心理学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 56 ›› Issue (3): 295-310.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00295
杨靖渊1, 于晓1(), 张婧漪2,3, 卢骊霏1, 杨智辉1()
收稿日期:
2022-11-11
发布日期:
2023-12-11
出版日期:
2024-03-25
通讯作者:
杨智辉, E-mail: 基金资助:
YANG Jingyuan1, YU Xiao1(), ZHANG Jingyi2,3, LU Lifei1, YANG Zhihui1()
Received:
2022-11-11
Online:
2023-12-11
Published:
2024-03-25
摘要:
采用潜在转变分析考察“双减”背景下小学生学习投入的转变类别及其影响因素。研究以347名小学生为被试, 对其“双减”实施前后的学习投入水平、父母积极教养方式、师生关系和同伴关系进行了纵向追踪。结果表明: (1)小学生学习投入存在“低学习投入组”、“中等学习投入组”、“高专注低活力组”和“高学习投入组”四种不同类别; (2)“双减”政策实施后, “中等学习投入组”和“高学习投入组”稳定性较强, “低学习投入组”更易向“中等学习投入组”转变, 在政策实施半年后, “高专注低活力组”学生更易向“中等学习投入组”转变, 政策实施一年后, 该组学生保持在“高专注低活力组”的概率较高; (3)父母积极教养方式、师生关系及同伴关系对“双减”政策前后小学生学习投入类别转变的预测作用存在差异。本研究不仅有助于深入理解小学生学习投入的发展变化及影响因素, 还为“双减”政策的实施效果提供了实证证据。
中图分类号:
杨靖渊, 于晓, 张婧漪, 卢骊霏, 杨智辉. (2024). “双减”背景下小学生学习投入的潜在类别转变. 心理学报, 56(3), 295-310.
YANG Jingyuan, YU Xiao, ZHANG Jingyi, LU Lifei, YANG Zhihui. (2024). The transition of latent classes of children’s learning engagement in primary school against the background of the “double reduction” policy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(3), 295-310.
时间点 | 类别数目 | AIC | BIC | aBIC | Entropy | LMRT(p) | BLRT(p) | 所占比例(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 2 | 2590.16 | 2628.66 | 2596.93 | 0.86 | 0.005 | < 0.001 | 28.24/71.76 |
3 | 2461.31 | 2515.20 | 2470.79 | 0.77 | 0.40 | < 0.001 | 17.00/50.72/32.28 | |
4 | 2382.08 | 2451.37 | 2394.27 | 0.84 | 0.11 | < 0.001 | 10.95/23.92/50.14/14.99 | |
5 | 2328.37 | 2413.06 | 2343.26 | 0.88 | 0.02 | < 0.001 | 1.73/13.54/21.61/48.13/14.99 | |
6 | 2309.44 | 2409.53 | 2327.05 | 0.87 | 0.26 | < 0.001 | 1.73/11.52/14.70/9.22/47.84/14.99 | |
T2 | 2 | 2506.44 | 2544.93 | 2513.21 | 0.86 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 46.97/53.03 |
3 | 2379.70 | 2433.59 | 2389.18 | 0.90 | 0.001 | < 0.001 | 7.20/44.67/48.13 | |
4 | 2307.34 | 2376.63 | 2319.53 | 0.85 | 0.02 | < 0.001 | 6.63/38.90/26.23/28.24 | |
5 | 2271.64 | 2356.33 | 2286.54 | 0.81 | 0.14 | < 0.001 | 6.63/27.67/14.12/26.51/25.07 | |
6 | 2269.82 | 2369.90 | 2287.42 | 0.85 | 0.60 | 0.67 | 2.59/10.66/24.21/18.73/8.07/35.74 | |
T3 | 2 | 2560.65 | 2599.14 | 2567.42 | 0.83 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 59.37/40.63 |
3 | 2389.94 | 2443.83 | 2399.41 | 0.87 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 17.00/51.30/31.70 | |
4 | 2349.65 | 2418.94 | 2361.84 | 0.80 | 0.41 | < 0.001 | 9.22/38.62/25.36/26.80 | |
5 | 2331.04 | 2415.72 | 2345.93 | 0.82 | 0.04 | < 0.001 | 1.44/14.12/38.62/19.60/26.22 | |
6 | 2318.30 | 2418.38 | 2335.90 | 0.82 | 0.24 | < 0.001 | 3.46/14.41/31.70/18.44/18.73/13.26 |
表2 T1、T2、T3学习投入LPA模型的模型拟合指标
时间点 | 类别数目 | AIC | BIC | aBIC | Entropy | LMRT(p) | BLRT(p) | 所占比例(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 2 | 2590.16 | 2628.66 | 2596.93 | 0.86 | 0.005 | < 0.001 | 28.24/71.76 |
3 | 2461.31 | 2515.20 | 2470.79 | 0.77 | 0.40 | < 0.001 | 17.00/50.72/32.28 | |
4 | 2382.08 | 2451.37 | 2394.27 | 0.84 | 0.11 | < 0.001 | 10.95/23.92/50.14/14.99 | |
5 | 2328.37 | 2413.06 | 2343.26 | 0.88 | 0.02 | < 0.001 | 1.73/13.54/21.61/48.13/14.99 | |
6 | 2309.44 | 2409.53 | 2327.05 | 0.87 | 0.26 | < 0.001 | 1.73/11.52/14.70/9.22/47.84/14.99 | |
T2 | 2 | 2506.44 | 2544.93 | 2513.21 | 0.86 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 46.97/53.03 |
3 | 2379.70 | 2433.59 | 2389.18 | 0.90 | 0.001 | < 0.001 | 7.20/44.67/48.13 | |
4 | 2307.34 | 2376.63 | 2319.53 | 0.85 | 0.02 | < 0.001 | 6.63/38.90/26.23/28.24 | |
5 | 2271.64 | 2356.33 | 2286.54 | 0.81 | 0.14 | < 0.001 | 6.63/27.67/14.12/26.51/25.07 | |
6 | 2269.82 | 2369.90 | 2287.42 | 0.85 | 0.60 | 0.67 | 2.59/10.66/24.21/18.73/8.07/35.74 | |
T3 | 2 | 2560.65 | 2599.14 | 2567.42 | 0.83 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 59.37/40.63 |
3 | 2389.94 | 2443.83 | 2399.41 | 0.87 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 17.00/51.30/31.70 | |
4 | 2349.65 | 2418.94 | 2361.84 | 0.80 | 0.41 | < 0.001 | 9.22/38.62/25.36/26.80 | |
5 | 2331.04 | 2415.72 | 2345.93 | 0.82 | 0.04 | < 0.001 | 1.44/14.12/38.62/19.60/26.22 | |
6 | 2318.30 | 2418.38 | 2335.90 | 0.82 | 0.24 | < 0.001 | 3.46/14.41/31.70/18.44/18.73/13.26 |
维度 | 低学习投入组 | 中等学习投入组 | 高专注低活力组 | 高学习投入组 | F | ηp2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | ||||||
活力 | −1.48 (0.18)a | −0.65 (0.15)b | 0.24 (0.07)c | 1.27 (0.09)d | 197.79*** | 0.63 |
动机 | −1.69 (0.33)a | −0.78 (0.14)b | 0.32 (0.06)c | 1.36 (0.06)d | 570.96*** | 0.83 |
专注 | −1.94 (0.27)a | −0.48 (0.28)b | 0.34 (0.05)c | 1.01 (0.06)d | 264.39*** | 0.70 |
T2 | ||||||
活力 | −1.65 (0.15)a | −0.65 (0.06)b | 0.13 (0.11)c | 1.16 (0.13)d | 307.57*** | 0.73 |
动机 | −2.03 (0.15)a | −0.72 (0.05)b | 0.37 (0.16)c | 1.12 (0.05)d | 818.71*** | 0.88 |
专注 | −1.72 (0.16)a | −0.59 (0.12)b | 0.42 (0.10)c | 0.81 (0.05)d | 159.71*** | 0.58 |
T3 | ||||||
活力 | −1.44 (0.42)a | −0.51 (0.16)b | 0.08 (0.16)c | 1.17 (0.11)d | 270.81*** | 0.70 |
动机 | −1.59 (0.31)a | −0.59 (0.17)b | 0.17 (0.26)c | 1.26 (0.08)d | 619.30*** | 0.84 |
