Quality & Quantity

, Volume 47, Issue 5, pp 2999–3017 | Cite as

Effective investment strategies on mathematics performance in rural areas

Article

Abstract

Taiwan has noticed relative disadvantages in rural areas and offered more scholarship opportunities for aboriginal and low-income students. Moreover, the Educational Priority Area program was implemented in 1996 to invest additional funds in rural schools. Although the average mathematics ability of Taiwanese students ranks high in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the cost-benefit outcome of government funding in rural areas is inadequate. This paper, therefore, tries to explain low student achievement in rural areas with the multilevel modeling (HLM). Data were gathered from 5,581 Taiwanese students in 236 junior high schools using stratified random sampling. Of the data, 2,358 students from 112 rural area schools and 3,223 students from 124 non-rural area schools were sampled. The results demonstrate the importance of distinguishing between resources and investments, and shifts focus from comparisons of the influence of families and schools preexisting conditions to discussions of improvement strategies on mathematics performance. Both families and schools are limited by their resources, but the findings presented in this study suggest that families and schools can improve student achievement with appropriate investments.

Keywords

Resource-investment model Rurality Mathematics education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barrow L., Markman L., Rouse C.E.: Technology’s Edge: The Educational Benefits of Computer-Aided Instruction. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behrman J.R., Khan S., Ross D., Sabot R.: School quality and cognitive achievement production: a case study for Rural Pakistan. Econ. Educ. Rev. 16, 127–142 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blake J.: Number of siblings and educational mobility. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50, 84–94 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caskey M.M.: Extracurricular participation and the transition to middle school. RMLE 29, 1–9 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. Charles C.Z., Roscigno V.J., Torres K.C.: Racial inequality and college attendance: the mediating role of parental investments. Soc. Sci. Res. 36, 329–352 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen L.: An assessment for the educational priority area project in Taiwan. KAOH Norm. U. J. 10, 1–23 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. Chen H.S.: The issues of inequality of educational opportunity in rural junior high schools and related educational policies: a preliminary investigation. Bull. Educ. Res. 53, 1–35 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. Chen H.S., Li H.: Gaps between ideal and reality: the doubts and situations of rural junior high schools in the implementation of the nine-year integrated curriculum. Bull. Educ. Res. 55, 67–98 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. Daley T.C., Whaley S.E., Sigman M.D., Guthrie D.: Background and classroom correlates of child achievement, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes in rural Kenyan schoolchildren. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 29, 399–408 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. Hamm J.V., Farmer T.W., Robertson D., Dadisman K.A., Murray A., Meece J.L., Song S.Y.: Effects of a developmentally based intervention with teachers on native American and white early adolescents’ schooling adjustment in rural settings. J. Exp. Educ. 78, 343–377 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ho S.C., Willms J.D.: Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociol. Educ. 69, 126–141 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holmlund H., McNally S., Viarengo M.: Does money matter for schools?. Econ. Educ. Rev. 29, 1154–1164 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee D.: An empirical study on the relationship between human capital, financial capital, social capital and educational achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 30, 111–141 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. Lee J.W., Barro R.J.: Schooling quality in a cross-section of countries. Economica 68, 465–488 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lin H., Hwang Y.: The study on relationship among the aborigines and Hans, cram schooling and the academic achievement. Contemp. Educ. Res. Q. 17, 41–81 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. Ma, X., Ma, L., Bradley, K.D.: Using multilevel modeling to investigate school effects. In: O’Connell, A.A., McCoach, D.B. Multilevel Modeling of Educational Data, pp. 59–110. Information Age, Charlotte (2008)Google Scholar
  17. Maas C.J.M., Hox J.J.: Sufficient sample size for multilevel modeling. Methodology 1, 85–91 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. McCoach D.B., Black A.C.: Evaluation of model fit and adequacy. In: O’Connell, A., McCoach, D.B. (eds.) Multilevel Modeling of Educational Data, pp. 245–272. Information Age, Charlotte (2008)Google Scholar
  19. McNeal R.B.: Differential effects of parental involvement on cognitive and behavioral outcomes by socioeconomic status. J. Soc. Econ. 30, 171–179 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchem K., Kossar K., Ludlow B.B.: Finite resources, increasing demands: rural children left behind?. Rural Special Educ. Q. 25, 13–23 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. Odden A., Picus L.: School finance: a policy perspective, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  22. Parish W.L., Willis R.J.: Daughters, education, and family budgets: Taiwan experiences. J. Hum. Resour. 28, 863–898 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pegg J., Panizzon D.: Inequities in student achievement for literacy: Metropolitan versus rural comparisons. Aust. J. Lang. Lit. 30, 177–190 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. Richards C.E., Sheu T.M.: The South Carolina school incentive reward program: a policy analysis. Econ. Educ. Rev. 11, 71–86 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rivkin S., Hanushek E., Kain J.: Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econometrica 73, 417–458 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roscigno V.J., Crowley M.L.: Rurality, institutional disadvantage, and achievement/attainment. Rural. Sociol. 66, 268–292 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roscigno V.J., Tomaskovic-Devey D., Crowley M.L.: Education and the inequalities of place. Soc. Forces 84, 2121–2145 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saxe G.B., Gearhart M., Nasir N.S.: Enhancing students’ understanding of mathematics: a study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. J. Math. Teacher Educ. 4, 55–79 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shapiro D., Tambashe B.O.: Gender, poverty, family structure, and investments in children’s education in Kinshasa, Congo. Econ. Educ. Rev. 20, 359–375 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Teachman J.D.: Family background, educational resources, and educational attainment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52, 548–557 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Webster B.J., Fisher D.L.: Accounting for variation in science and mathematics achievement: a multilevel analysis of Australian data Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). School Eff. School Improv. 11, 339–360 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Young D.J.: Rural and urban differences in student achievement in science and mathematics: a multilevel analysis. School Eff. School Improv. 9, 386–418 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zaff J., Moore K., Papillo A., Williams S.: Implications of extracurricular activity participation during adolescence on positive outcomes. J. Adolesc. Res. 18, 599–630 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipei CityTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Department of EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipei CityTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations