- 无标题文档
查看论文信息

中文题名:

 家庭文化资本、学习投入与大学生学业成绩的关系研究    

姓名:

 王迎香    

学号:

 20202001016    

保密级别:

 公开    

论文语种:

 chi    

学科代码:

 040106    

学科名称:

 教育学 - 教育学 - 高等教育学    

学生类型:

 硕士    

学位:

 教育学硕士    

学位类型:

 学术学位    

学位年度:

 2023    

学校:

 石河子大学    

院系:

 师范学院    

专业:

 教育学    

研究方向:

 高等教育学    

第一导师姓名:

 蔡文伯    

第一导师单位:

 石河子大学    

完成日期:

 2023-05-18    

答辩日期:

 2023-05-15    

外文题名:

 A Study on the relationship between family cultural capital, learning engagement and academic achievement of college students    

中文关键词:

 家庭文化资本 ; 学习投入 ; 学业成绩 ; 高等教育质量 ; 在线教学     

外文关键词:

   ; Family cultural capital ; Learning engagement ; Academic performance ; Quality of higher education ; Online teaching     

中文摘要:

高等教育质量与公平问题是教育学术研究的核心议题。随着我国提出推动高等教育内涵式发展,以学生主体为视角的教育过程性问题成为关注的焦点,学生学习过程中的状态如何?学习效果如何?是否兼顾了教育公平?这一系列问题关乎高校与学生个人的发展。尤其在新冠疫情以来,长时间的线上教学使得社会各界对大学生学习状况感到普遍担忧。因此,本研究结合理论与实证分析,深入了解学生家庭文化资本存量与学业状况,在社会学视角下,探讨家庭文化资本、学习投入对学业成绩的影响及作用机制,并由此提出相关政策建议,旨在促进大学生学业成绩提升,实现高校教育过程公平,推动高等教育高质量发展。

本研究在文献综述主要梳理了家庭文化资本、学习投入与学业成绩的测量方式及与其他变量关系的相关研究,结合再生产理论与资源保存理论进行综合分析后,最终拟定论文的整体研究框架,共提出了7条研究假设。采用问卷调查法与访谈法相结合的方式,研究在四所学校共收集1000份问卷,其中有效问卷805份。通过Cronbachα系数、验证性因素分析、聚合效度、共同方法偏差检验等方法对数据进行检验,研究发现调查数据的各项指标均达到理想数值,适用于大学生家庭文化资本与学习投入测量。基于该数据进行实证分析,本研究结果如下:

(1)从整体状况看,大学生的家庭文化资本、学习投入与学业成绩的均值都处于中等水平;在家庭文化资本各维度上,身体化家庭文化资本均值最高,客观化家庭文化资本次之,制度化家庭文化资本最低;在学习投入各维度上,动机投入相对最高,专注投入稍弱,精力投入相对最低。且上述主要变量在不同人口学变量分组比较下,不同大学生群体存在显著差异性。(2)在相关性分析中,家庭文化资本、学习投入及其各维度与大学生学业成绩均存在显著相关性;除制度化家庭文化资本外,家庭文化资本及其余维度与学习投入存在显著相关性。(3)在回归分析中,家庭文化资本、学习投入对大学生学业成绩具有显著的正向影响;家庭文化资本对大学生学习投入存在显著正向影响。分疫情期间在线学习时间长短来看,当大学生在线学习时间较短时,学习投入对学业成绩的解释力更强;当在线学习时间较长时,家庭文化资本对学业成绩的解释力上升,高于学习投入的系数。(4)除直接效应外,研究还验证了变量间的中介效应,证实家庭文化资本能通过学习投入的中介作用影响大学生学业成绩。(5)家庭文化资本造成学业成绩差异的原因主要是平台、规则话语的掌握、学生自我成长的内驱力、能力塑造与知识沉淀;学习投入影响学业成绩经过了激发-维持的过程,具体包括目标驱动与兴趣驱动、外部监督与自我管理、任务安排与时间分配的作用。

