本研究旨在探討國三學生對補習班與學校教學的看法及其與基本學力測驗數學科之表現的關係。研究樣本選自台北市及台北縣共五所國民中學，計有11個班級的國三學生，合計378人。在研究設計方面，本研究採問卷調查法，針對學生補習情形、補習班與學校教學比較及學生對基本學力測驗的看法等方面來進行調查。從收集到的資料分析方法包括了百分比、平均值、t考驗及多元迴歸分析。
研究結果顯示，在補習情形方面，國三學生參加補習的比例佔78.84﹪。參加補習或家教的科目以數學科最多，其次是英文，第三位則是理化。父母對於學生參與補習的決定有相當的影響力。
在不同背景的學生參與補習的百分比方面，雙親教育程度落在較高學歷群之中（高中及高中以上程度）者，其子女較會去補習。男生與女生補習的百分比基本上是一樣。
在與基本學力測驗成績有關的變項方面，課後有自修的學生其基本學力測驗數學科的平均答對題數高於課後沒有自修的學生。有補習的學生其基本學力測驗數學科的平均答對題數高於沒有補習的學生。而在以迴歸分析探討與數學科基本學力測驗成績有關的變項中，發現到「學生認為以數學科為其專長科目」、「課後活動有自修」、「家中藏書量」、「有數學問題時問學校老師」、「每週平均自修時數」、「課後活動常去逛街」等六個自變項均達顯著水準。
在補習班與學校教學比較方面，無論補習班或學校上數學課時，均以老師仔細演示如何解題為最主要之上課情形。在補習班與學校如何教學生解決問題的比較方面，數學補習班在教學生解決問題方面，以分析原理為最主要。學校在教學生解決問題方面，則以分析原理、套公式為最主要。
在對基本學力測驗的看法方面，學生大致對基本學力測驗持正面看法，但是在作答時間方面則是普遍覺得時間不夠，且在升學壓力程度上仍舊有很高的百分比認為有壓力。
最後，針對研究結果提出對教育上的建議及對未來研究發展的建議。

The purpose of the study is to investigate the ninth-grade students’ viewpoint on the teachings of cram schools and ordinary schools and their relationship with the performance of Basic Competence Test of Mathematics. The subjects of the study includes 378 ninth-grade students chosen from the Taipei City and the Taipei County. A questionaire was designed for the purpose. All data were analysed by the methods of percentage, mean ,t-test and multiple regression.
The data of the study showed the following results: The rate of these students who had attended the cram schools was 78.84%. The number of students who studied Mathematics, English and Physics/Chemistry at the cram schools was higher than those who studied other subjects. Most of them went to cram according to their parents’ will.
The higher the parents’ education level was , the more number of their children attended the cram schools. The rate of boys and girls who had attended the cram schools was basicly the same.
The mean-rawscore of Basic Competence Test of Mathematics of those who self-studied was higher than those who did not self-study.
The mean-rawscore of Basic Competence Test of Mathematics of those who cramed was higher than those who did not cram. The result of regression analysis showed that “students thought they were good at Mathematics” , “self-studying after school” , “the amount of books at home” , “asked their teachers when having mathematic questions” , “the self-studying hours perweek” , “often window shopping after school ”were correlated with the rawscore of Basic Competence Test of Mathematics.
The teacherings of Mathematics in both cram schools and ordinary schools were majorly “demonstrate how to solve problems”. the teaching of Mathematics in cram schools majorly used the method of analyzing the principle on the aspect of problem-solving. the teaching of Mathematics in ordinary schools majorly used the methods of analyzing the principle and applying the formula on the aspect of problem-solving.
The students’ opinions toward Basic Competence Test is mostly positive,while most of them think the testing time of Basic Competence Test was not enough. And there was high percentage of students who were under the pressure of the entrance examination.
Finally,the suggestions on the aspects of education and future research were proposed.

