本研究旨在探討《性別平等教育法》對臺灣高中生在學習領域穩定性與學習領域滿意度方面的影響。學習領域穩定性指的是學生從高中至大學的學習軌跡是否具有一致性，包括高中選組與大學主修領域同為自然組（即理工學習軌跡一致）或同為社會組（即人文學習軌跡一致），以及大學期間是否曾轉系與是否有繼續升學的意願。學習領域滿意度則衡量學生對大學所學領域的主觀滿意程度，並以其大學主修科系與工作領域是否一致作為衡量標準。
研究使用「臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫（TEPS）」及後續調查（TEPS-B）資料，將樣本分為兩世代：性平法實施前已完成高中選組的年長世代（1984–1985年出生），以及自高中起即處於性平法實施環境的年輕世代（1988–1989年出生）。由於年輕世代的整個高中階段皆受性別平等教育制度影響，因此可用以觀察長期處於性平法環境下是否更有助於穩定學習選擇與提高滿意度。
整體樣本分析結果顯示，年輕世代的學習領域穩定性較高，無論是就學穩定度或升學行為皆優於年長世代，特別是在理工學習軌跡一致下更為明顯。此外，在學習領域滿意度方面，僅在理工學習軌跡一致的情況下，年輕世代顯著高於年長世代，顯示學習方向的延續性有助於提升滿意感。接著進一步區分性別來分析，發現男性樣本中，年輕世代在學習領域穩定性方面表現明顯優於年長世代，其轉學轉系比例較年長世代低，儘管整體升學比例無顯著提升，但就自然組接續理工領域者而言，仍較有可能選擇升學。學習領域滿意度方面，主修理工的年輕男性滿意度顯著較高；相反地，主修人文者的滿意度則低於同齡人，整體而言，年輕男性並未在所有情境中表現出比年長男性更高的滿意度。而女性樣本的分析結果顯示，年輕世代在學習領域穩定性上整體表現較佳，其就學期間的轉學與轉系比例普遍較低。進一步觀察穩定性中的「繼續升學」行為，發現年輕女性在理工學習軌跡一致下的升學比例反而顯著低於年長女性。至於學習領域滿意度，則主要受主修領域影響，即無論世代別，主修理工領域的女性整體滿意度皆高於人文領域者，但不同世代間的滿意度並未呈現顯著差異。
本研究結果突顯出性別平等教育制度對於提升學生學習穩定性具有一定正面效果，特別是在理工學習軌跡一致的學生中成效更為顯著，顯示制度改革有助於支持學生做出連貫且持續的教育選擇。然而，進一步的性別分層分析也揭示出制度效果的性別差異性，性平教育制度有助於鞏固男性在理工領域的持續參與與主觀肯定。相對而言，雖然年輕女性在整體穩定性上有改善，其在理工領域中的升學意願卻出現下降趨勢，突顯制度尚未充分回應女性在高競爭性學門中所面臨的進路瓶頸與隱性阻力。此一現象可能反映出性別平等政策在提供進入門檻之餘，尚缺乏對女性長期學術與職涯投入的支持結構，仍須透過具性別敏感性的輔導機制與制度延伸設計，促進不同性別學生在各類學門中的長期投入與主觀認同。

This study aims to explore the impact of Taiwan's Gender Equity Education Act (GEEA) on high school students' stability and satisfaction in their academic fields. Academic stability refers to whether students' learning trajectories from high school to university are consistent, including whether their high school track and university major align within the natural sciences (i.e., consistent science learning trajectory) or social sciences (i.e., consistent humanities learning trajectory), as well as whether they switch majors or express a willingness to continue education. Academic satisfaction measures students' subjective satisfaction with their university major, with alignment between their university major and future career field serving as the benchmark.
