本研究的目的在於探究國三學生對補習班與學校教學的看法及其與基測自然科之表現的關係。研究目的主要有六個：一是探討學生補習的情況與內容。二是探討學生補習的相關因素。三是探討學生對學校與補習班理化課教學之看法與比較。四是探討學生對補習班的功能與缺失的看法。五是探討學生於90學年度第一次基測自然科之表現與原因。六是探討本研究學生對於90學年度第一次基測自然科題目之看法。
本研究之對象來自大台北地區參加過九十學年度第一次基測之國三學生，共252人，研究以問卷調查的方式進行，問卷共有一份，內容涵蓋上述六個研究目的。問卷填答資料採用描述性統計、卡方考驗、相依樣本t考驗（paired t-test）與多元迴歸分析來進行處理。
本研究的資料顯示：在學生補習的情況與內容方面，國中三年這群學生「曾上補習班」的百分比都超過60﹪，以補習數學、理化、英文的人數最多，參加補習是出於自己的意願。此外，父母親教育程度與子女補習百分比有顯著相關。在學生對學校與補習班理化課教學之看法與比較方面，認為補習班在「動手作實驗印證」方面遠差於學校，優於學校的向度為「老師幽默風趣」，但兩者差異不大。學校理化教師使用「動手實驗，加深印象」的教學習慣顯著比補習班教師為多；而補習班教師使用「自編講義，不用課本」的教學習慣顯著比學校教師為多。補習班在基測自然科之幫助稍優於學校，但兩者的差異不大。補習班的優點為「重點整理有系統」，缺點為「演算太多題目，太複雜，使觀念混淆」，最主要的幫助向度為「多聽一次，對課程內容更熟悉」，對學業成績多少有些幫助，但在學生應付基測的自然科目的幫助不是很大。
在學生在基測自然科之表現與原因分析方面，由迴歸分析的結果中得知，「母親教育程度」、「家中藏書數量」、「自然科在專長的科目中的排序」與答對題數有關，而且以「自然科在專長的科目中的排序」解釋能力最強。多數的學生認為該次基測自然科考得好不好的原因都在「自己是否努力的結果」，該次自然科題目很「生活化」，不認為該次題目符合了所公布的測驗主旨。若基測要考好，不用補習、不需要做參考書題目、需要親自動手做實驗。學校考試前應停掉進度，幫助學生準備基測。這群學生不確定該次自然科題目的命題理念與實施方式，會對國中教育發揮正面的影響。此外，該次基測造成學生很大的升學壓力，但不需要提供心理輔導，也不會增加想去補習的動機。
最後整合研究之結果與文獻的意見，對學校與教師建議宜深入了解學生的學習需求，重視補習造成教育機會的不平等的問題，面對升學考試的改變，學校教師的教學宜注重基礎觀念的建立、生活化、實際動手做實驗等特色。教育主管機關宜深入瞭解學生補習背後真正的原因，由此著手教育改革。至於日後的研究方向，本研究建議將來這方面的研究，可採取由全台灣更普遍性的去選取具代表性的樣本來做調查。

The purpose of the study is to investigate the ninth-grade students’ opinions on the teachings of cram schools and ordinary schools and their relationship with the performance of Basic Competence Test of Science. The subjects of the study includes 252 ninth-grade students chosen from the Taipei area. A questionaire was designed for the purpose and these students’ performances of Basic Competence Test of Science were collected. All data were analysed by the method of descriptive statistics, t-test and multiple regression.