王文科（民87），教育研究法。臺北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
何青蓉（民86），國民補習教育、成人基本教育與成人識字教育的異同。 成人教育，40，32-34。
冷碩毅（民71），台北市補習教育的調查與分析。台北市：國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
吳麗芬（民82），國小學生補習狀況問卷分析。人本教育札記，43，12-18。
宋明順譯（民77），日本的補習班。教育資料文摘，21（2），67-74。
林世華（民88），跨世紀的測驗發展計畫：國民中學學生基本學力測驗發展計畫。你我之間，第1期。
林清山（民83），心理與教育統計學。臺北：東華書局。
林清江、簡茂發和李建興（民68），國中畢業生升學與就業意願之影響因素。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所。
金梁垣（民71），中韓兩國升大學重考生重考問題的比較分析。台北市：國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
柯正峰（民79），升大學文理補習班學生學習態度﹑對補習班態度及生活型態之研究。台北市：國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
柯正峰（民82），補習教育法。載於陳益興（主編），我國主要教育法規釋論，485-518。臺北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
孫國華（民82），高雄縣市國民中小學學生之課外補習實況與成因之調查研究。教育資料文摘，31（1），135-153。
孫清山、黃毅志（民85），補習教育、文化資本與教育取得。台灣社會學 刊，19，95-139。
國立台灣師範大學「國民中學學生基本學力測驗」推動工作委員會數學科研究小組（民89），數學科命題理念。國民中學學生基本學力測驗數學科命題研習會手冊。
教育部（民89），國民中學九年一貫課程綱要。台北：教育部。
許泰益（民91），我國高級中學入學制度的演變。飛揚（國民中學學生基 本學力測驗專刊），13，19-25。
郭生玉（民78），心理與教育測驗。臺北：精華書局。
黃光國（民70），升學補習班問題。中國論壇，11（10），8-24。
葉雅馨（民77），校外才藝補習教育與同齡兒童學業成就、創造力、自我 概念及同儕關係之相關研究。台北市：中國文化大學兒童福利研究所碩士論文。
盧曉娟（民86），補習與現代教育。文教天地，63，54-56。
蕭詠太（民90），高中多元入學管道五大關鍵問題。飛揚（國民中學學生 基本學力測驗專刊），11，16-20。
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J. ,Hill, W. H. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives：The classification of educational goals. Hand-book1 ：Cognitive domain. New York：McKay.
Brophy, J. (1981). Advances in teacher effectiveness research. In H. F. Clarigio, R.C. Craig and W. A. Mehrens (Eds.), Contemporary issues in educational psychology (4th ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Cram school take to the airways. (1989, December 14). Japan Times.
Dolly, J. P. (1993). The impact of juku on Japanese students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20(4), 277.
Dolly, J. P., & Vick, D. S. (1986). An attempt to identify predictors of test witness. Pychological Reports, 58, 663-672.
Fallowes , J. (1990). The best years of their lives.Rolling Stone, 10/4/90 Issue 588, p114.
Goya, S. (1994). Japanese Education: Hardly known hard facts. Education Digest, 59(8), 8.
Hauser, R. M., Tsai S. L., & Sewell, W. H. (1983). A Model of Social Stratification with Response error in Social and Psychological Variables. Socioloy of Education , 56, 20-46.
Ihlwn, M. (2000). Crazy for cramming in south korea. Business Week, 10/30/2000 Issue 3705, p178.
Johnson, M. L.; Johnson, J. R. (1996). Daily Life in Japanese High Schools. ERIC Digest (ED406301).
Lyons, D. ( 1981). Humboldt County Student Vocational Interest Survey. Report prepared as part of the Humboldt County Labor Market information Project and financed under the provisions of Title Ⅶ of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 223275 )
Perkins, D. (1991). Encyclopedia of Japan: Japanese history and culture, from abacus to zero. Roundtable Press: New York.
Schooling in Japan (1985) Education Week, 2, 12-26.
Sewell, W. H., Haller, A. O., ＆ Portes A. ( 1975). Educational , Occupational,and Earnings：Achievement in the early career. New York：Academic Press.
Sewell, W. H., Haller,A. O., ＆ Oheledorf ,G. W. (1970). The Educational and Early Occupational Attainment Process：Replication and Revision. American Sociological Review, 35, 1014-1027.
Sewell, W. H., Haller,A. O., ＆ Portes A.(1969). The educational and Early Occupational Attainment Process. American Sociological Review, 34, 82-92.
Smith J. k. (1982). Converging on correct answer: a peculiarity of multiple choice items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 3, 211-220.
Stevenson, H. W. (1983). Making the grade: School achievement in Japan, Taiwan and the United States. The annual report of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavior Sciences, 1, Stanford University.
Teachman, D. J. (1987). Shadow Education and Allocation in Formal Schooling. American Journal of Sociology, 97( 6), 1639-1657.
Tice, T. N. (1994). Japan’s cram schools. Education Digest, 60(1), 42.
White, M. l. (1984). Japanese education: How do they do it？ The Public Interest, 76, Summer.