:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:臺灣大專校院學生學習投入對學習發展影響之研究
作者:吳舒靜
作者(外文):Shu-ching, Wu
校院名稱:國立暨南國際大學
系所名稱:教育政策與行政學系
指導教授:張鈿富
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2014
主題關鍵詞:高等教育學習投入學習發展higher educationstudent engagementlearning development
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(1) 博士論文(3) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:153
在邁向高等教育普及化的時代,臺灣大專校院的學生如何學?學什麼?為何學?的議題關係著教育品質的確保,更可以深入地觸及學習的核心問題。本研究目的在探討不同背景大學生學習投入與學習發展情形,以及學習投入對學習發展的影響。研究者以自編的「大學生學習投入與學習發展調查問卷」,臺灣地區101學年度就讀公私立大專校院大學生為母群體,以分層叢集抽樣方法,選取2,651名大學生為正式樣本,透過問卷調查進行資料蒐集,並進行問卷信效度考驗及資料統計分析,主要統計方法為因素分析、差異性分析、結構方程模式等。研究結果可以提供「高等教育普及化」後的臺灣對大學生學習投入與學習發展之瞭解,並提出改善學習環境之建議。
主要研究發現為:
一、臺灣大專校院學生學習投入與學習發展整體現況不理想
1. 學習投入方面:學習參與不太積極,學習態度和學習策略尚可。
2. 學習發展方面:約六成大學生呈現中上程度發展。
二、大學生學習投入與學習發展因不同個人與學校背景而有差異
1. 男大學生學習參與高於女大學生,女大學生學習態度高於男大學生,然而女大學生學習發展高於男大學生。
2. 人文社會類大學生學習投入與學習發展皆高於科技類大學生。
3. 大四以上學生有較佳的學習投入與學習發展。
4. 中低家庭社經地位大學生有較佳的學習投入與學習發展。
5. 公立學校大學生學習投入與學習發展皆高於私立學校大學生。
6. 一般大學學生學習投入與學習發展皆高於技職校院學生。
7. 中部地區學校大學生有較佳的學習投入與學習發展。
三、學習投入對學習發展有顯著直接的影響效果
1. 本研究所提出的學習投入對學習發展影響之假設模式經修正後與實徵資料的適配情形不錯,顯示此模型具有建構效度。
2. 對學習投入而言,「學習參與」最具有反映效果,其次是「學習策略」,「學習態度」居末,其變異數解釋量分別為82.6%、72.2%、63.1%。
3. 結構模式分析結果發現,學習投入對學習發展有直接影響,學習投入對學習發展的標準化迴歸係數為.904,顯示其直接效果為.904,其變異數解釋量為90.4%。
關鍵詞:高等教育、學習投入、學習發展
The study addresses how well undergraduate students learn, what to learn, and why to learn which are related to not only the quality of higher education but the core of student learning in Taiwan. The purpose of study aims to explore the impact of student engagement on learning development, including the investigation report of student engagement and learning development with different backgrounds. Based on the Student Engagement Questionnaire and a total sample size of 2,651 students randomly selected from public and private universities in Taiwan, this study has determined by survey sampling to varify the questionnaire’s appropriateness. Factor analysis, t-test, one-way ANOVA, and structural equation modeling were used to analyze the data. The results reveal the relevant factors of campus learning in order to promote students’ active engagement and future development.
The findings are as follows:
1. The status quo of student engagement and learning development are unsatisfied.
(1) Student engagement: participation is mediocre; attitudes and approaches are middling.
(2) Learning development: about 60% of students are above average.
2. There are differences of student engagement and learning development with diverse personal and school backgrounds.
(1) Genders: male students have better participation; female students have better learning attitudes. However, female students develop learning ambitions better.
(2) Departments: students in the department of humanities and social sciences have better student engagement and learning development than those in the department of science and technology.
(3) Grades: senior students have better student engagement and learning development.
(4) Family SES backgrounds: students in the low-middle family SES background have better student engagement and learning development.
(5) School categories: students in public schools have better student engagement and learning development than those in private schools.
(6) School types: students in the general universities have better student engagement and learning development than those in the science and technology universities.
(7) School districts: students in the central districts have better student engagement and learning development.
3. The student engagement has significantly direct effects on learning development.
(1) The construct validity of student engagement scale is well proven.
(2) The participation is the most important factor, and then approaches and attitudes.
(3) The student engagement will affect their learning development significantly.
