacy Across the Curriulum . In Steen, L. A（Ed）.
Why Numbers Count: Quantitative Literacy for Tomorrow’s America,
（pp.155-160）.New York：College Entrance Examination Board.
Poter, M. T.（1997）.The Triumph of Numbers：Civic Implications of Quantitative
Literacy. In Steen, L. A（Ed）.Why Numbers Count: Quantitative Literacy for
Tomorrow’s America,（pp.1-10）.New York：College Entrance Examination Board.
Raizen, S.（1999）. Interviews about Quantitative Literacy .Retrieved October 18,
2002, from http://www.stolaf.edu/other/ql/intv.html.
Rutherford, F. J.（1997）.Thinking Quantitatively About Science. In Steen, L. A（Ed）.
Why Numbers Count: Quantitative Literacy for Tomorrow’s America,（pp.60-74）.
New York：College Entrance Examination Board.
Richardson ,R. M.& McCallum, W. G.（2002）.The Third R in Literacy. Retrieved June
18, 2002, from http://math.arizona.edu/~wmc/Research/Quantitative_Literacy.pdf
Schneider, C. G.（2001）.Setting greater expectations for quantitative learning. In
Steen, L. A（Ed）. Mathematics and Democracy：The Case for Quantitative
Literacy ,（pp.99-105）.The National Council on Education and the Disciplines
（NCED）Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H.（2001）.Reflections on an impoverished education. In Steen, L. A
（Ed）. Mathematics and Democracy：The Case for Quantitative Literacy ,（pp.49-54）. The National Council on Education and the Disciplines（NCED〉Press.

Shroll, C. J.（1999）. Interviews about Quantitative Literacy .Retrieved October 18,
2002, from http://www.stolaf.edu/other/ql/intv.html.
Stage, E.（1999）. Interviews about Quantitative Literacy .Retrieved October 18,
2002, from http://www.stolaf.edu/other/ql/intv.html.
Steen, L. A.（1989）.Quantitative literacy for college students. Retrieved October 25,
http://www.stolaf.edu/other/ql/cupm.html
Steen, L. A.（Ed.）（1997）.Why Numbers Count: Quantitative Literacy for Tomorrow’s
America. New York：College Entrance Examination Board.
Steen, L. A.（1999）. Numeracy: The New Literacy for a Data-Drenched Society.
Educational Leadership, 57 (2)
Steen, L. A.（Ed.）（2000）.Reading, writing, and numeracy. Liberal Education, 86(2)
Steen, L. A.（Ed.）（2001）. Mathematics and Democracy：The Case for Quantitative
Literacy .The National Council on Education and the Disciplines（NCED）Press.
Tufte, E. R.（Ed.）（1983）. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. USA：
Graphics press.
Usiskin, Z.（2001）.Quantitative literacy for the next generation. In Steen, L. A（Ed）.
Mathematics and Democracy：The Case for Quantitative Literacy ,（pp.79-86〉.The
National Council on Education and the Disciplines（NCED）Press.
Watson, J. M.（2002）.Discussion Statistical Literacy before Adulthood. International
Statistical Review, 70(1)
Wilson, S. （1999）. Interviews about Quantitative Literacy .Retrieved October 18,
2002, from http://www.stolaf.edu/other/ql/intv.html.
Wilkins, J. L.（2000）. Special Issue Article：Preparing for the 21st Century：The Status
of Quantitative Literacy in the United States. School Science and Mathematics,
100(8),