专注 | −1.65 (0.23)a | −0.51 (0.28)b | 0.46 (0.25)c | 0.91 (0.05)d | 227.34*** | 0.67 |
表3 四个学习投入亚组在学习投入各维度上的均值标准分差异
维度 | 低学习投入组 | 中等学习投入组 | 高专注低活力组 | 高学习投入组 | F | ηp2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | ||||||
活力 | −1.48 (0.18)a | −0.65 (0.15)b | 0.24 (0.07)c | 1.27 (0.09)d | 197.79*** | 0.63 |
动机 | −1.69 (0.33)a | −0.78 (0.14)b | 0.32 (0.06)c | 1.36 (0.06)d | 570.96*** | 0.83 |
专注 | −1.94 (0.27)a | −0.48 (0.28)b | 0.34 (0.05)c | 1.01 (0.06)d | 264.39*** | 0.70 |
T2 | ||||||
活力 | −1.65 (0.15)a | −0.65 (0.06)b | 0.13 (0.11)c | 1.16 (0.13)d | 307.57*** | 0.73 |
动机 | −2.03 (0.15)a | −0.72 (0.05)b | 0.37 (0.16)c | 1.12 (0.05)d | 818.71*** | 0.88 |
专注 | −1.72 (0.16)a | −0.59 (0.12)b | 0.42 (0.10)c | 0.81 (0.05)d | 159.71*** | 0.58 |
T3 | ||||||
活力 | −1.44 (0.42)a | −0.51 (0.16)b | 0.08 (0.16)c | 1.17 (0.11)d | 270.81*** | 0.70 |
动机 | −1.59 (0.31)a | −0.59 (0.17)b | 0.17 (0.26)c | 1.26 (0.08)d | 619.30*** | 0.84 |
专注 | −1.65 (0.23)a | −0.51 (0.28)b | 0.46 (0.25)c | 0.91 (0.05)d | 227.34*** | 0.67 |
时间点 | 低学习投入组 | 中等学习投入组 | 高专注低活力组 | 高学习投入组 |
---|---|---|---|---|
潜在状态概率 | ||||
T1 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.46 | 0.18 |
T2 | 0.08 | 0.37 | 0.30 | 0.25 |
T3 | 0.08 | 0.39 | 0.30 | 0.23 |
T1到T2的转变概率 | ||||
低学习投入组 | 0.16 | 0.55 | 0.16 | 0.13 |
中等学习投入组 | 0.10 | 0.43 | 0.31 | 0.16 |
高专注低活力组 | 0.05 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.21 |
高学习投入组 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.26 | 0.54 |
T2到T3的转变概率 | ||||
低学习投入组 | 0.32 | 0.44 | 0.18 | 0.06 |
中等学习投入组 | 0.08 | 0.61 | 0.25 | 0.06 |
高专注低活力组 | 0.05 | 0.30 | 0.49 | 0.16 |
高学习投入组 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.65 |
表4 T1 ~ T3学习投入的潜在状态概率和潜在转变概率
时间点 | 低学习投入组 | 中等学习投入组 | 高专注低活力组 | 高学习投入组 |
---|---|---|---|---|
潜在状态概率 | ||||
T1 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.46 | 0.18 |
T2 | 0.08 | 0.37 | 0.30 | 0.25 |
T3 | 0.08 | 0.39 | 0.30 | 0.23 |
T1到T2的转变概率 | ||||
低学习投入组 | 0.16 | 0.55 | 0.16 | 0.13 |
中等学习投入组 | 0.10 | 0.43 | 0.31 | 0.16 |
高专注低活力组 | 0.05 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.21 |
高学习投入组 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.26 | 0.54 |
T2到T3的转变概率 | ||||
低学习投入组 | 0.32 | 0.44 | 0.18 | 0.06 |
中等学习投入组 | 0.08 | 0.61 | 0.25 | 0.06 |
高专注低活力组 | 0.05 | 0.30 | 0.49 | 0.16 |
高学习投入组 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.65 |
[1] |
Archambault, I., & Dupéré, V. (2017). Joint trajectories of behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in elementary school. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(2), 188-198.
doi: 10.1080/00220671.2015.1060931 URL |
[2] |
Arrindell, W. A., Sanavio, E., Aguilar, G., Sica, C., Hatzichristou, C., Eisemann, M.,... van der Ende, J. (1999). The development of a short form of the EMBU: Its appraisal with students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary and Italy. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(4), 613-628.
doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00192-5 URL |
[3] | Bae, C. L., Les DeBusk-Lane, M., & Lester, A. M. (2020). Engagement profiles of elementary students in urban schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101880 |
[4] |
Bear, G. G., Yang, C., Chen, D., He, X., Xie, J. S., & Huang, X. (2018). Differences in school climate and student engagement in China and the United States. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 323-335.
doi: 10.1037/spq0000247 pmid: 29878823 |
[5] |
Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 141-170.
doi: 10.1007/s10648-009-9104-0 URL |
[6] | Bian, Y. F., & Zhang, X. Y. (2022). How to do well in family education guidance under the pattern of “Easing the burden of excessive homework and off-campus tutoring for students undergoing compulsory education”. China Educational Technology, (5), 8-12. |
[ 边玉芳, 张馨宇. (2022). “双减”背景下如何做好家庭教育指导. 中国电化教育, (5), 8-12.] | |
[7] | Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. |
[8] | Cao, M., Zhu, X. Y., & Shen, S. S. (2022). A study on grade 7-12 students’ online learning performance with their parental involvement: Investigation and research report I on online teaching in primary and secondary schools in Jiangsu province. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), (4), 16-28. |
[ 曹梅, 朱晓悦, 沈书生. (2022). 父母教育卷入对中学生在线学习表现的影响——江苏省中小学在线教学调查研究报告之一. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), (4), 16-28.] | |
[9] | Chen, H. B., & Liu, J. (2018). The relations between family socioeconomic status and teenagers’ wisdom: The mediating roles of positive parenting style and openness personality. Psychological Development and Education, 34(5), 558-566. |
[ 陈浩彬, 刘洁. (2018). 家庭社会经济地位与青少年智慧的关系: 积极教养方式和开放性人格的中介作用. 心理发展与教育, 34(5), 558-566.] | |
[10] | Chen, J., Huebner, E. S., & Tian, L. (2020). Longitudinal relations between hope and academic achievement in elementary school students: Behavioral engagement as a mediator. Learning and Individual Differences, 78, Article101824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101824 |
[11] | Côté, S., Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D., Zoccolillo, M., & Vitaro, F. (2002). The development of impulsivity, fearfulness, and helpfulness during childhood: Patterns of consistency and change in the trajectories of boys and girls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 43(5), 609-618. |
[12] |
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487 URL |
[13] |
Deng, J., Wang, M. C., Shou, Y., Lai, H., Zeng, H., & Gao, Y. (2020). Parenting behaviors and child psychopathy: A regression mixture analysis. Current Psychology, 41(6), 3585-3596.
doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-00810-4 |
[14] | Deng, J. Z., Yang, G. L., & Cai, Q. Y. (2022). Analysis of the value dimension, realistic barriers and paths of classroom teaching reform against the background of “double reduction”. Journal of Southwest University (Social Sciences Edition), 48(5), 159-168. |
[ 邓建中, 杨国良, 蔡其勇. (2022). “双减”背景下课堂教学变革的价值向度、现实藩篱与路径探析. 西南大学学报(社会科学版), 48(5), 159-168.] | |
[15] | Estévez, I., Rodríguez-Llorente, C., Piñeiro, I., González- Suárez, R., & Valle, A. (2021). School engagement, academic achievement, and self-regulated learning. Sustainability, 13(6), Article3011. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063011 |
[16] |
Fredricks, J. A., Hofkens, T., Wang, M. T., Mortenson, E., & Scott, P. (2018). Supporting girls’ and boys’ engagement in math and science learning: A mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 271-298.
doi: 10.1002/tea.v55.2 URL |
[17] |
Hickendorff, M., Edelsbrunner, P. A., McMullen, J., Schneider, M., & Trezise, K. (2018). Informative tools for characterizing individual differences in learning: Latent class, latent profile, and latent transition analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 66, 4-15.
doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.001 URL |
[18] |
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310-331.
doi: 10.1177/016146819509700202 URL |
[19] | Huang, Y. F., & Zhou, F. S. (2022). The spatial turn of school education under the background of “double reduction”. Forum on Contemporary Education, (3), 116-124. |
[ 黄一帆, 周福盛. (2022). “双减”背景下学校育人的空间转向. 当代教育论坛, (3), 116-124.] | |
[20] | Jiang, J., Lu, Z. R., Jiang, B. J., & Xu, Y. (2010). Revision of the short-form Egna Minnen av Barndoms Uppfostran for Chinese. Psychological Development and Education, (1), 94-99. |
[ 蒋奖, 鲁峥嵘, 蒋苾菁, 许燕. (2010). 简式父母教养方式问卷中文版的初步修订. 心理发展与教育, (1), 94-99.] | |
[21] |
Jung, T., & Wickrama, A. S. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302-317.
doi: 10.1111/spco.2008.2.issue-1 URL |
[22] | Juvonen, J., Espinoza, G., & Knifsend, C. (2012). The role of peer relationships in student academic and extracurricular engagement. In S. L.Christenson, A. L.Reschly & C.Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 387-401). New York: Springer. |
[23] |
Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P., Antoniou, P., Demetriou, D., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2015). The impact of school policy and stakeholders’ actions on student learning: A longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 36, 113-124.
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.01.004 URL |
[24] |
Lam, S., Jimerson, S., Wong, B. P. H., Kikas, E., Shin, H., Veiga, F. H., … Zollneritsch, J. (2014). Understanding and measuring student engagement in school: The results of an international study from 12 countries. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2), 213-232.
doi: 10.1037/spq0000057 URL |
[25] |
Lan, X. (2022). Perceived parental warmth, emotional awareness, and positive adjustment profiles in Chinese and Italian early adolescents: A person‐centered approach. Journal of Adolescence, 94(2), 206-223.
doi: 10.1002/jad.v94.2 URL |
[26] |
Law, Y. K. (2014). The role of structured cooperative learning groups for enhancing Chinese primary students’ reading comprehension. Educational Psychology, 34(4), 470-494.
doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.860216 URL |
[27] | Lee, M., & Ha, G. (2022). The role of peer relationships among elementary school students: Focusing on the mediation effects of grit depending on teacher-student relationships. Current Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03359-6 |
[28] |
Lessard, L. M., & Puhl, R. M. (2021). Adolescent academic worries amid COVID-19 and perspectives on pandemic- related changes in teacher and peer relations. School Psychology, 36(5), 285-292.
doi: 10.1037/spq0000443 URL |
[29] | Li, G. H., & Li, H. L. (2022). The implementation block and relief of the “double reduction” policy from the perspective of game theory. Modern Education Management, (6), 10-19 |
[ 李广海, 李海龙. (2022). 博弈论视角下“双减”政策执行的阻滞与疏解. 现代教育管理, (6), 10-19.]
doi: 10.16697/j.1674-5485.2022.06.002 |
|
[30] |
Li, J., Fung, H., Bakeman, R., Rae, K., & Wei, W. (2014). How European American and Taiwanese mothers talk to their children about learning. Child Development, 85(3), 1206-1221.
doi: 10.1111/cdev.12172 pmid: 24116837 |
[31] | Longobardi, C., Prino, L. E., Marengo, D., & Settanni, M. (2016). Student-teacher relationships as a protective factor for school adjustment during the transition from middle to high school. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article1988. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01988 |
[32] | Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2007). Scaffolding emotions in classrooms. In P. A.Schutz & R.Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 243-258). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. |
[33] |
Miller, C. J., Perera, H. N., & Maghsoudlou, A. (2021). Students’ multidimensional profiles of math engagement: Predictors and outcomes from a self-system motivational perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 261-285.
doi: 10.1111/bjep.v91.1 URL |
[34] | Moreira, P. A., & Lee, V. E. (2020). School social organization influences adolescents’ cognitive engagement with school: The role of school support for learning and of autonomy support. Learning and Individual Differences, 80, Article101885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101885 |
[35] | Ning, B. T., & Yang, L. (2022). Analysis of the effectiveness and coordination mechanism of the policy of “reducing the burden on homework” for elementary and middle school students—Based on a survey of 137 cities in 30 provinces. China Educational Technology, (1), 9-16. |
[ 宁本涛, 杨柳. (2022). 中小学生“作业减负”政策实施成效及协同机制分析——基于全国30个省(市、区)137个地级市的调查. 中国电化教育, (1), 9-16.] | |
[36] |
Olivier, E., Morin, A. J., Langlois, J., Tardif-Grenier, K., & Archambault, I. (2020). Internalizing and externalizing behavior problems and student engagement in elementary and secondary school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(11), 2327-2346.
doi: 10.1007/s10964-020-01295-x |
[37] | Pianta, R. C. (2001). STRS: Student-teacher relationship scale: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. |
[38] |
Plamondon, A., & Martinussen, R. (2019). Inattention symptoms are associated with academic achievement mostly through variance shared with intrinsic motivation and behavioral engagement. Journal of Attention Disorders, 23(14), 1816-1828.
doi: 10.1177/1087054715587098 pmid: 26048880 |
[39] |
Putwain, D. W., Nicholson, L. J., Pekrun, R., Becker, S., & Symes, W. (2019). Expectancy of success, attainment value, engagement, and achievement: A moderated mediation analysis. Learning and Instruction, 60, 117-125.
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.11.005 |
[40] |
Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. (2017). Affective teacher-student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239-261.
doi: 10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3 URL |
[41] | Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 |
[42] |
Salmela-Aro, K., & Upadyaya, K. (2014). School burnout and engagement in the context of demands-resources model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 137-151.
doi: 10.1111/bjep.2014.84.issue-1 URL |
[43] | Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464-481. |
[44] |
Skinner, E. A., Rickert, N. P., Vollet, J. W., & Kindermann, T. A. (2022). The complex social ecology of academic development: A bioecological framework and illustration examining the collective effects of parents, teachers, and peers on student engagement. Educational Psychologist, 57(2), 87-113.
doi: 10.1080/00461520.2022.2038603 URL |
[45] | Tao, J., & Xu, Y. (2022). Parental support for young learners’ online learning of English in a Chinese primary school. System, 105, Article102718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102718 |
[46] |
Teuber, Z., Tang, X., Sielemann, L., Otterpohl, N., & Wild, E. (2022). Autonomy-related parenting profiles and their effects on adolescents’ academic and psychological development: A longitudinal person-oriented analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51, 1333-1353.
doi: 10.1007/s10964-021-01538-5 |
[47] |
Verschueren, K., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2012). Teacher-child relationships from an attachment perspective. Attachment and Human Development, 14(3), 205-211.
doi: 10.1080/14616734.2012.672260 URL |
[48] | Wang, B. Y., Zhang, M. Q., Zhang, J. T., & Hu, J. (2015). Describing the stage process of individual through transition matrix: Latent transition model. Psychological Research, 8(4), 36-43. |
[ 王碧瑶, 张敏强, 张洁婷, 胡俊. (2015). 基于转变矩阵描述的个体阶段性发展: 潜在转变模型. 心理研究, 8(4), 36-43.] | |
[49] | Wang, H. H. (2013). The relationship of parent rearing patterns, peer relationships and pathological internet use of left-behind secondary school students’ (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan, China. |
[ 王海花. (2013). 农村留守中学生网络成瘾及其与父母教养方式、同伴关系的相关研究 (硕士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.] | |
[50] |
Wang, M., Deng, X., & Du, X. (2018). Harsh parenting and academic achievement in Chinese adolescents: Potential mediating roles of effortful control and classroom engagement. Journal of School Psychology, 67, 16-30.
doi: S0022-4405(17)30095-X pmid: 29571531 |
[51] |
Wang, M. T., Degol, J. L., & Henry, D. A. (2019). An integrative development-in-sociocultural-context model for children’s engagement in learning. American Psychologist, 74(9), 1086-1102.
doi: 10.1037/amp0000522 URL |
[52] |
Yang, C., Bear, G. G., & May, H. (2018). Multilevel associations between school-wide social-emotional learning approach and student engagement across elementary, middle, and high schools. School Psychology Review, 47(1), 45-61.
doi: 10.17105/SPR-2017-0003.V47-1 URL |
[53] | Zhang, S., Zhang, P., Cao, R., Cheng, S., & Fang, D. (2020). Reducing learning burden accurately: The key to improve the effectiveness of the policy—Based on the classification and characteristic analysis of primary school students’ learning engagement and subjective schoolwork burden. China Educational Technology, (1), 114-121. |
[ 张生, 张平, 曹榕, 程姝, 方丹. (2020). 人工智能时代下的精准减负: 提升减负政策效能的关键——基于小学生学习投入与主观课业负担类型的划分及特征分析. 中国电化教育, (1), 114-121.] | |
[54] |
Zhang, W., Wei, X., Ji, L., Chen, L., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2017). Reconsidering parenting in Chinese culture: Subtypes, stability, and change of maternal parenting style during early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1117-1136.
doi: 10.1007/s10964-017-0664-x pmid: 28357678 |
[55] | Zhang, X. M., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Resolving the contradiction between large-scale education and personalized education: Logical framework and practical approach to data-driven large-scale personalized teaching. Chinese Journal of Distance Education, (8), 42-52. |
[ 杨现民, 张瑶. (2022). 教育规模化与个性化矛盾何以破解?——数据驱动规模化因材施教的逻辑框架与实践路径. 中国远程教育, (8), 42-52.] | |
[56] |
Zhen, R., Liu, R. D., Ding, Y., Jiang, R., Jiang, S., & Hong, W. (2021). Gratitude and academic engagement among primary students: Examining a multiple mediating model. Current Psychology, 40(5), 2543-2551.
doi: 10.1007/s12144-019-00202-3 |
[57] |
Zhen, R., Liu, R. D., Wang, M. T., Ding, Y., Jiang, R., Fu, X., & Sun, Y. (2020). Trajectory patterns of academic engagement among elementary school students: The implicit theory of intelligence and academic self-efficacy matters. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 618-634.
doi: 10.1111/bjep.12320 pmid: 31573072 |
[58] | Zhong, , L.(2021). Implement the “double reduction” work and deepen the comprehensive reform in the field of education. Retrieved February 9, 2022, from http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/moe_2082/2021/2021_zl49/202107/t20210724_546578.html |
[ 钟秉林. (2021). 落实“双减”工作深化教育领域综合改革. 2022-02-02取自 http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/moe_2082/2021/2021_zl49/202107/t20210724_546578.html ] | |
[59] | Zhou, H., & Long, L. R. (2004). Statistical remedies for common method biases. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(6), 942-950. |
[ 周浩, 龙立荣. (2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 12(6), 942-950.] | |
[60] |
Zhou, L. H., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2019). Effects of perceived autonomy support from social agents on motivation and engagement of Chinese primary school students: Psychological need satisfaction as mediator. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 323-330.
doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.05.001 URL |
[61] | Zhou, Z. K., Sun, X. J., Zhao, D. M., Tian, Y., & Fan, C. Y. (2015). The development of peer relationship in childhood. Psychological Development and Education, 31(1), 62-70. |
[ 周宗奎, 孙晓军, 赵冬梅, 田媛, 范翠英. (2015). 同伴关系的发展研究. 心理发展与教育, 31(1), 62-70.] | |
[62] |
Zhu, X., Tian, L., Zhou, J., & Huebner, E. S. (2019). The developmental trajectory of behavioral school engagement and its reciprocal relations with subjective well-being in school among Chinese elementary school students. Children and Youth Services Review, 99, 286-295.
doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.024 URL |
[63] | Zou, H., Qu, Z. Y., & Ye, Y. (2007). The characteristics of teacher-student relationships and its relationship with school adjustment of students. Psychological Development and Education, (4), 77-82. |
[ 邹泓, 屈智勇, 叶苑. (2007). 中小学生的师生关系与其学校适应. 心理发展与教育, (4), 77-82.] |
[1] | 赵立, 郑怡, 赵均榜, 张芮, 方方, 傅根跃, 李康. 人工智能方法在探究小学生作业作弊行为及其关键预测因子中的应用[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(2): 239-254. |
[2] | 陈诗韵, 屈笛扬, 卜禾, 梁凯欣, 张沛超, 迟新丽. 迷“网”的少年:网瘾风险青少年的症状演化*[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(9): 1465-1476. |
[3] | 陈沛琪, 张银玲, 胡馨木, 王静, 买晓琴. 10~12岁儿童社会价值取向对第三方利他行为的影响:情绪的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(8): 1255-1269. |
[4] | 陈必忠, 黄璇, 牛更枫, 孙晓军, 蔡志慧. 学步期至青年期社交焦虑的发展轨迹和稳定性:一项基于纵向研究的三水平元分析[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(10): 1637-1652. |
[5] | 侯晴晴, 郭明宇, 王玲晓, 吕辉, 常淑敏. 学校资源与早期青少年心理社会适应的关系:一项潜在转变分析[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(8): 917-930. |
[6] | 廖友国, 陈建文, 张妍, 彭聪. 儿童青少年同伴侵害与内化问题的双向关系: 纵向研究的元分析[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(7): 828-849. |
[7] | 司继伟, 郭凯玥, 赵晓萌, 张明亮, 李红霞, 黄碧娟, 徐艳丽. 小学儿童数学焦虑的潜在类别转变及其父母教育卷入效应:3年纵向考察[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(4): 355-370. |
[8] | 王文超, 原昊, 伍新春. 灾后中小学生创伤后应激障碍和抑郁症状的共存模式[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(12): 1503-1516. |
[9] | 梁一鸣, 杨璐溪, 席居哲, 刘正奎. 睡眠问题在创伤后应激障碍各症状间的独特作用:基于交叉滞后网络分析模型[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(10): 1206-1215. |
[10] | 梁一鸣, 郑昊, 刘正奎. 震后儿童创伤后应激障碍的症状网络演化[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(11): 1301-1312. |
[11] | 曾欣然, 汪玥, 丁俊浩, 周晖. 班级欺凌规范与欺凌行为:群体害怕与同辈压力的中介作用[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(8): 935-944. |
[12] | 吴国婷, 张敏强, 倪雨菡, 杨亚威, 漆成明, 吴健星. 老年人孤独感及其影响因素的潜在转变分析 *[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(9): 1061-1070. |
[13] | 周翠敏;陶沙;刘红云;王翠翠;齐雪;董奇;中国儿童青少年心理发育特征调查全国项目组. 学校心理环境对小学4~6年级学生学业表现的作用及条件[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(2): 185-198. |
[14] | 宋广文,何文广,孔伟. 问题表征、工作记忆对小学生数学问题解决的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(11): 1283-1292. |
[15] | Roger A. Dixon, Cindy M. de Frias. 老年人记忆补偿的长期稳定性和变异性:来自维多利亚纵向研究的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2009, 41(11): 1091-1101. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||