Keywords: higher education, student engagement, learning development
壹、中文部分
大學招生委員會聯合會(2013)。四技二專日間部聯合登記分發錄取率。取自http://www.uac.edu.tw/
天下雜誌(2012)。四成教授:台灣教育制度無助提升學生素質。取自http://m.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5043846
方來壇、時勘與張風華(2008)。中文版學習投入量表的信效度研究。中國臨床心理學雜誌,16(6),618-620。
王保進(2009)。掌握系所評鑑的重點-系所評鑑之精神與認可要素。評鑑雙月刊,21,9-13。
行政院主計處編(2010)。中華民國職業標準分類。臺北:編者。
余民寧(2006)。影響學習成就因素的探討。教育資料與研究,73,11-23。new window
余安邦與楊國樞(1987)。社會取向成就動機與個我取向成就動機:概念分析與實證研究。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊,64,51-68。
吳明清(2002)。教育研究。台北市:五南。
技專校院招生委員會聯合會(2013)。四技二專日間部聯合登記分發錄取率。取自https://union42.jctv.ntut.edu.tw/
李仁豪與余民寧(2008)。二層次結構方程式模型的應用:以教育心理學為例。師大學報:教育類,53(3),95-123。
李茂能(2006)。結構方程模式軟體Amos之簡介及其在測驗編製上之應用---Graphics & Basic。臺北市:心理。
周子敬(2006)。結構方程模式(SEM)-精通LISREL。臺北:全華科技。
周子敬(2008)。台灣地區大專院校學生課程投入量表之探討。智慧科技與應用統計學報,6(2),173-188。
林大森(2006a)。台灣技職院校新生主修科系轉換之微視分析。教育與社會研究,10,239-271。
林大森(2006b)。大學指定科目考試跨考數學議題之初探。台灣教育社會學,6(2),43-83。new window
林大森(2006c)。技術學院與科技大學新生主修科系轉換之分析。教育與社會研究,10,93-124。new window
林淑惠與黃韞臻(2012)。「大學生學習投入量表」之發展。測驗學刊,59(3),373-396。
邱皓政(2003)。結構方程模式:LISREL的理論、技術與應用。台北市:雙葉。
商業周刊(2014)。特別企劃:服貿協議 完全解惑。引自http://www.businessweekly.com.tw/LFeatureDetail.aspx?ID=298
張春興(1989)。張氏心理學辭典。臺北:東華。
張春興(1996)。教育心理學:三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北:東華。
張春興與林清山(1989)。教育心理學。臺北:東華。
張雪梅(2006)。以學生學習為中心的大學評鑑:以學生能力及其與大學評鑑結果關係初探。教育政策論壇,9(4),49-76。new window
張雪梅與劉若蘭(2007)。建構以學生校園經驗與學習成果為高等教育品質評鑑指標之研究。高教發展與評估,23(5),34-44。
張鈿富(2012)。大學生學習投入理論與評量實務之探討。高教評鑑中文特刊,March 2012,41-62。new window
張鈿富、吳慧子與吳舒靜(2011)。區域文化影響PISA科學表現與科學態度---分析其差異與關聯。教育資料與研究,100,125-146。new window
張鈿富、林松柏與周文菁(2012)。台灣高中學生學習投入影響因素之研究。教育資料集刊,54,23-57。new window
教育部(2012a)。近十年大專校院學校數及學生數。取自https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/important/OVERVIEW_U03.XLS
教育部(2012b)。大專學生粗在學率。取自https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/important/OVERVIEW_N03.XLS
教育部統計處(2013a)。101學年大專校院新生註冊率變動分析。臺北:編者。
教育部統計處(2013b)。大專校院概況表。臺北:編者。
教育部統計處編(2007)。中華民國教育程度及學科標準分類。臺北:編者。
陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵(2003)。多變量分析方法:統計軟體應用。台北市:五南。
陳舜芬(2004)。松竹楊梅四校大學生校園投入經驗與學習成果之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告(編號:NSC91-2413-H-007-003)。
陳琼琼(2009)。大學生參與度評價:高教質量評估的新視角—美國「全國學生參與度調查」的解析。高教發展與評估,25(1),24-30。
彭森明(2008a)。以學生評鑑確保大學生優良素質:美國策略。教育研究與發展期刊,4(3),1-20。new window
彭森明(2008b)。將學生學習成果納入大學評鑑指標項目之必要性與可行性。評鑑雙月刊,15,9-14。
彭森明(2010)。美國公立研究型大學學生學習成效評估計畫之實施。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/images/epaper_heeact_edu_tw/2010_0901_No27/PD4 F_27/27_5-4_14-17.pdf
黃玉(2000)。大學學生事務理論基礎-台灣大學生心理社會發展之研究。公民訓育學報,9,161-200。new window
黃芳銘(2002)。結構方程模式。台北市:五南。
黃源河與符碧真(2004)。An attempt to build indigenous educational theory: Are alternative schools so heretical to Taiwan’s culture?發表於The Alternative and Ideal-driven Schools Conference. 2004年7月19-20日。臺北:國立政治大學。
黃毅志(2005)。教育研究中的「職業調查封閉式問卷」之信效度分析。教育研究,51(4),43-71。new window
黃毅志(2008)。如何精確測量職業地位?「改良版台灣地區新職業聲望與社經地位量表」之建構。臺東大學教育學報,19(1),151-160。new window
遠見雜誌(2010)。台灣閱讀大調查發現:每人每天看書26分鐘!遠見雜誌,292。引自http://www.gvm.com.tw/Boardcontent_16711.html
劉若蘭(2005)。大專原住民族與漢族學生成功學習模式之建構與驗證:以北部某多元族群技術學院為例。國立臺灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系博士論文,未出版,臺北市。new window
劉若蘭(2009)。大學教育品質與學生學習發展之因果模式研究。教育政策論壇,12 (3),99-124。new window
劉若蘭與楊昌裕(2009)。不同身分背景大學生校園經驗與學習成果滿意度之關係模式研究。新竹教育大學教育學報,26(2),1-22。
劉鎔毓(2007)。大學生課業學習相關經驗分析:一般生與技職生之比較。課程研究,2(2),91-121。new window
盧羿廷(2007)。正視大學生素質問題──從大專校院教師觀點來看。臺灣高等教育研究電子報,6。取自http://www.cher.ntnu.edu.tw/epaperi/topics/nindex2.php?no=10
聯合報(2013年9月5日)。私立大學退場機制 教育部啟動。取自http://mag.udn.com/mag/edu/storypage.jsp?f_ART_ID=475135
謝寶媛(2006)。決定樣本大小。圖資電子報,33。引自http://www.lis.ntu.edu.tw/~pnhsieh/epapers/no33.htm
魏麗敏與黃德祥(2001)。國中與高中學生家庭環境、學習投入狀況與自我調節學習及成就之研究。中華輔導學報,10,63-118。

貳、英文部分
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., Cadigan, D., & Pallas, A. (1987). Getting Ready for First Grade: Standards of Deportment in Home and School. SocFor, 66(1), 57-84.
American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel Adiminstrators. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: Authour.
Angell, L. R. (2009). Construct validity of the community college survey of student engagement (CCSSE). Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 564-570.
Ann, M. L. C., Wendell, H. P., & Michelle., R. (2004). Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 288-300.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369-386.
Arteche, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Ackerman, P., & Furnham, A. (2009).Typical intellectual engagement as a byproduct of openness, learning approaches, and self-assessed intelligence. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 29, 357-367.
Aschaffenburg, K. & Maas, I. (1997). Cultural and educational careers: The dynamics of social reproduction. American Sociological Review, 62(4), 573-587.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(6), 359-372.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bok, D. (2007). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brennan, J., Edmunds, R., Houston, M., Jary, D., Lebeau, Y., Osborne, M., et al. (2010). Improving what is learned at university. London: Routledge.
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47, 1-32.
Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 13(8), 1-7.
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser. L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-121.
DeGraaf, P. M. (1986). The impact of financial and cultural resources on educational attainment in the Netherlands. Sociology of Education, 59(4), 237-246.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dickenson, P. A. (2009). Goal orientation of Latino English language the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Donald, J. G. (2000, April). Indicators of success: From concepts to classrooms. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Downer, J. T., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). How do classroom conditions and children’s risk for school problems contribute to children’s behavioral engagement in learning? School Psychology Review, 36, 413-432.
Elliott, J. G., Hufton, N. R., Willis, W., & Ilyushin, L. (2005). Motivation, engagement and educational performance: International perspectives on the contexts for learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Evans,N., J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fredricks, J. A., Phyllis, B., & Parks, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.
Gayles, J. G., & Hu, S. (2009). The influence of student engagement and sport participation on college outcomes among division I student athletes. Journal of Higher Education, 80, 315-333.
Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 181-192.