The data of the study demonstrates the following results: The rate of these students who had attended the cram schools was higher than 60% and most of them attended the cram schools according to their own will. The number of students who studied Mathematics, Physics/Chemistry and English at the cram schools was higher than those who studied other subjects. The higher the parents’ education level was , the more number of their children attended the cram schools. The analysis also showed that according to the students’ opinions the teaching of ordinary schools was much better than the teaching of cram schools on the aspect of “ do the experiment to testify” but the teachers at cram schools were more humerous than those who were at ordinary schools. The cram schools also seemed to give them more help on the Basic Competence Test of Science than the ordinary schools did. Generally speaking, the teaching of cram schools was better than the teaching of ordinary schools in the aspect of “Display the content of the subject in a systematized way”, but the students also expressed the opinion of “too much exercises at cram schools made them confused”. Besides, the students thought what helped them most at cram schools was “To listen to the subject one more time, make them more familiar with the subject”. It helped more or less to improve their academic performance and the grade of Basic Competence Test of Science.
In the Basic Competence Test of Science, the result of regression analysis showed that “the educational level of the student’s mother”,“the amount of books at home” and “the priority of Science in the students’ favorite subjects” were correlated with the number of right answers on Basic Competence Test of Science. Most of the students considered that the characteristics of Basic Competence Test of Science lay on its compatibility on everyday life. Whether they could get a high grade on the test was decided by the degree of their efforts. Besides, the Basic Competence Test increased the pressure of entering the senior high schools on the students. It didn’t increase their motivation for going to the cram schools.
Finally, the study suggested that the teachers should take more efforts to understand the students’ learning need, the teaching should emphasize the practibility on everyday life and the experiment by hand was important. The further study could be performed by selecting more representative samples in Taiwan.

一、中文部分
王文科（民87），教育研究法。臺北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
何文（民76），日本考試煉獄從幼稚園開始。教育資料文摘，18（1），69。
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。
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，1。
金梁垣（民71），中韓兩國升大學重考生重考問題的比較分析。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。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
美國教育部教育研究所及改進署日本研究小組，宋明順譯（民77），日本的補習班。教育資料文摘，21（2），67-74。
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。
國民中學學生基本學力測驗數學科命題研習會手冊（民89），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。
陳麗文（民89年），自然學科的命題方向。飛揚，4。
陳麗文和鄭立文（民89年），自然學科基本學力測驗的理念。飛揚，4。
游福生（民84），漫談補習問題。教師之友，36（3），23-24。
黃光明（民82），談補習。現代教育，30，145-151。
黃光國（民70），升學補習班問題。中國論壇，11（10），8-24。
黃秀孟（民71），升學主義是國民教育發展的絆腳石。教育資料文摘，10（2），67-68。
黃慧貞、黃光國（民70），升學補習班問題。中國論壇，11（10），8-2
黃毅志（民79），台灣地區教育機會之不平等性。思與言，28（1），93-125。
楊國樞（民67），惡補與平等。教育資料文摘，1（1），84-85。
楊淑慧（民76），中、日、美教育制度的比較。教育資料文摘，18（1），67-68。
雷文（民88），是惡補還是輔導。師說，132，12-13。
蓋浙生（民77），解開學校教育與補習班間的對立心結。中國時報，民國77年3月6日，第三版。
二、英文部分
Blau, P. M.＆ Duncan, O. D.(1967). The American Occupation Structure. New York,Wiley.
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.
De Graaf,Paul M. (1986). The Impact of Financial and Cultural Resources on Educational Attainment in the Netherlands. Socioloy of Education ,59,237-246.
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.
Farkas et al. (1990). Culture Resources and School Success. American Sociological Review,55,127-142.
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).
Kobayashi, V.N. (1986). Japanese and U.S. curricula compared. In W.K. Cummings, E.R. Beauchamp, S. Ichikawa, V.N. Kobayashi, & M. Ushiogi (Eds.), Educational policies in crises: Japanese and American perspectives (p. 67) Praeger: 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.
Stevenson,D.L. ＆ Baker,D.P.(L992). Shadow Education And Allocation In Formal Schooling, American Journal Of Sociology 97(6):1639-1657.
Teachman D.J. （1987）. Family Background,Educational Resource,And Educational Attainment. American Sociological Review 52:548-577.
Tice, T. N. (1994). Japan’s cram schools. Education Digest, 60(1), 42.