The study uses data from the Taiwan Education Panel Survey (TEPS) and its subsequent survey (TEPS-B), dividing the sample into two generations: the older generation (born 1984–1985) who completed their high school track before the GEEA was implemented, and the younger generation (born 1988–1989) who have been in an environment influenced by the GEEA since high school. As the younger generation has been under the influence of gender equality education throughout their entire high school years, it offers an opportunity to observe whether long-term exposure to the GEEA environment leads to more stable academic choices and higher satisfaction.
The overall sample analysis shows that the younger generation has higher academic stability, performing better in terms of school stability and enrollment behavior than the older generation, particularly in the context of consistent science learning trajectories. Moreover, academic satisfaction in the younger generation is significantly higher than in the older generation, but only for students whose learning trajectory aligns with the natural sciences, suggesting that continuity in the academic direction contributes to higher satisfaction. Further analysis by gender reveals that in the male sample, the younger generation demonstrates significantly higher academic stability, with lower transfer and major-switching rates compared to the older generation. Although the overall enrollment rate does not show significant improvement, male students in the natural sciences are still more likely to pursue further education. In terms of academic satisfaction, younger male students majoring in engineering and technology report significantly higher satisfaction; however, male students majoring in humanities report lower satisfaction than their peers. Overall, younger males do not show higher satisfaction than older males in all contexts. In the female sample, the younger generation generally performs better in terms of academic stability, with lower transfer and major-switching rates. A closer look at the "continuing education" behavior within academic stability reveals that younger females with a consistent natural science learning trajectory have a significantly lower rate of further education compared to older females. As for academic satisfaction, it is primarily influenced by the major field, with females majoring in engineering and technology showing higher overall satisfaction than those majoring in humanities, although there are no significant differences between generations in terms of satisfaction.
This study highlights the positive impact of the gender equality education system in improving academic stability, especially among students with consistent natural science learning trajectories, indicating that institutional reforms help support students in making coherent and sustained educational choices. However, the further gender-based analysis reveals gender differences in the effectiveness of the policy. While the gender equality education system strengthens male students' continued participation and subjective affirmation in the natural sciences, younger females show a decline in the willingness to pursue further education in these fields. This points to the fact that the system has not fully addressed the barriers and implicit resistance faced by females in competitive disciplines. This phenomenon may reflect that while gender equality policies provide access, they still lack the structural support needed for females' long-term academic and career involvement. Gender-sensitive counseling mechanisms and institutional designs are needed to promote long-term engagement and subjective recognition of students of all genders in various fields.

1資料庫
張苙雲（2021）。台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫：第一波(2001)高中職五專學生問卷資料（C00124_A）【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00124_A-2
張苙雲（2021）。台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫：第二波(2003)高中職五專學生問卷資料（C00137_A）【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00137_A-2
張苙雲（2021）。台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫：第三波(2005)高中職五專學生問卷資料（C00175_A）【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00175_A-2
張苙雲（2021）。台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫：第四波(2007)高中職五專學生問卷資料（C00189_A）【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00189_A-2
關秉寅（2021）。台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫後續調查：教育與勞力市場的連結-2001/2003年高中職五專學生樣本2009年調查（公共版）（C00303_2）【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00303_2-2
關秉寅（2021）。台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫後續調查：教育與勞力市場的連結-2001/2003年高中職五專學生樣本2010年調查（公共版）（C00303_3）【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00303_3-2
關秉寅（2021）。台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫後續調查：教育與勞力市場的連結-2005/2007年高中職五專學生之新追蹤樣本2013年調查（公共版）（E10259_5）【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-E10259_5-2
關秉寅（2021）。台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫後續調查：教育與勞力市場的連結-2005/2007年高中職五專學生核心樣本2013年調查（公共版）（E10259_1）【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-E10259_1-3
2中文部分
池伯尉、尤素娟、劉錦添（2021）。〈為何女生不讀理工、男生不讀人文？大學入學考生資料之實證〉，《經濟論文叢刊》 49(2): 263-306。(Chih, Bo-Wei, Yu,Su-Chuan and Jin-Tan, Liu, 2021, “Gender Differences in College Major
Choice,” Taiwan Economic Review 49(2): 263-306.)