Greene, T. G., Marti, C. N., & McClenney, K. (2008). The effort-outcome gap: Differences for African American and Hispanic community college students in student engagement and achievement. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 513-539.
Hair, J., Black, B. Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 184-192.
Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Beyond sameness, with engagement and outcomes for all: An introduction. In S. R. Harper & S. J. Quaye, Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 1-15). New York: Routledge.
Ho, S. E. & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126-141.
Horstmanshof, L., & Zimitat, C. (2007). Future time orientation predicts academic engagement among first-year university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 703-718.
Hu, S., Kuh, G. D., & Li, S. (2008). The effects of engagement in inquiry oriented activities on student learning and personal development. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 71-81.
Huo, H. D. & Hauser, R. M. (1995). Trends in family effects on the education of black and white brothers. Sociology of Education, 68(2), 136-160.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factor simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Kaiser, J., Retelsdorf, J., Südkamp, A., & Möller, J. (2013). Achievement and engagement: How student characteristics influence teacher judgments. Learning and Instruction, 28, 73-84.
Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17, 66.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24-32.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5-20.
Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 540-563.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness: The inventory for student engagement and success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
LaNasa, S. M., Olson, E., & Alleman, N. (2007). The impact of on-campus student growth on first-year student engagement and success. Research in Higher Education, 48, 941-966.
Lee, J. (2012). The effects of the teacher–student relationship and academic press on student engagement and academic performance. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 330-340.
Lester, J., Leonardo, J. B., & Mathias, D. (2013). Transfer student engagement: Blurring of social and academic engagement. Community College Review, 41(3), 202-222.
Marti, C. N. (2009). Dimensions of student engagement in American community colleges: Using the community college student report in research and practice. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 1-24.
Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 413-440.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20(5), 321-333.
National Survey of Student Engagement (2009). NSSE Timeline, 1998-2009. Retrieved June 20, 2011. from http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/NSSE_Timeline.pdf
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2014a). Engagement indicators. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/engagementIndicators.cfm
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2014b). Survey instrument. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/survey_instruments.cfm
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2014c). NSSE topical modules. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/modules.cfm
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1999). Classifying educational programmers: Manual for ISCED-97 implementation in OECD countries. Paris, France: Author.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Retrieved from http://www. oecd.org/dataoecd/0/47/42025182.pdf
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, 185-209.
Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 276-300.
Pike, G. R., Smart, J. C., Kuh, G. D., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). Educational expenditures and student engagement: When does money matter? Research in Higher Education, 47, 847-872.
Porter, S. R. (2006). Institutional structures and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 47, 521-558.
Rodgers, R. F. (1989). Student development. In U. Delworth & G. R. Hanson (Eds.), student service: a handbook for the profession (2nd ed., pp. 117-164). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ryan, J. F. (2005). Institutional expenditures and student engagement: A role for financial resources in enhancing student learning and development? Research in Higher Education, 46, 235-249.
Schlechty, P. C. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schuetz, P. (2008). A theory-driven model of community college student engagement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 305-324.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.
Tafarodi, R., Marshall, & Katsura (2001). Standing out in Japan and Canada. Paper presented at The Asian Association of Social Psychology Conference 2001, Melburn, Australia.
Thiessen, V., & Blasius, J. (2008). Mathematics achievement and mathematics learning strategies: Cognitive competencies and construct differentiation. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 362-371.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education:A theoretical synthesis of recent research . Review of educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college :Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
TLRP (2014). Teaching and Learning Research Programme: Aims. Retrieved from http://www.tlrp.org/aims/index.html
Trow, M. (1973). The expansion and transformation of higher education. New York: General Learning Press.
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46, 153-184.
Veiga, F. H. (2012). Proposal to the PISA of a new scale of Students’ engagement in school. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1224-1231.
Walker, C. O., & Greene, B. A. (2009). The relations between student motivational beliefs and cognitive engagement in high school. Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 463-472.
Wang, M. T., Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12-23.
Williams, T., Williams, K., Kastberg, D., & Jocelyn, L. (2005). Achievement and affect in OECD nations. Oxford Review of Education, 31, 517-545.
Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2010). Charting the path form engagement to achievement: A report on the 2009 high school survey of student engagement. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy.
Yeung, A. S., Kuppan, L., Kadir, M. S., &Foong, S. K. (2010). Boys' and girls' self-beliefs, engagement, and aspirations in physics. International Journal of Learning, 17(10), 397-417.
Zhao, C. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45, 115-138.
Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student and American student engagement in effective educational practices. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 209-231.


 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE