用戶登入
用戶名稱:
密      碼:
搜索
教育王國 討論區 小學雜談 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差
樓主: ohnono
go

小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2963
發表於 06-12-1 15:53 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

ChiChiPaPa,

我認為要睇整體中學公開試、大學畢業試成績,某幾所男女小學升中派位數字並不能反映男女生成績高下。

至於你既"音樂的魔力......要慢慢感受"對男生成績既正面影響,論調頗有新意,願聞其詳!

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7


11205
發表於 06-12-1 15:57 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

都好難好過佢地,男仔仇視女仔好似強烈左。點止讀書慘,娶唔到老婆又慘。到時我地五六十歲重要上Baby Kingdom交流下,睇下有無女仔(娶)唔到或男仔(嫁)唔出。或者係到時幫佢地搵翻個好人家啦。
(唔怪得同性戀好似多左。有錢的話,一係就娶晒的叻女返來收埋佢囉,淨係準上BK.)
:verycold: :verycold: :verycold:

Rank: 8Rank: 8


19492
發表於 06-12-1 16:18 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

JP,

其實我都好想知道是不是因為音樂的魔力。

在校際音樂比賽中,除了宣小外,還有其它很重視音樂的學校,它們亦拿了很多獎項。愛蝶灣基灣(津小)亦是實行一人一樂器的學校,任用知名的樂器導師,他們的第一組別比率超過9成。我都很想知在愛蝶灣基灣,是不是到了小六,男生已整體上超越女生。

Rank: 5Rank: 5


3612
發表於 06-12-1 16:27 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

ChiChiPaPa, JP,

雖然沒有研究, 但音樂對於小朋友學習方面的正面影響, 我是很相信的 (我曾去過音小聽briefing, 當時他們的校長曾quote 了小小例子, 但我忘了)

但我亦有疑問 : 如音樂對於小朋友學習方面的正面影響, 應該對男女學生有相同的影響, 但 ChiChiPaPa的說法, 像是對男孩子的影響比女孩子大, 是不是真的呢 ? 如果是真的? 原因呢?  

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2963
發表於 06-12-1 16:58 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

ChiChiPaPa,

你舉既愛蝶灣基灣小學例子,可能係"雞與雞蛋"問題。我聽聞佢地收插班生考個幾兩個鐘筆試!

我仔學校全班/全級考第一既男生,有學音樂但唔係特別出色!音樂特別出色既男生,未必係成績最top。沈靖X都只係叻數學&音樂。張緯晴例外(但佢係女仔)

KLLP,

ChiChiPaPa說音樂可以令活躍好動既男仔更專注。 我未體會到這種魔力!

Rank: 3Rank: 3


147
發表於 06-12-1 17:07 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

1. 男性的左右腦是發展成分區工作的
2. 女性的頭腦是合同運算的(左右腦可以同時運作)
例如:男性集中用左腦處理語文,一個左腦受傷的男性,語文智商會降低約百分之二十;右腦受傷的話,語文智商幾乎不受影響;反觀一個左腦受傷的女性,語文智商降低約百分之九,右腦受傷語文能力降低的程度也差不多。

音樂有助左右腦發展,加強合同運算的能力,所以男孩子得益較多。

Rank: 8Rank: 8


19492
發表於 06-12-1 17:16 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

Gender and achievement in music education: the view from the classroom
Ruth Wright a1
a1 [email protected]

Abstract

This article originates from a research project investigating the effects of gender on achievement in music education in one secondary school. The study showed a correlation between gender and achievement in music with some surprising insights into possible causes of male under-achievement in education at Key Stages 3 (11–14 years) and 4 (14–16 years) generally. It is argued that because of national testing and school performance tables, the debate on male under-achievement in this country may have become so focused on core subjects that a very important link in the argument is being overlooked – a link provided by music and the other creative arts.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Rank: 3Rank: 3


145
發表於 06-12-1 17:44 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

Dr Cool,
謝謝你的資料,很具體的解釋.   

Rank: 5Rank: 5


2838
發表於 06-12-1 18:15 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

I know some smart girls transferred to other schools in P2/P3.

For no. of APS students admitted to DBS/DGS, you should take into account the no. of seats available for outsiders.
ChiChiPaPa 寫道:
在宣小的情況,好像不一樣。不知是不是因為音樂令活躍的男生更專注,我發覺每年級獲獎的男生數目一年比一年多,到小六更超越女生。我囡囡小二時,考全班第一的,已經是男同學。而看升中派位,男生更略優於女生,看考入男女拔的人數,就可知一、二。

Rank: 8Rank: 8


19492
發表於 06-12-1 18:23 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

wildberries,

我有考慮這個因素,並比較SFA的結果。

Rank: 3Rank: 3


329
發表於 06-12-1 22:59 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

小學階段,總體成績一般都是女生較佳,但若分科而言,女生精於語文,男生優於數學科,術科則男女生也很平均

Rank: 8Rank: 8


19492
發表於 06-12-1 23:40 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

跟據平機會的資料,當年在18區,有11個校網,女生取得較高的分數,而有7個校網,男生的分數高過女生,所以並非一面倒。

所以會不會有其他因素影嚮男女生成績表現?

Rank: 3Rank: 3


101
發表於 06-12-2 00:52 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

當年平機會對教署一案法庭的判詞節錄如下(bold 和 underline 是我加的)。

HCAL1555/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO. 1555 OF 2000
-----------------------

THE USE OF GENDER-BASED MECHANISMS WITHIN THE SSPA SYSTEM

    (a)     Scaling of the internal assessments on a gender basis

51.        When the SSPA system was put into operation, the use of AAT scores to scale IA grades was managed without any reference to gender.  However, in the opinion of the Director, early studies of scores obtained by pupils in both the IAs and the AATs revealed a marked gender bias, the IAs favouring girls and the AATs favouring boys.  A 1978 report made findings to the following effect :

    (a)     At 'almost all age groups', girls performed significantly better than boys in the IAs.

    (b)     Contrary to this, at 'almost all age groups', boys performed significantly better than girls in the AATs.

    (c)     As the AAT scores were not directly awarded to students but were used to assess the level of IA marking in schools, the boys who did well in the AATs were not being directly credited with those results.  Instead, those marks went to boost the level at which the school's IA grades were to be compared with other schools.  The direct beneficiaries of this were the students who had done best in the school's IAs; namely, girls.

    (d)     In the result, the existing method of scaling was to the advantage of girls in co-educational schools but to the disadvantage of the boys in those schools.

    (e)     In respect of single sex schools, the distortion was apparent within the sexes.  Girls in girls only schools competed unfavourably with girls in co-educational schools because they did not have the better AAT scores of boys to boost the level of their scaling.  However, boys in boys only schools competed favourably with boys in co-educational schools because, presumably, there were no girls to secure the better results in their IAs.

52.        In light of these findings, the decision was made to introduce a gender factor into the scaling mechanism.  Initially, girls in co-educational schools had marks deducted from their scaled IA scores while boys in those same schools had marks added to their scores.  Patently, at root, no matter how laudable the purpose of the exercise, the intended effect was to boost the final SSPA scores of boys while reducing those of girls.  The average margins were not great but they were still material and would have altered the final merit rankings of a significant number of boys and girls.  The method of adjustment, however, was found to be unsatisfactory.  Mr. Lee Kwok Sung has said that the magnitude of adjustment varied from year to year and relied heavily on human judgment, making the process haphazard.  Further studies in 1982 indicated that gender bias was still evident.  The decision was therefore made to introduce a system which was described succinctly in a contemporary report in the following terms :

        "For future years, girls and boys in a co-educational school should be separated into 2 single-sex schools and converted separately.  No adjustment is then necessary."

53.        As a result of that change, under the present SSPA system, boys and girls in co-educational primary schools have their results scaled separately.  There is no need to examine the complex mathematical way in which this is done.  Suffice to say that what is called a 'gender curve' is used.  The intended effect, however, is the same as that of the original system of gender scaling; namely, to boost the final SSPA scores of boys and, in comparison, reduce those of girls.

    (b)     Banding according to gender

54.        Banding according to gender has always been a part of the SSPA system.  Students are ranked according to their final SSPA score and that score will dictate into which one of three bands they are placed.  However, boys and girls are ranked separately in this process.  It follows, of course, that the band cutting scores will differ for each sex.  For example, to get into Band One a girl may require a final SSPA score of 80% while a boy in her same school may only require 75%.  Assuming both of them obtain final SSPA scores of 76% and can claim equal academic attainment, the girl will nevertheless fall into Band Two while the boy will be placed into Band One.

    (c)     The use of gender quotas

55.        The imposition of a gender quota for the purpose of maintaining a balanced ratio between boys and girls in co-educational secondary schools has, along with separate gender banding, always been a part of the SSPA.  Indeed, the Commission's Report explained the reason for these two mechanisms being gender-based in the following terms :

        "     According to the Education Department, the separate processing of boys and girls in bands is necessary because of the very need to allocate a fixed number of places to boys and girls in co-educational secondary schools.  The Education Department takes the view that fixed numbers of boys and girls in co-educational schools allow children to receive a balanced education and to develop their interpersonal skills in their daily contact with peers of the same as well as of the opposite sex."

56.        The practical effect of gender quotas is that, once the quota for a particular sex has been filled, any further student of the same sex who has chosen that school will be denied entry and will be allocated another school lower in that student's list of choices.  This will be the case even though there are still places available in the school for students of the other sex.


這判詞當年在平機會的網站找到,現在已經不再存在平機的網站。要了解多一點,也可參考 HKU 的一篇文章:

http://law.hku.hk/gl/06legal.doc

Rank: 8Rank: 8


19492
發表於 06-12-2 05:08 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

根據平機會的資料,大部份的分區,都係女仔要高一些的分數,才可以是第一組別,但18區中,有7區相反,例如:

Band - Cutting Scores

Eastern (Boy) 117.55 (Girls) 116.1
Kowloon City (Boy) 123.03 (Girls) 119.53

這個Band - Cutting Scores的資料是很最要的,因為它反映各區學校的相對實力,到小五、六,家長如選擇以住址,作升中分派,就可估到轉區時會跌band,定升band。

在18區中,九龍城區(包括九龍塘)的男比女強是很明顯的。18區中,亦只有這一區是這樣明顯。是不是因為這是名校區,有較多學生學習鋼琴和樂器,而使男孩有更好的發展呢?

Rank: 3Rank: 3


101
發表於 06-12-3 09:23 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

ChiChiPaPa 寫道:
跟據平機會的資料,當年在18區,有11個校網,女生取得較高的分數,而有7個校網,男生的分數高過女生,所以並非一面倒。

所以會不會有其他因素影嚮男女生成績表現?


會不會是小學收生的結果?某些學校是男生比女生的成績是明顯優勝的(如油天),因該區有出名男中學但相對卻沒有那麼出名的女校,所以給引了成績好的男生報讀那些小學。

Rank: 8Rank: 8


19492
發表於 06-12-3 11:06 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

Rham,

Banding cut-off scores of Band One for 油尖旺 (即係油天那一區) 是

Boy 121.76
Girl 122.98

你是說派位成績,還是學業成績。派位成績當然受到不公平的派位制度影嚮。沒有出名的女校可供分派,自然女孩就沒有男孩派得好,但這並不代表男孩的學業成績比女孩好。

我有看油天(海泓道)的英雄榜,在學業成績優異獎中,男孩並不比女孩多,而且女孩在其他相關獎項中,有更多的獎項。是否真的確定油天的男孩學業成績較好,還是受了派位成績誤導了。

