:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:大學學生事務的理論基礎--臺灣大學生心理社會發展之研究
書刊名:公民訓育學報
作者:黃玉
作者(外文):Huang, Yu
出版日期:2000
卷期:9
頁次:頁161-200
主題關鍵詞:學生事務大學生臺灣
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(50) 博士論文(12) 專書(1) 專書論文(1)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:50
  • 共同引用共同引用:36
  • 點閱點閱:255
自解嚴以來,臺灣大學學生事務工作面臨轉型,參照美國學生事務工作發展之經驗,研究者相信臺灣學生事務工作的目標,需由以管理訓誡為主的代替父母權責論走向學生服務與學生發展,學生事務工作應了解學生需求,尊重學生權利,提供各種服務與活動以促進學生學習與全人發展。若學生事務工作目標走向促進學生全人發展,學生事務人員需應用科學的大學生發展理論於其中工作中,但目前在臺灣並沒有正式的大學生發展理論存在,本研究之目的即在(1)依據Chickering的理論,發展一個適於臺灣大學生經驗與文化的量表,來測量臺灣大學生的心理社會發展,(2)探究年級、性別、主修、課業投入、師生關係、同儕關係、家庭關係及住宿、社團及打工經驗等自變項對大學生心理社會發展之影響,(3)決定那些自變項經驗最能解釋臺灣大學生(包括全體大學生,男大學生、女大學生及各年級大學生)的心理社會發展。 本研究之重要發現為(一)臺灣大學生心理社會發展符合Chickering理論,隨年級成長而成長。(二)MANOVA結果顯示男女大學生在心理社會發展上並無顯著差異,但若同時考慮所有自變項因素,多元迴歸結果顯示在能力發展、情緒管理、獨立性發展及目標發展上,女生低於男生。(三)在控制個人因素(性別、家庭關係)及年級變項後,大學經驗(主修、課業投入、師生關係、同儕關係、住宿經驗、社團經驗及打工經驗)可以顯著解釋大學生六向度心理社會發展之變異從17%到41%。比較而言,大學經驗最能解釋能力發展及目標發展,較少解釋情緒管理及自我認定;大學經驗最能解釋大二學生在所有(六個)向度的發展較少解釋大一學生在情緒管理及自我認定與大四學生在成熟人際關係及自我認定的發展;大學經驗最能解釋男學生的發展,較少解釋女學生的發展。(四)課業投入,師生互動、同儕互動、主修科系、住宿經驗、社團經驗、打工經驗及家庭關係均顯著影響臺灣大學生心理社會之發展。其中住宿經驗是負向。在所有自變項中,課業投入及同儕互動是解釋臺灣大學生心理社會發展最重要的兩個顯著因素,師生互動、主修科系、社團經驗、家庭關係則是中等重要的四個顯著因素。住宿經驗的重要性較小,打工經驗則非顯著解釋因素。(五)多元迴歸結果指出,不同年級,不同性別學生在不同向度的心理社會發展被不同的大學經驗來解釋。 基於上述發現,本研究最後提出未來在臺灣大學生事務工作應用上及進一步研究上之建議。
After the end of martial law in 1987, student affairs in Taiwan was in transition. Based on U.S. experiences, the researcher believes the goals for student affairs in Taiwan need to move from in loco parentis to student development. However, no college student development theory is currently in use in Taiwan. The purpose of the study was to develop an instrument to measure Chickering's psychosocial development theory that was sensitive to Taiwanese college students and their culture and then to explore differences in the development based upon ranks, gender, major, academic involvement, faculty-student relationships, peer relationships, family relationships, and living, co-curricular, and work experiences. This study also determined which independent variables exploained the greatese amount of unique variance in psychosocial development for all college students, female students, and different ranks of students in Taiwan. The findings indicate the psychosocial development of college students in Taiwan follows Chickering's theory with the development increasing from freshman to upperclass. There is no gender difference; however, female students, comparing with the male students, disadvantage on the development of compentence, emotions, autonomy, and purpose. Major, academic involvement, faculty-student relationship, peer relationship, family relationship, living experience, co-curricula experience, and work experience all make significant differences on psychosocial development for Taiwanese students. After controlling for personal characteristic and class rank, college experiences can significantly explain the variance of psychosocial development in each vector ranged from 41% to 17%. Academic involvement and peer relationship are the two most important factors to explain the variance of psychosocial development in all vectors for Taiwanese students. The results of multiple regression indicate that the developments for different ranks and different gender of students in different vectors were exploained by different college experiences. Based on the findings, recommendations for practice and for further research are preseted.
