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

Abstract

摘 要 本研究旨在建構並驗證大專原住民族與漢族學生成功學習之影響模式，研究問題包括：（一）大專原住民族與漢族學生成功學習的指標與重要影響因素為何？族群之間是否有差異？（二）大專原住民族與漢族學生個人因素、學術投入因素、人際投入因素，影響成功學習之模式為何？最後，提出未來在高等教育校園中促進多元族群學生成功學習的建議，以提供大學教師及學生事務工作者規劃活動與方案之參考。

為達研究目的，本研究基於Astin (1984)、 Tinto (1975, 1993)、Pascarelle（1985）、Weidman（1989）、Terenzini（1996）、Chickering（1969, 1993）、Perry（1968, 1981）等理論與研究，以及ACPA與NASPA（2004）提出的學習之交互關聯性，建構大專原住民族與漢族學生成功學習模式，其中個人因素包括：家庭社經水準、家庭支持、自我概念、一年級成績，校園經驗包括：學術投入、人際投入，成功學習指標包括：族群認同、認知發展、心理社會發展、學業成就。

研究對象為北部某多元族群技術學院五年制護理系四年級學生，取樣原住民族學生215名與漢族學生360名，該校目前原住民學生約占全校學生人數五分之ㄧ，全體學生住校，校園中多元族群互動密切，符合本研究之所需。

研究方法以量化為主，質化為輔。量化研究問卷調查部分，依據國內外相關量表，由研究者自行設計，並分別以內部一致性係數建立信度，以及專家評定內容效度與建構效度，內容包括個人因素量表、校園經驗量表、成功學習量表，與三項關於成功學習的開放式問題。問卷資料以結構方程模式統計分析，驗證本研究建構之成功學習模式的適配性。質化研究則針對量化研究發現的問題，從下列四大方面，透過訪談加以釐清。一、原住民族與漢族學生家庭背景與家庭關係的內涵為何？與學習的關係為何？二、原住民族與漢族學生人際投入的經驗內涵如何，影響歷程為何？三、原住民族與漢族學生學術投入與課業學習經驗為何？四、原住民族與漢族學生族群互動與族群認同的經驗為何？訪談對象乃依據問卷調查結果，分由學術投入低、人際投入低，學術投入低、人際投入高，學術投入高、人際投入低，學術投入高、人際投入高四組，選取9名原住民族學生及11名漢族學生訪談，訪談資料則以內容分析方式，以補足或解釋量化研究無法探究的內涵。

本研究結果發現：

一、 成功學習的指標包括：族群認同、心理社會發展、認知發展、學業成就。 而影響大專原住民族與漢族學生成功學習之重要影響因素有：家庭社經水準、一年級成績、自我概念、家庭支持、參與互動、人際整合、學術投入。

二、 各項因素的差異分析中，大專漢族學生顯著高於原住民族學生的變項有： 一年級上學期成績、家庭社經地位、學術投入、學業成就、認知發展的抉擇實踐階段、與漢族同學互動；而原住民族學生只有與原住民同學互動方面顯著高於漢族學生。

三、 大專原住民族與漢族學生成功學習模式的模式適配性均可稱為理想。

四、 大專原住民族與漢族學生成功學習模式直接效果方面 （一）兩個模式均達顯著水準的直接效果有： 一年級第一學期成績對目前學業成就；參與互動對族群認同；人際整合對心理社會發展；學術投入對認知發展、學業成就；家庭支持對參與互動、人際整合、自我概念；自我概念對參與互動、人際整合、心理社會發展、認知發展。 （二）原住民族學生模式中顯著，而漢族學生模式中不顯著的直接效果有： 參與互動對認知發展；家庭支持對學術投入；人際整合對學術投入。 （三）漢族學生模式中顯著，而原住民族學生模式中不顯著的直接效果有： 社經水準對參與互動；自我概念對學術投入；一年級第一學期成績對自我概念、學術投入；學術投入對心理社會發展。

五、質性訪談結果方面 （一）不同族群學生獲得家庭支持的來源與方式有所不同，漢族學生的父母可能期望較高，提供資源較多，但是家庭生活與關係是否穩定，對於不同族群學生的學習，均有重要影響。 （二）人際投入方面，原住民族學生歸屬來源，主要是同族群同儕團體，較少參加社團活動，漢族學生則涉入社團活動較多。 （三）學術投入與課業學習方面，原住民族學生師生互動較少，某些學科基礎較弱，漢族學生與教師互動收穫較多，國中學習基礎對學習有助益。 （四）族群互動與族群認同方面，原住民族學生有被歧視經驗，雖然多數肯定族群身分，仍然會害怕不被接受，漢族學生對原住民文化有刻板印象，其中部分學生對於原住民優惠待遇有所排斥。Abstract

The purpose of the study was to construct and confirm the learning success models for the aboriginal and the Han’s college students. The research questions included: 1. What was the learning success indicators and the influential factors for the aboriginal and the Han’s college students? Was there significant differences between different racial groups ? 2. What was the influential learning success models for the aboriginal and the Han’s college students by the personal, academic involvement and social involvement factors?

Based on the theories and researches of Astin (1984)、Tinto (1975, 1993)、Pascarelle (1985)、Weidman (1989)、Terenzini (1996)、Chickering (1969, 1993)、Perry (1968, 1981) and the interconnectedness of student learning (ACPA& NASPA, 2004) , the model was developed. The model consisted the personal factors which included family socioeconomic status, family support, self-concept and the grade of first semester in freshmen ; the campus experiences which included academic and social involvement; the learning success outcomes which included racial identity development, psychosocial development, cognitive development and academic performance.

The sample of the research were 215 aboriginal students and 360 Han’s students, who were the forth grade female students of the five years nursing program in a multiracial dormitory institute of technology. Since 20 percent of students were aborigines in the college, there were a lot of interracial interactions in the campus.

By using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the research data was collected. All study participants completed a self-developed questionnaire for the college student learning success study which consisted the demographic background survey, the self-concept scale, the family support scale, the academic involvement

scale, the activity participation scale, the peer interaction scale, the social integration scale, the racial identity development scale, the psychosocial development scale, the cognitive development scale. The reliabilities of all the scales conducted with internal consistency (Cronbach’sα) and the validities which included content validity and construct validity were reasonable. Pearson’s r and t-test were used to analyze the correlations and differences among all the factors. For the goodness of the model-fit, the structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to confirm for the aboriginal college students’ and the Han’s college students’ models.

After analyzing the quantitative data, a qualitative interview was conducted with the nine aboriginal students and eleven Han’s students who were selected based on the high and low degree of their academic and social involvement. The questions needed to be supplemented and explained that the results of the quantitative survey could not answer were: 1. What was the relationship between family background and family support in different racial groups? And how these factors related to learning? 2. What were the social involvement experiences of different racial groups? 3. What were the academic involvement experiences of different racial groups? 4. What were the experiences of the intra and inter racial group’s peer interactions and the racial identity development?

The findings of the research are: 1. The indicators of learning success are: racial identity development, psychosocial development, cognitive development and academic performance. And the influential factors which affect aboriginal and Han’s college students’ learning success are: family socioeconomic status, family support, self –concept, the grade of first semester in freshmen, activities participation and peer interaction, social integration and academic involvement. 2. The variables that the Han’s college students’ are significantly higher than the aboriginal college students’ are: The grade of first semester in freshmen, family socioeconomic status, academic involvement, academic performance, the commitment stage’s development of cognitive development, interactions with Han’s college students. And the only one variable that the aboriginal college students’ is significantly higher than the Han’s college students’ is the interactions with aboriginal college students. 3. The goodness of model-fit for the aboriginal college students’ and Han’s college students’ learning success models are reasonable.

4. The direct effects in both the aboriginal college students’ and the Han’s college students’ learning success models are as follows:

(1) The significant direct effects in both two models are: the grade of first semester in freshmen to the academic performance; the activities participations and peer interactions to the aboriginal college student racial identity development; the social integration to the psychosocial development; the academic involvement to the cognitive development, academic performance; the family support to the activities participations and peer interactions, the social integration, the self-concept; the self-concept to the activities participations and peer interactions, the social integration, the psychosocial development, the cognitive development. (2) The direct effects which are significant in the aboriginal college students’ model but not in the Han’s college students’ model are : the family support to the academic involvement; the activities participations and peer interactions to the cognitive development; the social integration to the academic involvement. (3) The direct effects which are significant in the Han’s college students’ model but not in the aboriginal college students’ model are : the family socioeconomic status to the activities participations and peer interactions; the grade of first semester in freshmen to the self-concept and the academic involvement; the self-concept to the academic involvement; the academic involvement to the psychosocial development. 5. The qualitative findings are: (1) In the family support aspect, the level of expectation and the resources provided form the parents of Han’s students are likely more than those from the parents of aboriginal students. But the stability of family life and relations are significant to both the two groups. (2) In the social involvement aspect, the experiences of joining clubs for the aboriginal students in the college are less than that for Han’s students. And the sense of belonging mostly comes from the same racial peer group for the aboriginal students. (3) In the academic involvement aspect, the interactions with faculties for aboriginal students are more less than that for Han’s students. And the academic experiences of high schools are influential to both two groups. (4) In the interracial interactions and the racial identity development aspect, although most aboriginal students feel assertive with their racial identity,

yet they are still afraid of being excluded from the majority group, since the discrimination continually exist. Besides, most Han’s students have stereotype towards aboriginal culture and some of them possess prejudice against the preferential treatments for the aboriginal students.

Based on the quantitative and qualitative findings, two revised learning success models are developed. And recommendations for practice and for further research are presented.

Key words: aboriginal college student, Han’s college student, learning success, family socioeconomic status, family support, self-concept, campus experience, academic involvement, social involvement, racial identity development, psychosocial development, cognitive development, academic performance.