Rank: 4


628
發表於 06-12-3 11:47 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

我自己個人有這樣的看法。(純粹個人的看法)

除了男和女本身的各項差異外,
根據智能與性別之關係,以及性格氣質來推斷﹕

好早前聽講座有資優專家謂(余古少賢博士),根據統計,智商兩極化分佈,智商低下的男性比女性多,智商高的男性亦比女性多。(而加ge智商測驗則要保留,因為近年後天積極甚至瘋狂的培育影響了結果)

如果以性格氣質來分,九型人格中,中國人屬3號"成就型"的都為數不少。
http://www.hkedcity.net/article/parent_infant_growth/050604-003/
http://tzemaggie.sinatown.com/read/part3.htm

3號的人十分注重輸贏得失,目標感強,即使未必係自己的興趣所在,但如果可以讓他名成利就,這類人一定努力奮鬥,做到完美,甚至不惜一切爭取好成績,希望在人前表現最好的一面。3號的小孩亦然,在很小的時候就能觀察得到。

而通常社會較高成就和名聲的人,很多都係3仔,咁,社經地位高的一群人士,佢地亦佔左好大比例(當然唔係全部)。咁,佢地有能力搵名校俾小朋友黎讀ge機會亦較大,咁,如果佢地小孩都係3仔,咁,不論小男孩或小女孩,相較於別的型號孩子來說,比較會全力以赴,努力上進,以及十分期望和有動機地得到好成績、得到別人的讚賞。(當然大部分小朋友都希望咁;但3號孩子這方面的動機超強)

如果這類性格的孩子,再加上智商上的優勢,不論男和女都會在他人眼中成為品學兼優者也。

咁,如果真正智商偏高的人,是男比女多,咁,加埋3號仔性格特徵,咁,自然錦上添花啦。所以,名校的學生男女邊個佔優真的好難講吧?

一般小學學校的學生,女比男成績好,相較於名校來說,可能會比較明顯,特別係那群沒有父母太多"干預"的孩子。
誰會直率地說出所認識的真實?有所認識的少數人,愚蠢地不隱蔽自己充實的心,向愚民們說明他們的感情和見識,他們總是被人磔死或燒死。 歌德 <<浮士德>>入來做下test,不同的人對事情有不同的看法和感受﹗

Rank: 3Rank: 3


495
發表於 06-12-3 13:52 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

點解咁多個"咁"

Rank: 4


628
發表於 06-12-3 17:34 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

係咁ge...因為咁咁咁,即係咁,所以我就咁
誰會直率地說出所認識的真實?有所認識的少數人,愚蠢地不隱蔽自己充實的心,向愚民們說明他們的感情和見識,他們總是被人磔死或燒死。 歌德 <<浮士德>>入來做下test,不同的人對事情有不同的看法和感受﹗

Rank: 3Rank: 3


101
發表於 06-12-3 21:03 |顯示全部帖子

Re: 小學時,男仔的成績是不是較女仔差

ChiChiPaPa 寫道:

你是說派位成績,還是學業成績。派位成績當然受到不公平的派位制度影嚮。沒有出名的女校可供分派,自然女孩就沒有男孩派得好,但這並不代表男孩的學業成績比女孩好。

我有看油天(海泓道)的英雄榜,在學業成績優異獎中,男孩並不比女孩多,而且女孩在其他相關獎項中,有更多的獎項。是否真的確定油天的男孩學業成績較好,還是受了派位成績誤導了。


Good point.  油天真的不是一個好例子。在現行的小學收生機制中,官津小學根本沒有選擇學生的自由,所以這點應該不太成立。

ChiChiPaPa, 根據你的分析,這種區域性的現象是否每年如是,或只是 random fluctuation?簡單來說,這些差別是否 statistically significant?

在那裡可以取得你所引述的資料?