期刊論文
1.Reisser, L.(1995)。Revisiting the seven vectors。Journal of College Student Development,36(6),505-511。  new window
2.Greelley, A. T.、Tinsley, H.(1983)。Autonomy and Intimacy Development in College Students: Sex Differences and Predictors。Journal of College Student Development,29,512-520。  new window
3.Williams, M.、Winstin, R. B. Jr.(1985)。Participation in organized student activities and work: differences in developmental task achievement of traditionalaged college students。NASPA Journal,23(3),52-59。  new window
4.Schuh, J. H.(1994)。Review of education and identity。Journal of college student Development,35,310-312。  new window
5.Kaufman, M.、Creamer, D.(1991)。Influences of student goals for college on freshmen year quality of effort and growth。Journal of College Student Development,32(3),197-206。  new window
6.Astin, Alexander W.(1984)。Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education。Journal of College Student Personnel,25(4),297-308。  new window
7.Kenny, M. E.、Donaldson, G. A.(1991)。Contributions of parental attachment and family structure to the social and psychological functioning of first-year college students。Journal of Counseling Psychology,38(4),479-486。  new window
8.Straub, C.、Rodgers, R. F.(1986)。An Exploration of Chickering's Theory and Women's Development。Journal of College Student Personnel,27,216-224。  new window
9.Taub, D. J.(1995)。Relationship of selected factors to traditional-age undergraduate women's development of autonomy。Journal of College Student Development,36(2),141-151。  new window
10.Jordan-Cox, C. A.(1987)。Psychosocial development of students in traditionally Black institutions。Journal of College Student Personnel,28(6),504-512。  new window
11.Krejcie, Robert V.、Morgan, Daryle W.(1970)。Determining sample size for research activities。Educational and Psychological Measurement,30(3),607-610。  new window
12.林義男(19900300)。大學生的學習參與、學習型態與學習成果的關係。輔導學報,13,79-128。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.Cooper, D. L.、Healy, M. A.、Simpson, J.(1994)。Student Development through Involvement: Specific Changes over Time。Journal of College Student Development,35(2),98-102。  new window
14.Hunt, S.、Rentz, A. L.(1994)。Greek-letter Social Group Members' Involvement and Psychosocial Development。Journal of College Student Development,35(4),289-296。  new window
15.Dawson-Threat, J.、Huba, M. E.(1996)。Choice of major and clarity of purpose among college seniors as a function of gender, type of major, and sex-role identification。Journal of College Student Development,37(3),297-308。  new window
16.Straub, C.(1987)。Women's development of autonomy and Chickering's theory。Journal of College Student Personnel,28,198-204。  new window
研究報告
1.教育部(1998)。中華民國教育統計。台北:教育部。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.Smith, J. S.(1992)。The relationship between involvement in extracurricular activities and the psychosocial development of Clemson University students(博士論文)。University of South Carolina。  new window
2.楊淑娥(1996)。大學生社團參與及其心理社會發展之分析研究(碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學。  延伸查詢new window
3.張郁文(1986)。我國大學生心理社會發展與心理健康之相關研究(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學。  延伸查詢new window
4.紀憲燕(1994)。大學生生涯決定類型與生涯決定信念之研究(碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學。  延伸查詢new window
5.Hebert, D. A.(1990)。Involvement in the collegiate experience as a predictor of psychosocial development of students enrolled in small colleges and universities in the southwest(博士論文)。Athens, GA: University of Georgia。  new window
6.Thieke, W. S.(1994)。A model of developmental change in freshman students: confirming Chickering's theory of student development(博士論文)。Syracuse University。  new window
圖書
1.Pascarella, E. T.、Terenzini, P. T.(1991)。How college affects students: Findings and in-sights from twenty years of research。San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass。  new window
2.Chickering, A. W.、Reisser, L.(1993)。Education and identity。San Francisco, CA:Jossey Bass。  new window
3.Winston, R. B. Jr.、Miller, T. K.、Prince, J. S.(1987)。Student developmental task and lifestyle inventory manual。Athens, GA:Student Development Association。  new window
4.Kuh, G. D.、Schuh, J. H.、Whitt, E. J.、Andreas, R. E.、Lyons, J. W.、Strange, C. C.、Krehbiel, L. E.、Mackay, K. A.(1991)。Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom。San Francisco:Jossey-Bass。  new window
5.Chickering, A. W.、Reisser, L.(1969)。Education and identity。San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass。  new window
6.Stevens, J.(1996)。Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences。Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum。  new window
7.張雪梅(1999)。大學教育對學生的衝擊--我國大學生校園經驗與學習成果之實證研究。台北市:張老師文化。  延伸查詢new window
8.Astin, Alexander W.(1993)。What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited。Jossey-Bass。  new window
9.Newman, B. M.、Newman, P. R.(1995)。Development Through life: A psychosocial approach。Books/Cole Publishing Company。  new window
10.Erikson, Erik Homburger(1968)。Identity: Youth and crisis。W. W. Norton & Company。  new window
11.American Colloge Personnel Association(1994)。The studunt Learny imperaelre: Implications foostudant affairs。Washington, DC:American Colloge Personnel Association。  new window
12.Dickson, G. L.、Thayer, J. D.(1993)。Advisor's guide to the developmental advising inventory。Paradise, CA:Developmental Advising Inventories, Inc.。  new window
13.Evans, N. J.、Forney, D. S.、Guido-DiBrito, F.(1998)。Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice。San Francisco:Jossey-Bass。  new window
14.Josselson, R.(1987)。Finding herself。San Francisco:Jossey Bass。  new window
15.Pace, C. R.(1987)。CSEQ: Test manual and norms。Los Angles:UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation。  new window
16.Pace, C. R.(1992)。norms for the third edition。Los Angles:UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation。  new window
17.Sanford, N.(1966)。Self and society: Social change and individual development。New York:Atherton Press。  new window
圖書論文
1.Miller, T. K.、Winston, R. B.(1990)。Assessing development from a psychosocial perspective。College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990s。Alexandria, VA:American College Personnel Association。  new window
2.Rodgers, R. F.(1980)。Theories Underlying Student Development。Student Development in Higher Education: Theories, Practices & Future Directions。Alexandria, VA:American College Personnel Association。  new window
3.Rodgers, R. F.(1990)。Recent theories and research underlying student development。College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990s。Alexandria, VA:American College Personnel Association。  new window
4.Strange, C. C.,、King, P. M.(1990)。The professional practice of student development。College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990s。Alexandria, VA:American College Personnel Association。  new window
5.Rodgers, R. F.(1989)。Student development。student service: a handbook for the profession。San Francisco:Jossey-Bass。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE