臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：學校與非學校因素對台東縣國小學生學業成就的影響：結合教育機會均等與學校效能研究的分析模式
作者：巫有鎰
作者(外文)：You-I Wu
校院名稱：屏東師範學院
系所名稱：教育行政研究所
指導教授：劉慶中 黃毅志
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2005
主題關鍵詞：原；漢學生；學校因素；學業成就；文化資本；社會資本；財務資本；非學校因素；aboriginal and non-aboriginal students；school factors；achievement；cultural capital；social capital；financial capital；non-school factors
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(15) 博士論文(24) 專書(1) 專書論文(1)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:15
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:79
學校與非學校因素對台東縣國小學生學業成就的影響：
結合教育機會均等與學校效能研究的分析模式
摘 要
自從Coleman報告書發表以來，探討學校與非學校因素對學生學業成就的影響，可說是教育機會均等與學校效能研究的重要議題。而探討原、漢學生學業成就差異的因果機制，可檢證相關的理論假設，並作為教育政策與實務之參考。過去國內的研究大多無法取得足夠的原住民樣本作分析，即使有，也是將原住民歸為一類與漢人作比較。本研究則運用2003年「台東縣教育長期資料庫」的六年級學生及其家長、教師與校長普查資料作分析，不但涵蓋足夠的原住民樣本，可分別就台東六族原住民與漢人作比較，變項亦包括「學生個人」、「家庭」、「教師」、「學校」等四個層面。透過路徑分析探討原、漢學生成績的差異及其因果機制；並探討Coleman議題，釐清學校與非學校因素對學生學業成就的相對影響；同時也檢證教育機會均等與學校效能研究的相關理論，如文化資本論、社會資本論、財務資本論及學校效能論的適用性。
研究結果顯示：本研究的學校與非學校中介變項對學童成績有重要的影響。學童教育抱負越高對成績有利；非學校因素中的家庭財務資本、家庭社會資本等對成績有利，但負面的文化資本對成績不利；學校因素中的財務資本、社會資本和教師內控信念對成績有利，但不良的師生關係對成績不利。
家庭社經地位越高、家庭結構越完整對成績有利，且這些非學校因素會透過提高家庭社會資本與財務資本，減少負面文化資本，進而提高成績；而兄弟人數越多，越會稀釋家庭教育資源，對成績不利。學校規模越大，有助於成績；但班級規模越大，對成績不利，且班級規模越大，會降低學校財務資本，進而降低成績。
以原、漢學業成績做比較，台東整體原住民成績比漢人低許多，其原因主要可歸因於原住民家庭背景較不利，及家庭財務資本、文化資本和社會資本較低。再就台東原住民各族的成績而言，阿美不但人口最多，且成績相當低，僅比成績最低但人口最少的達悟高一些。阿美成績較低的原因除父母社經地位、家庭結構等不利因素外，負面文化較多，家庭社會資本和家庭財務資本較低，都對成績不利。成績較高的反而是居住在山地鄉的布農和排灣。布農因學校財務資本較高，如每生圖書量較多；排灣則因參加才藝班較多，進而提高成績。
本研究並發現非學校因素對學業成績的影響大於學校因素，但學校因素還是有不可忽略的影響。雖然學校因素無法有效解釋原、漢成績的差異，但是學校對原住民有許多助益，可說是原、漢學業成績差異的平衡器。
關鍵詞：原、漢學生、文化資本、社會資本、財務資本、學校因素、
非學校因素、學業成就
Effects of School and Non-school Factors on Elementary Students’ Achievement in Taitung Taiwan:
Integrating the Analytic Models of Equality of Educational Opportunity and School Effectiveness Research.
You-I Wu
Abstract
Probing into the effects of school and non-school factors on students’ achievement became an important issue in equality of educational opportunity and school effectiveness research areas after Coleman’s report. To explore the aboriginal and non-aboriginal students’ achievement gap can check the relative theoretical hypotheses as well as draw implications for educational policy and practice. The majority of studies in the past have failed to include sufficient aboriginal samples to enrich analysis, or the aboriginal samples were lumped together to compare or contrast with the non-aboriginal samples.
The data for the study were drawn from Taiwan Taitung Educational Panel Survey 2003. They were from the sixth-grade students, along with their parents, teachers, and principals, and were used for the analysis. This database is abundant in aboriginal samples, which makes it possible to compare the achievement gaps of six aboriginal groups with the non-aborigines in Taitung. It also included four dimensions of variables that may be correlated with student achievement: personal characteristics, family background, teachers and schools.
The study used path analysis to probe into the achievement gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal students and its causal mechanisms, to examine the relative effects of school and non-school factors on student achievement, and to check the relevance of theories related to equality of educational opportunity and school effectiveness researches such as cultural capital, social capital, financial capital and school effects.
Major findings are summarized below:
Both school and non-school intervening factors have important effects on student achievement. For example, student aspiration has a positive effect. Non-school factors such as family financial and social capitals have positive effects, while the negative cultural capital is negatively correlated with student achievement. School factors such as financial and social capitals in school, as well as teachers’ internal locus of control, have positive effects, and negative teacher-student relationship bears negative effect.
Higher socioeconomic status and more intact of family structure are beneficial to student achievement, and these non-school factors may have improved achievement through improving social capital and financial capital in family, as well as through decreasing negative cultural capital. Nevertheless more male siblings could decrease achievement through diluting educational resources in family. Larger school size is beneficial to students’ achievement, but larger class size has a negative effect on their achievement. It is found that it lowers achievement through decreasing financial resources in school.
The achievement of the aboriginal students is significantly lower than that of the non-aboriginal students. It can be attributed to the disadvantaged family background, and lower financial, cultural, social capital. The achievement gap among different groups of people in Taitung is explainable in the study. The Amis is the largest group among the aboriginal peoples in Taitung, but is nearly at the bottom of them in terms of school achievement, only slightly higher than the smallest group, the Tao. The factors affecting lower achievement of the Amis are attributed to lower socioeconomic status and broken family structure, as well as more negative cultural capital, lower social and financial capitals in family. In contrast, and contrary to the original supposition, the Bunun and the Paiwan students, who live in more remote areas, have higher average achievement than the Amis and the Puyuma, who live in or close to the urban and suburban areas where the non-aboriginal people reside. The effects are due to the fact that the Bunun have higher financial resources in school, carry more library books per pupil, and that the Paiwan have more opportunities to attend art class after school.
The study also found that while non-school factors carries relatively heavier effects than school factors. The latter still have respectable effects on student achievement. Although the study has indicated that the aboriginal and non-aboriginal achievement gap cannot be effectively accounted for by school factors, the school has created many benefits for the aboriginal. To the least, the school serves as an equalizer.
Keywords: aboriginal and non-aboriginal students, cultural capital, social capital, financial capital, school factors, non-school factors, achievement.
參 考 書 目
王濟川、郭志剛(2004)。Logistic迴歸模型—方法與應用。台北：五南。
吳天泰(1994)。山胞國民中小學訪視工作報告。教育部教育研究委員會。
吳清山(1998)。學校效能研究。台北：五南。new window
吳裕益(1993)。台灣地區國民小學學生學業成就調查分析。台南師院初等教育學報，6，1-31。new window
巫有鎰(1997)。影響國小學生學業成就的因果機制—以台北市和台東縣作比較。國立台東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。new window
巫有鎰(1999)。影響國小學生學業成就的因果機制—以台北市和台東縣作比較。教育研究集刊，43，213-242。new window
巫有鎰(2003a)。新右教改潮流對教育機會均等的衝擊。屏東師院學報，18，437-457。new window
巫有鎰(2003b)。小型學校合併的另類思考：「聯合學校」的構想。論文發表於國立教育資料館主辦之「現代教育論壇」：「教育領導變革之舞—學校組織再造與資源管理」研討會，台灣屏東。
李亦園(1991)。山地社會問題。載於楊國樞、葉啟政(主編)，台灣的社會問題。台北：巨流。
李坤榮(1990)。我國國小學生學習適應及其相關因素之研究。台南師院學報，23，133-159。
周德禎(1999)。教育人類學導論—文化觀點。台北：五南。new window
林淑華(1998)。原住民與非學住民學童父母管教態度與社會適應之比較研究。台東師院學報，9，307-346。new window
林義男(1988)。國小學生家庭社經背景、父母參與及其學業成就的關係。國立彰化師範大學輔導學報，11，95-141。new window
林義男(1993)。國中學生家庭社經背景、父母參與及其學業成就的關係。國立彰化師範大學輔導學報，16，157-212。new window

洪希勇(2004)。族群、地區與家庭背景對台東國小學童成績之影響機制。國立台東大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台灣台東。
孫清山、黃毅志(1996)。補習教育、文化資本與教育取得。中國社會學刊，19，2-44。new window
翁福元(1998)。準後福特主義社會中教育機會均等理想之實現—解嚴後台灣教育改革的反省。載於中華民國比較教育學會、中國教育學會(主編)，社會變遷中的教育機會均等(頁73-107)。台北：揚智。new window
翁福元(1998)。準後福特主義社會中教育機會均等理想之實現—解嚴後台灣教育改革的反省。載於中華民國比較教育學會、中國教育學會(主編)，社會變遷中的教育機會均等(頁73-107)。台北：揚智。new window
高新建、吳幼吾(1997)。階層線性模式在內屬結構教育資料上的應用。教育研究資訊，5(2)，31-50。new window
高德義(2000)。原住民教育的發展與改革。載於張建成(主編)，多元文化教育：我們的課題與別人的經驗(頁3-41)。台北：師大書苑。
張苙雲(2003)。台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫的規劃：問卷架構、測驗編制與抽樣設計。論文發表於行政院國家科學委員會人文處主辦「2003台灣與國際教育長期追蹤資料庫」東部工作坊，台灣台東。
張善楠、洪天來、張麟偉、張建盛、劉大偉(1997)。社區、族群、家庭因素與國小學童學業成就的關係--台東縣四所國小的比較分析。台東師院學報，8，27-52。new window
張善楠、黃毅志(1997)。「1997台灣長期研究之先期研究」。國家科學委員會研究彙刊：人文及社會科學，7(4)，577-596。
張善楠、黃毅志(1999)。原漢族群、社區與家庭對學童教育的影響。載於洪泉湖、吳學燕(主編)，台灣原住民教育(頁149-178)。台北：師大書苑。
張慶勳(2002)。國小校長轉化、互易領導影響學校組織文化特性與組織效能之研究。高雄：復文。new window
許士軍(1977)。工作滿足、個人特徵與組織氣候─文獻探討及實證研究。國立政治大學學報，35，13-56。
許木柱(1991)。弱勢族群問題。載於楊國樞、葉啟政(主編)，台灣的社會問題。台北：巨流。
許嘉猷(1986)。社會階層化與社會流動。台北：三民。new window
許獻元(2004年10月29日)。學生使用電腦的時間與用途。台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫電子報。2005年7月6日，取自：http://www.teps.sinica.edu.tw
陳正昌(1994)。從教育機會均等觀點探討家庭、學校與國小學生學業成就之關係。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。new window
陳正昌、陳炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵(2003)。多變量分析方法—統計軟體應用。台北：五南。
陳怡靖(2001)。台灣地區高中/技職分流與教育機會不均等性之變遷。教育研究集刊，47，253-282。new window
陳怡靖、鄭燿男(2000)。台灣地區教育階層化之變遷—檢證社會資本論、文化資本論及財務資本論在台灣的適用性。國家科學委員會彙刊：人文及社會科學，10(3)，416-434。
陳建志(1998)。族群及家庭背景對學業成績之影響模式—以台東縣原、漢學童作比較。政大教育與心理研究，21，85-106。new window
陳順利(2000)。社會網絡和原、漢青少年飲酒行為。師大衛生教育學報，14，137-157。new window
陳順利(2001)。原、漢青少年飲酒行為與學業成就之追蹤調查：以台東縣關山地區為例。政大教育與心理研究，24，67-98。new window
陳麗珠、陳憶芬(1995)。小型學校合併的成本效益分析。教育學刊，11，73-106。new window
章英華、薛承泰、黃毅志(1996)。教育分流與教育社經地位—兼論：對寄職教育改革的政策意涵。行政院教育改革審議委員會。

單小琳(1990)。教師的社會支持及其相關因素之探討。台北市立師範學院學報，21，123-154。
黃同圳(1996)。工作滿足構成內涵在組織與個人特性間之差異分析。勞資關係論叢，5，1-37。
黃幸美、林美珍(1993)。母親的兒童學習信念及其與兒童學業成就相關之探討。教育與心理研究，16，413-458。new window
黃毅志(1990)。台灣地區教育機會之不平等。思與言，28(1)，93-125。new window
黃毅志(1992)。地位取得：理論與結構分析。思與言，30(4)，131-168。new window
黃毅志(1995)。台灣地區教育機會不平等性之變遷。中國社會學刊，18，243-273。new window
黃毅志(1996)。台灣地區民眾地位取得之因果機制—共變結構分析。東吳社會學報，5，213-248。new window
黃毅志(1999)。社會階層、社會網絡與主觀意識。台北：巨流。
黃毅志(2001)。都市原住民階層變遷史。載於蔡明哲(等著)，台灣原住民史：都市原住民史篇。台灣省文獻委員會。
黃毅志(2003)。「台灣地區新職業聲望與社經地位量表」之建構與評估：社會科學與教育社會學研究本土化，教育研究集刊，49(4)，1-31。new window
黃毅志、侯松茂、巫有鎰(2003)。台東縣教育長期資料庫之建立：國中小學生學習狀況與心理健康追蹤調查。台東縣政府委託專題研究第一年成果報告。
黃毅志、侯松茂、巫有鎰(2004)。台東縣教育長期資料庫之建立：國中小學生學習狀況與心理健康追蹤調查。台東縣政府委託專題研究第二年成果報告。
楊肅棟(2001)。學校、教師、家長與學生特質對原漢學業成就的影響—以台東縣國小為例。台灣教育社會學研究，1，209-247。new window
楊瑩(1994a)。教育機會均等—教育社會學的探究。台北：師大書苑。

楊瑩(1994b)。台灣地區不同家庭背景子女受教育機會差異之研究。教育研究資訊，2(3)，1-22。new window
楊瑩(2000)。教育機會均等，載於陳奎憙(主編)，現代教育社會學(頁269-314)。台北：師大書苑。
劉子鍵、林原宏(1997)。階層線性模式之理論與應用：以「影響自然科成績之因素的研究」為分析實例。教育與心理研究，20，1-22。new window
劉慶中(1996)。教育機會公平與四分區技術效率之研究：以屏東縣國民小學為例。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所。
劉慶中、沈慶楊(1991)。卓越學校領導理念研究—文化領導內涵初探。論文發表於台灣省第二屆教育學術論文發表會，新竹師院。
潘慧玲(1999a)。學校效能研究領域的發展。教育研究集刊，43，77-102。new window
潘慧玲(1999b)。學校效能相關概念的釐析。教育研究資訊，7(5)，138-153。new window
鄭淵全(1998)。社經地位、能力、學校教育與國小學生學業成就之關係—功能典範與衝突典範之探究。新竹師院學報，11，421-448。new window
鄭燕祥(2001)。學校效能及校本管理：發展的機制。台北：心理。new window
鄭燕祥(2001)。學校效能及校本管理—發展的機制。台北：心理。new window
謝孟穎(2003)。家長社經背景與學生學就關連性之研究。教育研究集刊，49，255-287。new window
謬敏志(1990)。單親兒童學業成就、人格適應及其相關因素之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
譚光鼎(1996)。探討少數民族教育成就的理論模式。花蓮師院學報，6，25-72。new window
譚光鼎(1997)。近五十年來台灣原住民教育研究之評析。發表於台灣師範大學「多元文化教育的理論與實際國際學術研討會」，台北。new window
譚光鼎(2000)。教育與族群。載於陳奎憙(主編)，現代教育社會學(頁357-378)。台北：師大書苑。
Alwin, D. F. (1991). Family of origin and cohort differences in verbal ability. American Sociological Review, 56, 625-638.
Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309-320.
Blake, J. (1985). Number of siblings and educational mobility. American Sociological Review, 50, 84-94.
Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). A Unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 35, 135-153.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Culture reproduction and social reproduction. From Knowledge, education, and Culture Change, ed. Richard Brown (London: Tavistock), 71-112.
Brourke, S. (1986). How smaller is better: Some relationships between class size, teaching practices, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 558-571.
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976/1989). Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.
李錦旭(譯)。資本主義美國的學校教育：教育改革與經濟生活的矛盾。台北：桂冠。
Caldas, S. J. (1993). Reexamination of input and process factor effects on public school achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 86(4), 206-214.
Chin, T. & Philips, M. (2004). Social reproduction and child-rearing practices: Social class, children’s agency, and the summer activity gap. Sociology of Education, 77, 185-210.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Coleman, J. S. (1968). The concept of equality of educational opportunity, Harvard Educational Review, 38(1), 7-22.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-120.
Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder, Jr. G. H. (2004). Intergenerationsl bonding in school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student-teacher relationships. Sociology of Education, 77, 60-81.
De Graaf, N. D., De Graaf, P. M., & Kraaykamp, G.. (2000). Parental cultural capital and educational attainment in the Netherlands: A refinement of the cultural capital perspective. Sociology of Education, 73, 92-111.
DiMaggio, P. & Mohr, J. (1982). Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection. American Sociological Review, 90, 1231-1261.
DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture participation on the grades of U.S. high school students. American Sociological Review, 47, 189-201.
Downey, D. B. (1995). When bigger is better: Family size, parental resources, and children’s educational performance. American Sociological Review, 60, 746-761.
Downey, D. B., Hippel, P. T. & Broh, B. A. (2004). Are school the great equalizer? Cognitive inequality during the summer months and the school year. American Siciological Review. 69, 613-635.
Dumais, S. A. (2002). Cultural capital, gender, and school success: The role of habitus. Sociology of Education, 75, 44-68.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-24.
Elliott, M. (1998). School finance and opportunities to learn: Does money well spent enhance students’ achievement? Sociology of Education, 71, 223-245.

Entwisle, D. R. & Alexander, K. L. (1992). Summer setback: Race, poverty, school composition, and mathematics achievement in the first two years of school. American Sociological Review, 57, 72-84.
Entwisle, D. R. & Alexander, K. L. (1994). Winter setback: The racial composition of schools and learning to read. American Sociological Review, 59, 446-460.
Farkas, G., Grobe, R. P., Sheehan, D., & Shuan, Y. (1990). Cultural resources and school success: Gender, ethnicity, and poverty groups within an urban school district. American Sociological Review, 55, 127-142.
Feigin, N. (1995). Factors contributing to the academic excellence of American Jewish and Asian students. Sociology of Education, 68, 18-30.
Fitzpatrick, K. M. & Yoels, W. C. (1992). Policy, school structure, and sociodemographic effects on statewide high school dropout rates. Sociology of Education, 65, 76-93.
Fuller, B. (1987). What school factors raise achievement in the Third World? Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 255-292.
Gamoran, A. (2001). American schooling and educational inequality: A forecast for the 21st century. Sociology of Education Extra Issue, 135-153.
Goldstein H., & Woodhouse, G. (2000). School effectiveness research and educational policy. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3), 353-363.
Guest, A. & Schneider, B. (2003). Adolescents’ extracurricular participation in context: The mediating effects of schools, communities, and identity. Sociology of Education,76, 89-109.
Hallinan, M. T. (2001). Sociological perspectives on black-white inequalities in American schooling. Sociology of Education Extra Issue, 50-70.


Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 14, 1141-1177.
Hauser, R. M., Tsai, S. L., & Sewell, W. H. (1983). A model of stratification with response error in social and psychological variables. Sociology of Education, 56, 20-47.
Kalmijn, M. (1994). Mother’s occupational status and children’s schooling. American Sociological Review, 59, 257-275.
Kalmijn, M., & Kraaykamp, G. (1996). Race, culture capital, and schooling: An analysis of trends in the United States. Sociology of Education, 69, 22-34.
Katsillis, J. & Rubinson, R. (1990). Cultural capital, student achievement, and educational reproduction: The case of Greece. American Sociological Review, 55, 270-279.
Kreft, I. G. (1993). Using multilevel analysis to access school effectiveness: A study of Dutch secondary schools. Sociology of Education, 66, 104-129.
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and white families. American Sociological Review, 67, 747-776.
Lauman, D. J. (2000). Student home computer use: A review of the literrature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 196-203.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and engagement of middle-grade students. Sociology of Education, 66, 164-187.
Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Croninger, R. G. (1997). How high school organization influences the equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of Education, 72(2), 128-150.
Lockheed, M. E., & Fuller, B. (1989). Family effects on students' achievement in Thailand and Malawi. Sociology of Education, 62, 239-256.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Association for Supervision and Currculum Development(ASCD).
McNeal, Jr. R. B. (1995). Extracurricular activities and high school dropouts. Sociology of Education,68, 62-81.
Morgan, S. L. (2001). Couterfactuals, causal effect heterogeneity, and the Catholic school effect on learning. Sociology of Education, 74, 341-374.
Parcel, T. L. & Geschwender, L. E. (1995). Explaining southern disadvantage in verbal facility among young children. Social Force, 73(3), 841-872.
Peng, S. S., & Wright, D. (1994). Explanation of academic achievement of Asian American students. Journal of Educational Research, 87(6), 346-352.
Peng, S. S., Wright, D., & Hill, S. T. (1995). Understanding racial-ethnic differences in secondary school Science and Mathematics achievement. U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Center for Education Statistics：Research and Development Report.
Pong, S. L. (1998). The school compositional effect of single parenthood on 10th-grade achievement. Sociology of Education,71, 24-43.
Powell, B. & Steelman, L. C. (1990). Beyond sibship size: Sibling density, sex composition, and educational outcomes. Social Forces, 69(1): 181-206.
Purket, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427-452.
Rowan, B., Chiang, F. S., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees’ performance to study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 256-284.

Scheerens, J. (1990). School effectiveness research and the development of process indicators of functioning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(1), 61-80.
Sewell, W. H., & Hauser, R. M.(1980). The Wisconsin longitudinal study of social and psychological factors in aspirations and achievements. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 1, 59-99.
Sewell, W. H., Haller, A. O., & Portes, A. (1969). The education and early occupational attainment process. American Sociological Review, 34, 82-92.
Shouse, R. C. (2002). School effects. In Levinson, D. L. et al. (Eds.), Education and sociology: An encyclopedia(pp. 519-524). New York: Falmer Routledge.
Smith, M. L. & Glass, G. (1980). Meta-analysis of research on class size and relationship to attitudes and instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 17(4), 419-433.
Stenvenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1992). Shadow education and allocation in formal schooling: transition to university in Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1639-57.
Sui-Chu, Esther H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education,69, 126-141.
Sweetland, R. S., & Hoy, K W. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 703-729.
Teachman, J. D. (1987). Family background, educational resources, and educational attainment. American Sociological Review, 52, 548-557.
Thrupp, M. (1999). Schools making a difference: Let’s be realistic. Open University Press. Buckingham. Philadelphia.
Useem, E. L. (1992). Middle schools and math groups: Parents’ involvement in children’s placement. Sociology of Education, 65, 263-279.
Weinstein, C. S. (1979). The physical envionment of the school: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 577-610.
Wenglinsky, H. (1997). How money matters: The effect of school district spending on academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 221-237.
Wong, R. S. (1998). Multidimenaional influences of family evironment in education: The case of socialist Czechoslovakia. Sociology of Education, 71, 1-22.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1480（臺灣：1466，外國：14） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1586744 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67405971
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上