打工子弟学校流动儿童和公立学校流动儿童的生态资产与正向发展对比研究
发布时间：2018-11-24 12:26
【摘要】：流动儿童是在我国城市化进程中产生的特殊群体,随着进城务工群体规模的不断壮大,跟随父母进入城市的流动儿童越来越多。流动儿童随父母来到城市,必然面临学校环境、社区环境等方面的转变,流动儿童所拥有的学校生态资产、社区生态资产等可能会对其正向成长产生影响。出于家庭原因等因素,有些流动儿童在城市顺利地就读于公立学校,而有些流动儿童只能在打工子弟学校就读。打工子弟学校流动儿童和公立学校流动儿童所处的环境不同,二者所拥有的生态资产状况可能存在差异。本研究以打工子弟学校流动儿童和公立学校流动儿童这一特定群体为研究对象,以公立学校本地儿童为参照样本,采用问卷法,抽取北京市502名初中生为被试,其中189名打工子弟学校流动儿童,149名公立学校流动儿童和164名公立学校本地儿童,了解打工子弟学校流动儿童和公立学校流动儿童的生态资产和正向成长状况,为促进流动儿童更好地健康发展提供实证依据。本研究主要包括以下几个方面:一是分析打工子弟学校流动儿童、公立学校流动儿童和公立学校本地儿童三组正向成长的差异以及三组中两两之间的正向成长的差异,二是分析打工子弟学校流动儿童、公立学校流动儿童和公立学校本地儿童三组生态资产的差异以及三组中两两之间的生态资产的差异。研究结果如下:1.打工子弟学校流动儿童、公立学校流动儿童和公立学校本地儿童三组在抗逆力、一般自我效能感、学业感觉及精神健康上存在显著差异。2.打工子弟学校流动儿童和公立学校流动儿童两组在抗逆力、一般自我效能感、学业感觉及精神健康上存在显著差异。3.公立学校流动儿童和公立学校本地儿童两组在抗逆力、一般自我效能感、学业感觉及精神健康上不存在显著差异。4.打工子弟学校流动儿童、公立学校流动儿童和公立学校本地儿童三组在社区生态资产上存在显著差异,在家庭生态资产的大部分维度上存在显著差异。5.打工子弟学校流动儿童和公立学校流动儿童两组在社区生态资产上存在显著差异,在家庭生态资产的大部分维度上存在显著差异。6.打工子弟学校的生态资产小于公立学校的生态资产。7.公立学校流动儿童和公立学校本地儿童两组在社区生态资产上不存在显著差异,在家庭生态资产的大部分维度上不存在显著差异。本研究分析了打工子弟学校流动儿童、公立学校流动儿童和公立学校本地儿童在正向成长和生态资产上的差异,为社会工作加强流动儿童的生态资产建设从而促进流动儿童的正向成长提供了启示。
[Abstract]:Migrant children are a special group in the process of urbanization in China. With the increasing scale of migrant workers, more and more migrant children follow their parents into the city. Migrant children who come to the city with their parents will inevitably face changes in school environment and community environment. The school ecological assets and community ecological assets owned by migrant children may have an impact on their positive growth. For family reasons, some migrant children are enrolled in public schools in the city smoothly, while some migrant children can only study in working children's schools. Migrant children in school and floating children in public schools are in different environments, and their ecological assets may be different. In this study, 502 junior middle school students in Beijing were selected as subjects, taking migrant children of working children and floating children in public schools as research objects, and local children in public schools as reference samples. Of these, 189 were migrant children in schools, 149 were migrant children in public schools and 164 were local children in public schools, to understand the ecological assets and positive growth of migrant children in working children's schools and floating children in public schools. To promote the healthy development of migrant children to provide an empirical basis. This research mainly includes the following aspects: first, it analyzes the difference of positive growth among migrant children, floating children in public schools and local children in public schools, as well as the difference of positive growth between two and two groups. The second is to analyze the differences of ecological assets among migrant children, floating children in public schools and local children in public schools. The results are as follows: 1. There were significant differences in resistance, general self-efficacy, academic feeling and mental health among migrant children in working children, floating children in public schools and local children in public schools. 2. There were significant differences in resistance, general self-efficacy, academic feeling and mental health between migrant children in school and those in public schools. There was no significant difference in resistance, general self-efficacy, academic feeling and mental health between floating children in public schools and local children in public schools. 4. There were significant differences in community ecological assets among migrant children in schools, floating children in public schools and local children in public schools, and significant differences in most dimensions of ecological assets in families. 5. There were significant differences in community ecological assets between migrant children in school and floating children in public schools, and significant differences in most dimensions of ecological assets in families. 6. The ecological assets of the working children's school are smaller than the ecological assets of the public schools. 7. 7%. There was no significant difference in community ecological assets between floating children in public schools and local children in public schools, but there was no significant difference in most dimensions of household ecological assets. This study analyzed the differences in positive growth and ecological assets among migrant children, floating children in public schools and local children in public schools. It provides enlightenment for social work to strengthen ecological assets construction of floating children and promote positive growth of floating children.
【学位授予单位】：中国青年政治学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：G521
本文编号：2353709
[Abstract]:Migrant children are a special group in the process of urbanization in China. With the increasing scale of migrant workers, more and more migrant children follow their parents into the city. Migrant children who come to the city with their parents will inevitably face changes in school environment and community environment. The school ecological assets and community ecological assets owned by migrant children may have an impact on their positive growth. For family reasons, some migrant children are enrolled in public schools in the city smoothly, while some migrant children can only study in working children's schools. Migrant children in school and floating children in public schools are in different environments, and their ecological assets may be different. In this study, 502 junior middle school students in Beijing were selected as subjects, taking migrant children of working children and floating children in public schools as research objects, and local children in public schools as reference samples. Of these, 189 were migrant children in schools, 149 were migrant children in public schools and 164 were local children in public schools, to understand the ecological assets and positive growth of migrant children in working children's schools and floating children in public schools. To promote the healthy development of migrant children to provide an empirical basis. This research mainly includes the following aspects: first, it analyzes the difference of positive growth among migrant children, floating children in public schools and local children in public schools, as well as the difference of positive growth between two and two groups. The second is to analyze the differences of ecological assets among migrant children, floating children in public schools and local children in public schools. The results are as follows: 1. There were significant differences in resistance, general self-efficacy, academic feeling and mental health among migrant children in working children, floating children in public schools and local children in public schools. 2. There were significant differences in resistance, general self-efficacy, academic feeling and mental health between migrant children in school and those in public schools. There was no significant difference in resistance, general self-efficacy, academic feeling and mental health between floating children in public schools and local children in public schools. 4. There were significant differences in community ecological assets among migrant children in schools, floating children in public schools and local children in public schools, and significant differences in most dimensions of ecological assets in families. 5. There were significant differences in community ecological assets between migrant children in school and floating children in public schools, and significant differences in most dimensions of ecological assets in families. 6. The ecological assets of the working children's school are smaller than the ecological assets of the public schools. 7. 7%. There was no significant difference in community ecological assets between floating children in public schools and local children in public schools, but there was no significant difference in most dimensions of household ecological assets. This study analyzed the differences in positive growth and ecological assets among migrant children, floating children in public schools and local children in public schools. It provides enlightenment for social work to strengthen ecological assets construction of floating children and promote positive growth of floating children.
【学位授予单位】：中国青年政治学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：G521
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 刘向英;石亚;余佳璐;刘晓宇;;打工子弟异地升学的困境及对策思考[J];北京科技大学学报(社会科学版);2010年01期
2 曾守锤;;流动儿童的心理适应:困境、问题、优势及建议[J];华东理工大学学报(社会科学版);2010年05期
3 冯玲;城市流动少年距离九年义务教育有多远?——城市打工子弟学校的价值分析[J];教育理论与实践;2003年05期
4 张玲;;论中学生学习效能感及培养策略[J];西南农业大学学报(社会科学版);2012年04期
5 刘慧涵;;北京打工子弟学校的困境及学校社会工作的介入——以北京石景山HA打工子弟小学为例[J];社会工作(下半月);2010年09期
6 王保民;;“受艾滋病影响的失依儿童”抗逆力特质解读——基于河南省某地阳光家园的循证研究[J];社会工作;2012年04期
7 裴小茹;;学校社会工作介入外来务工人员子女抗逆力养成——以上海市MH区X学校为例[J];社会工作;2012年11期
8 陶欢欢;;复原力(resilience)研究的回顾[J];襄樊职业技术学院学报;2009年05期
9 袁立新;张积家;苏小兰;;公立学校与民工子弟学校流动儿童心理健康状况比较[J];中国学校卫生;2009年09期
10 张敏,雷开春,张巧明;中学生学习效能感的特点研究[J];心理科学;2005年05期
相关硕士学位论文 前2条
1 杨阳;青少年自我效能感与家长教育心理控制源的关系[D];北京林业大学;2010年
2 刘旭;初中生成就目标与社会比较、学业自我效能感的关系[D];湖南科技大学;2010年
，本文编号：2353709
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/jiaoyulunwen/jiaoyujiaoxuefangfalunwen/2353709.html