郭祐誠（2018）。〈同儕性別組成對大學科系選擇之影響〉，《經濟論文》 46: 225-261。(Kuo, Yu-Chen, 2018, “The Influence of Peer GenderComposition of Choice of College Major, “Academia Economic Papers 46: 225-261.)
郭祐誠、許聖章（2011）。〈數學能力與性別對高中學生選組之影響〉，《經濟論文叢刊》39: 541-591。(Kuo, Yu-Chen and Sheng-Jang Sheu, 2011, “The
Impact of Mathematics Background and Gender on the Choice of Major in. Taiwan’s Senior High School,” Taiwan Economic Review 39:541-591.)
陳皎眉、孫旻暐（2006）。從性別刻板印象威脅談學業表現上的性別差異。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。（Chen, Jiao-Mei, and Sun, Min-Wei.(2006). “Gender Differences in Academic Performance: A Discussion from the Perspective of Stereotype Threat.” Digital Archives and Digital Learning Joint Catalog.）
陳婉琪（2013）。〈高中生選組行為的原因與結果：性別、信念、教師角色與能力發展〉，《台灣社會學》 25: 89-123。 (Chen, Wan-Chi, 2013, “Causes and Consequences of High School Curriculum Track Selection: Gender, Belief, Teacher's Gender, and Cognitive Development,” Taiwan Sociology 25: 89-123.)
高衡權、劉家樺 （2024）。2004年《性別平等教育法》對高中生選組的影響。人文及社會科學集刊，36:1 2024.03[民113.03] ， 101-161。（Gao, Hengquan, and Liu, Chia-Hua.(2024). “The Impact of the Gender Equity Education Act of 2004 on High School Students’ Track Selection.”Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 36:1, March 2024 [ROC 113.03], 101-161.）
劉家樺、駱明慶（2021）。〈父母的性別偏好對國中子女升學和高中職主修領域選擇的影響─以「台灣青少年計畫」樣本為例〉，《經濟論文》 49(2): 163-200。(Liu, Chia-Hua and Luoh Ming-Ching, 2021, “The Effect of Parents’ Gender Preference on Children’s High School Outcomes and Choice of Field of Study in Senior and Vocational High Schools: Evidence from Taiwan Youth Project,”Academia Economic Papers 49(2): 163-200.)
蔡麗玲（2017）。關注科技領域的性別平等—從性別偏見到性別意識。 臺灣社會學會通訊，86 ，24-26。（Tsai, Li-Ling.(2017). “Gender Equality in the Field of Technology – From Gender Bias to Gender Awareness.” Taiwan Sociological Association Newsletter, 86, 24-26.）
謝小芩（2017）。從量變邁向質變－科技領域的性別研究。性別平等教育季刊，(80)，52-59。（Hsieh, Hsiao-Chin.(2017). “From Quantitative Change to Qualitative Change – Gender Studies in the Field of Technology.” Gender Equality Education Quarterly, (80), 52-59.）
謝小芩、林大森、陳佩英（2011）。〈性別科系跨界？大學生的性別與科系選擇〉，《台灣社會學刊》: 95-149。(Hsieh, Hsiao-Chin, Da-Sen Lin, and Pei-Ying Chen, 2011, “Crossing Gender Boundaries: Gender and College Majors in Taiwan,”Taiwanese Journal of Sociology : 95-149.)
3英文部分
Blau, Francine D. (2025). “Gender Inequality in the Labor Market: Continuing. Progress?” ILR Review, 78(2): 275-303.
Castro Zazueta, Nancy Pamela, Estrada Ledesma, Rubi, Gómez González, Oscar, and. Santoyo Telles, Felipe. (2023). “Working Conditions by Gender and Overeducation of Higher Education Graduates in Mexico,” Enseñanza e Investigación en Psicología Nueva Época, 5(2023): 1-12.
Ceci, Stephen J., Donna K. Ginther, Shulamit Kahn, and Wendy M. Williams. (2014). “Women in Academic Science: Explaining the Gap,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(3): 1-67.
Davila Dos Santos, Eliane, Alberto Albahari, Ernani Cesar De Freitas, and Soledad. Díaz. (2022). “‘Science and Technology as Feminine’: Raising Awareness About and Reducing the Gender Gap in STEM Careers,” Journal of Gender Studies, 31: 1-22.
Delaney, Judith M., and Paul J. Devereux. (2025). “Gender Differences in Graduate. Degree Choices,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 230: 106882.
Dossi, Gaia, David Figlio, Paola Giuliano, and Paola Sapienza. (2021). “Born in the. Family: Preferences for Boys and the Gender Gap in Math,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 183: 175-188.
Fiala, Lenka, John Eric Humphries, Juanna Schrøter Joensen, Uditi Karna, John A. List, and Gregory F. Veramendi. (2022). “How Early Adolescent Skills and Preferences Shape Economics Education Choices,” AEA Papers and Proceedings, 112: 609-613.
Finger, Claudia, Heike Solga, Martin Ehlert, and Alessandra Rusconi. (2020). “Gender Differences in the Choice of Field of Study and the Relevance of Income Information: Insights from a Field Experiment,” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 65: 100457.
Flory, Jeffrey A., Andreas Leibbrandt, and John A. List. (2015). “Do Competitive. Workplaces Deter Female Workers? A Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment on Job Entry Decisions,” The Review of Economic Studies, 82(1): 122-155.
Galos, Diana Roxana, and Susanne Strauss. (2022). “Why do Women Opt for Gender-Atypical Fields of Study? The Increasing Role of Income Motivation Over Time,” Higher Education, 85: 795-817.
Goldin, Claudia, and Lawrence F. Katz. (2016). “A Most Egalitarian Profession: Pharmacy and the Evolution of a Family-Friendly Occupation,” Journal of Labor Economics, 34(3): 705-742.
Hansen, Anne Toft, Michael A. Kuhn, Sally Sadoff, and Helene Willadsen. (2022). “Gender Differences in Choice of Educational Field: Evidence from a Large-Scale Survey Experiment,” Journal of Human Resources, 57(4): 961-991.
Kahn, Shulamit, and Donna Ginther. (2017). “Women and STEM,” NBER Working. Paper No. 23525.
Keller, Wolfgang, Teresa Molina, and William W. Olney. (2023). “The Gender Gap. Among Top Business Executives,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 183: 175-188.
Kimhi, Ayal. (2022). “Gender Wage Gaps in Israel: What Causes Them and How Can. They Be Reduced?” Shoresh Research Paper, March 2022.
Kuhn, Andreas, and Stefan C. Wolter. (2023). “The Strength of Gender Norms and. Gender-Stereotypical Occupational Aspirations Among Adolescents,” Kyklos, 76: 101-124.
Li, Fanghua, and Y. Jane Zhang. (2024). “Response to Competition: Gender, Domains, and STEM Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 213: 124-145.
List, John, Jeffrey Flory, and Andreas Leibbrandt. (2011). “Women Less Interested. than Men in Jobs Where Individual Competition Determines Wages,” University of Chicago News, January 14, 2011.
Porter, Catherine, and Danila Serra. (2020). “Gender Differences in the Choice of. Major: The Importance of Female Role Models,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 12(3): 226-254.
UNESCO. (2024). “Global education monitoring report: Gender report – Technology on her terms,” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Van der Vleuten, Maaike. (2023). “Gender Differences in Fields of Study:
The Role of Comparative Advantage for Trajectory Choices in Upper Secondary. Education,” Journal of Education, 203(2): 331-342.