基于以上研究结果,研究聚焦高校、家庭与学生多层面,从提高高等教育质量、提升家庭文化资本和高效管理学习生活三个方面入手,提出了提高大学生学业成绩的具体对策建议,以期更好的促进高等教育发展。

外文摘要:

The quality and equity of higher education is the core issue of educational academic research. As our country proposes to promote the intension development of higher education, the question of the educational process with the student subject as the Angle of view becomes the focal point of attention. How is the state of the students in the learning process? How is the learning effect? Are educational equity taken into account? This series of questions concerns the development of universities and students. Especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, the long-term online teaching has caused widespread concern about college students' learning status. Therefore, this study combined theoretical and empirical analysis, in-depth understanding of students' family cultural capital stock and academic status, from the perspective of sociology, to explore the impact of family cultural capital and learning investment on academic performance and the mechanism of action, and therefore put forward relevant policy recommendations, aimed at promoting the improvement of college students' academic performance, realizing the fairness of college education process, and promoting the high-quality development of higher education.

In the literature review, this study mainly sorted out the research on the measurement methods of family cultural capital, learning investment and academic achievement and the relationship between them and other variables. After a comprehensive analysis combined with reproduction theory and resource conservation theory, the overall research framework of this thesis was finally formulated, and a total of 7 research hypotheses were proposed. A total of 1000 questionnaires were collected in four schools by means of a combination of questionnaire survey and interview, among which 805 were valid. Cronbachα coefficient, confirmatory factor analysis, aggregate validity, common method deviation test and other methods were used to test the data. The research found that all indicators of the survey data reached ideal values, which is suitable for the measurement of college students' family cultural capital and learning investment. Based on this data, empirical analysis is conducted, and the results of this study are as follows:

(1) From the overall situation, the average values of family cultural capital, learning engagement and academic performance of college students are at the medium level; In each dimension of family cultural capital, the mean value of embodied cultural family capital is the highest, followed by objectified cultural family capital, and institutionalized family cultural capital is the lowest. In the dimensions of learning engagement, motivation engagement is relatively high, concentration engagement is slightly weak, and energy engagement is relatively low. In addition, the main variables mentioned above have significant differences among different groups of college students under the grouping comparison of different demographic variables. (2) In the correlation analysis, family cultural capital, learning engagement and their dimensions are significantly correlated with college students' academic performance; In addition to institutionalized family cultural capital, family cultural capital and its dimensions have significant correlation with learning engagement. (3) In the regression analysis, family cultural capital and learning engagement have a significant positive impact on college students' academic performance; Family cultural capital has a significant positive effect on college students' learning engagement. In terms of the duration of online learning during the epidemic period, when the duration of online learning was shorter, learning engagement had a stronger explanatory power on academic performance. When the online learning time is longer, the explanatory power of family cultural capital on academic performance increases, which is higher than the coefficient of learning engagement. (4) In addition to the direct effect, the study also verified the mediating effect between variables, confirming that family cultural capital can influence the academic performance of college students through the mediating effect of learning engagement. (5) The main reasons for the difference in academic performance caused by family cultural capital are the platform, the mastery of discourse rules, the driving force of students' self-growth, the shaping of ability and the precipitation of knowledge; The influence of learning engagement on academic performance is a process of stimulation and maintenance, including the role of goal-driven and interest-driven, external supervision and self-management, task scheduling and time allocation.

Based on the above research results, this study focuses on universities, families and students from multiple aspects, from improving the quality of higher education, improving family cultural capital and efficient management of study and life, and puts forward specific countermeasures and suggestions to improve the academic performance of college students, in order to better promote the development of higher education.

参考文献:

[1]顾明远.教育大辞典(增订合编本下)[M].上海:上海教育出版社, 1998:1626.

[2]彭江. 发达国家高等教育评估制度分析[M]. 重庆:重庆大学出版社, 2021:244.

[3]宫留记.布迪厄的社会实践理论[M].开封:河南大学出版社,2009:120-121.

[4]汪雅霜.基于I-E-O模型的大学生学习投入度研究[M].南京:南京大学出版社, 2018:43.

[5][法]布尔迪约, [法]帕斯隆著. 再生产——一种教育系统理论的要点[M]. 刑克超,译.北京: 商务印书馆, 2002:45.

[6]包亚明.文化资本与社会炼金术——布尔迪厄访谈录[M]. 上海:上海人民出版社, 1997:212.

[7]张怡. 文化与符号权力:布尔迪厄的文化理论导论[M]. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2005:34.

[8][法]皮埃尔·布迪厄, [美]华康德著.实践与反思——反思社会学导引[M]. 李猛,李康,译. 北京:中央编译出版社, 1998:158.

[9]马芳,王聿泼. 教育心理学[M].南京:南京大学出版社, 2018:198.

[10][法]布尔迪约, [法]帕斯隆著.继承人——大学生与文化[M]. 刑克超,译. 北京:商务印书馆, 2002:186.

[11]Rudling E S, Emery S, Shelley B, et al. Woodroffe Jessica, Brown Natalie. Education and Equity in Times of Crisis:Learning, Engagement and Support[M]. Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, 2023:4.

[12][美]马丁·特罗.从精英向大众高等教育转变中的问题[J].王香丽,译.外国高等教育资料,1999,(1):1-22.

[13]罗芳,关江华.家庭背景和文化资本对子女非认知能力的影响分析[J].当代教育科学,2017(09):91-96.

[14]樊晓杰,林荣日.家庭文化资本和经济资本对家庭教育支出的影响实证研究——以我国东中西部10个贫困县为例[J].复旦教育论坛,2021,19(05):81-88.

[15]王晓妹,李德显.家庭文化资本与儿童、青少年诚信观的形成[J].教育理论与实践,2013,33(07):45-49.

[16]张艳,张双月,张莉.基于SEM的家庭文化资本对农科大学生农村基层就业意愿的影响分析[J].现代教育管理,2018(04):93-99.

[17]彭榕.社会分层与高等教育公平问题探讨[J].黑龙江高教研究,2017(03):111-113.

[18]王鹏程,龚欣.家庭文化资本对学前教育机会的影响——基于CFPS数据的实证研究[J].学前教育研究,2020(12):43-54.

[19]周霖,孙晓雪.谁更易于获得核心素养——家庭文化资本对核心素养获得的影响[J].教育理论与实践,2017,37(07):25-29.

[20]梅红,朱钰.家庭文化资本对西部贫困地区农民子女就读意愿的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报(社会科学版),2020,20(06):56-62.

[21]李毅,谭婷.家庭经济资本和中小学生阅读兴趣的关系:家庭文化资本的中介作用[J].心理与行为研究,2019,17(04):520-528+576.

[22]胡尚峰.家庭文化资本对大学新生心理健康的影响研究[J].中国特殊教育,2016(09):78-83.

[23]梁文艳,周晔馨.为何巾帼胜须眉? 非认知能力与大学生在校表现的性别差距[J/OL].经济学报:1-31[2023-03-15].https://doi.org/10.16513/j.cnki.cje.20230216.002.

[24]王文. 中国大学生学习投入的内涵变化和测量改进——来自“中国大学生学习与发展追踪调查”(CCSS)的探索[J]. 中国高教研究, 2018, (12): 39-45.

[25]尹弘飚. 行为观、心理观与社会文化观:大学生学习投入研究的视域转移——兼论中国高校教学质量改进[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2020, 38(11): 1-20.

[26]方来坛,时勘,张风华.中文版学习投入量表的信效度研究[J].中国临床心理学杂志,2008,16(06):618-620.

[27]李西营,黄荣.大学生学习投入量表(UWES-S)的修订报告[J].心理研究,2010,3(01):84-88.

[28]张凯,杨嘉琪,陈凯泉.学习者情感因素对英语合作学习投入的作用机理[J].现代外语,2021,44(03):407-419.

[29]郭建鹏,刘公园,杨凌燕. 大学生学习投入的影响机制与模型——基于311所本科高等学校的学情调查[J]. 教育研究, 2021, 42(8): 104-115.

[30]翟兴,陈超,王鸿蕴.信息素养对大学生网络学习投入的影响研究——以新冠疫情期间的大规模、长周期网络教学为例[J].现代教育技术,2020,30(10):98-104.

[31]张晓报.美国研究型大学跨学科专业教育的实践及启示[J].高校教育管理, 2019, 13(05):92-103.

[32]刘在花.学校氛围对中学生学习投入的影响:学校幸福感的中介作用[J].中国特殊教育,2017(04):85-90.

[33]陈国玉.大学生学习投入的影响因素及引导策略——基于在线spssau系统的智慧分析[J].教育学术月刊,2022(03):73-79.

[34]高帆,刘庭汐.城乡户籍制度对学生成绩的影响研究[J].人文杂志,2022(03):122-131.

[35]高秀梅.大学生心理控制源的特征及其对学业成绩的影响[J].高教探索,2021(09):63-66.

[36]童星,缪建东.自我效能感与大学生学业成绩的关系:学习乐观的中介作用[J].高教探索,2019(03):16-21.

[37]罗长远,司春晓.在线教育会拉大不同家庭条件学生的差距吗?——以新冠肺炎疫情为准自然实验[J].财经研究,2020,46(11):4-18.

[38]曲绍卫,汪英晖.大学生资助对德育水平、学业成绩和就业质量的促进作用[J].中国高等教育,2018(05):24-26.

[39]钟云华. 阶层背景对大学生学业成就影响的实证分析[J]. 高教发展与评估, 2012, 28(2): 108-115, 120.

[40]陈少毅,陈晓宇. 家庭背景对本科生学业成绩的影响会随年级改变吗——基于我国85所院校的实证研究[J]. 国家教育行政学院学报, 2018, 251(11): 62-71.

[41]林欣,谢静雨,林素絮.家庭资本对农村儿童学业成绩的影响——基于2018年CFPS数据的实证研究[J].教育理论与实践,2021,41(01):24-30.

[42]何二林,叶晓梅,潘坤坤.中英两国家庭文化资本对学生学业成绩的影响差异——基于PISA2015数据的实证研究[J].教育学术月刊,2020(03):25-32.

[43]蒋国河,闫广芬.家庭资本与城乡学业成就差异——基于实证调查基础上的相关分析[J].青年研究,2006(06):28-34.

[44]熊静.第一代农村大学生的学习经历分析——基于结构与行动互动的视角[J].教育学术月刊,2016(05):74-81.

[45]王翠如,徐培培,胡永斌.桌面虚拟现实学习环境对学习投入和学习成绩的影响——基于多模态数据[J].开放教育研究,2021,27(03):112-120.

[46]王红梅,张琪,黄志南.开放学习环境中学习行为投入与认知投入的实证研究[J].现代教育技术,2019,29(12):48-54.

[47]王志军,余新宇.在线课程设计与开发:要素、理念模型与过程模型[J].开放教育研究,2022,28(03):81-92.

[48]何旭明,陈向明. 学生的学习投入对学习兴趣的影响研究[J].全球教育展望,2008(03):46-51.

[49]李永占.父母教养方式对高中生学习投入的影响:一个链式中介效应模型[J].心理发展与教育,2018,34(05):576-585.

[50]范静波.家庭因素、教育资源获得与性别公平[J].教育科学,2016,32(02):1-6.

[51]洪志超,张淼.家庭资本对教育质量的影响及作用机制——基于CEPS调查数据的实证研究[J].金融与经济,2021(09):90-96.

[52]张铭凯,黄瑞昕,吴晓丽.大学生学习投入与学习自我效能感关系的实证研判[J].教育学术月刊,2021(11):83-90.

[53]崔文琴.当代大学生学习投入的现状及对策研究[J].高教探索,2012(06):67-71+143.

[54]廖友国.大学生学习投入问卷的编制及现状调查[J].集美大学学报(教育科学版),2011,12(02):39-44.

[55]张信勇,卞小华,徐光兴.大学生的学习投入与人格坚韧性的关系[J].心理研究, 2008, 1(06):72-76.

[56]温忠麟,叶宝娟.中介效应分析:方法和模型发展[J].心理科学进展,2014,22(05):731-745.

[57]李琳璐.西部地区大学生学习投入度现状与家庭文化资本关系的实证研究[J].高等理科教育,2022(04):42-50.

[58]王伟宜,刘秀娟. 家庭文化资本对大学生学习投入影响的实证研究[J]. 高等教育研究, 2016, 37(4): 71-79.

[59]郭海青.试述布迪厄关系主义视角下的场域惯习理论[J].湖南文理学院学报(社会科学版),2008(05):45-48.

[60]李春玲,郭亚平.大学校园里的竞争还要靠“拼爹”吗?——家庭背景在大学生人力资本形成中的作用[J].社会学研究,2021,36(02):138-159+228-229.

[61]何玲,黎加厚.促进学生深度学习[J].现代教学,2005(05):29-30.

[62]施芸卿.数字不平等的再生产——以大学生网络使用为例[J].兰州大学学报(社会科学版),2014,42(06):69-75.

[63]吴婷. 家庭文化资本对中学生校外体育锻炼行为的影响因素实证研究[D]. 安徽:安徽师范大学, 2020.

[64]许怀雪.家庭文化资本对农村初中生学习投入的影响研究[D].吉林:东北师范大学, 2017.

[65]罗薇. “大五”人格对大学生学业成绩、心理健康的影响:成就目标的中介作用[D]. 南京:南京师范大学, 2020.

[66]周菲. 家庭背景对大学生学习投入的影响研究 [D]. 南京:南京大学, 2015.

[67]杨涛. 家庭文化资本对大学生学习投入的影响研究[D]. 山西:山西财经大学, 2021.

[68]李娜.社会分层视野中的高等教育过程公平研究[D].天津: 南开大学, 2009.

[69]刘秀娟. 不同家庭背景大学生学习投入差异分析[D]. 福建:福建师范大学, 2015.

[70]龚星月. 家庭环境对初中生在线学习投入的影响研究[D].重庆:西南大学,2021.

[71]魏锦涛. 在线学习中的数字鸿沟现象研究[D].湖北:湖北民族大学,2019.

[72]Chang W . Grit and academic performance: Is being grittier better?[D]. Florida :University of Miami, 2014.

[73]Jeliazkova M, Westerheijden D F. Systemic adaptation to a changing environment: Towards a next generation of quality assurance models[J]. Higher Education, 2002, 44 ( 44):433–448.

[74]Kuh, G D. what We’re Learning About Student Engagement From NSSE: Benchmarks for Effective Educational Practices[J]. Change, 2003(2):24-32.

[75]Astin A W. Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education[J].Journal of College Student Development, 1999, 40(5):518-529.

[76]van Dijk, Jan A G M. The Evolution of the Digital Divide the Digital Divide turns to Inequality of Skills and Usage[J]. New Media & Society, 2012, 16(3):57-75.

[77]Tramonte L, Willms J D. Cultural capital and its effects on education outcomes[J]. Economics of Education Review, 2010, 29(2):200-213.

[78]Wu X. The dynamic role of cultural capital in the competitive school admission process: a Chinese experience[J].Australian Educational Researcher, 2012, 39(3):275-293.

[79]Ren W, Zhu X , Yang J . The SES-based difference of adolescents' digital skills and usages: An explanation from family cultural capital[J]. Computers & Education, 2021, 177:1-13.

[80]Chiu, S I, Hong F Y, Hu H Y. The effects of family cultural capital and reading motivation on reading behaviour in elementary school students[J]. school psychology international, 2015, 36(1):3-17.

[81]Schaufeli W B , Salanova M , González-romá V, et al. The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach[J].Happiness Studies, 2002, 3(1):71-92.

[82]Heissel J A. The Relative Benefits of Live versus Online Delivery: Evidence from Virtual Algebra I in North Carolina [J]. Economics of Education Review, 2016, 53:99-115.

[83]Sullivan A. Cultural Capital and Educational Attainment[J]. Sociology, 2001, 35(4): 893-912.

[84]De Graaf N , De Graaf P, Kraaykamp G. Parental cultural capital and educational gains in the Netherlands: A refinement of the cultural capital perspective[J]. Sociology of Education , 2000, 73(2):92-111.

[85]Byun S Y, Schofer E, Kim K K. Revisiting the Role of Cultural Capital in East Asian Educational Systems[J]. Sociology of Education, 2012, 85(3): 219-239.

[86]Leaper C, Farkas T, Brown C. Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-related beliefs in relation to their motivation in math/science and English[J].Youth and Adolescence, 2012, 41(3):268-282.

[87]Tan C Y, Peng B, Lyu M. What types of cultural capital benefit students' academic achievement at different educational stages? Interrogating the meta-analytic evidence[J]. Educational Research Review, 2019(28):1-38.

[88] Karabchuk T , Roshchina Y . Predictors of student engagement: the role of universities' or importance of students' background?[J/OL]. European Journal of Higher Education:1-20[2023-03-15]. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2022.2035240.

[89]Pike G R, Kuh G D. First- and Second-Generation College Students: A Comparison of Their Engagement and Intellectual Development[J]. Higher Education, 2005, 76(3): 276-300.

[90]Kuh G D, Umbach P D. College and Character: Insights from the National Survey of Student Engagement[J]. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2004(122):37-54.

[91]Graham C R, Tripp T R, Seawright L, et.al. Empowering or Compelling Reluctant Participators Using Audience Response Systems[J].Active Learning in Higher Education, 2007, 8 (3):233-258.

[92]Winkle-Wagner R . Cultural capital: the promises and pitfalls in educational research[J]. ASHE Higher Education Report, 2010, 36(1): 1-144.

[93]Enriquez A G, Lipe C B, Price B. Enhancing the success of minority STEM students by providing financial, academic, social, and cultural capital [C]. the 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Hoboken. NJ : American Society for Engineering Education. 2014:1–15.

[94]Fredricks J A, Blumenfeld P C, Paris A H. School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence[J]. Review of Educational Research, 2004, 74(1):59-109.

[95]Hobfoll S E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress[J].American Psychologist, 1989, 44:513-524.

[96]Wu W L, Lee Y C. Do Work Engagement and Transformational Leadership Facilitate Knowledge Sharing? [J]. Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17(7):1-17.

[97]Diseth Å , Samdal O. Autonomy support and achievement goals as predictors of perceived school performance and life satisfaction in the transition between lower and upper secondary school[J]. Social Psychology of Education, 2014, 17(2): 269-291.

[98]Fornell C , Larcker D F . Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981, 24(2):337-346.

[99]Long W L . Impact of competitiveness on salespeople's commitment and performance[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2012, 65(9):1328-1334.

[100]Bernard R M, Abrami P C, Borokhovski E, et al. A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education[J]. Review of Educational Research, 2009, 79(3):1243–1289.

[101]Means B, Toyama Y, Murphy R.The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning:A Meta-analysis of the Empirical Literature [J]. Teachers College Record, 2013(3): 1-47.

中图分类号:

 G40    

开放日期:

 2023-05-31    

无标题文档

   建议浏览器: 谷歌 火狐 360请用极速模式,双核浏览器请用极速模式