學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 班級同儕學習投入與數學表現的城鄉差距 —階層線性模型的分析
Urban-rural differences in peer engagement and mathematics performance: an analysis of hierarchical linear modeling作者 林靜怡 貢獻者 張峯彬
林靜怡關鍵詞 城鄉差異
台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫
數學表現
同儕學習投入
Urban-rural differences
Taiwan educational panel survey
Mathematics performance
Peer engagement日期 2017 上傳時間 13-九月-2017 15:20:23 (UTC+8) 摘要 學習表現為教育社會學中的重要議題，其中城鄉間的學習表現差距受到重視。過去研究認為家庭背景與地區的教育資源是影響學生學習表現的主要因素，然而這些研究缺乏班級因素與同儕效果的分析。因此本研究使用台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫（Taiwan Education Panel Survey, TEPS）在2001年與2003年的國中生樣本，以階層線性模型（Hierarchical Linear Modeling, HLM）分析國一班級同儕學習投入對國三數學表現的影響，學習投入以學生為課業所付出的時間為指標。分析結果發現：(1)學生數學表現的總變異中有24%來自班級因素的影響，76%為學生因素。(2)國三數學表現、個人學習投入與班級同儕學習投入有城鄉差距。(3)在控制其他變項下，個人學習投入、班級同儕學習投入對數學表現有正向效果。(4)班級所在地區的都市化程度透過班級同儕學習投入間接影響國三數學表現。
Academic performance has been an important topic of research on educational sociology for a long time, while urban-rural differences have been already well documented in literatures. In the past, the literature indicated that the key factors to affecting academic performance are family background and the educational resources. But these researches have ignored the factors of class level and peer effects. In this study, the data are from Taiwan Education Panel Survey (TEPS) in 2001 and 2003, use Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) to assess how peer engagement affects junior high students’ mathematics performance. The time students spend in studying is an index of engagement. The main finding are: (1) This research model accounts for 76% of the variation in student level and for 24% of the class variation in class level with regard to mathematical performance. (2) Students in the urban and rural city show a differences in their mathematics performance, student’s own engagement and peer engagement. (3) When controlling variables, student’s own engagement and peer engagement have positive effect on mathematics performance. (4) Urbanization levels indirectly affect mathematics performance through peer engagement.參考文獻 一、 官方資料教育部，2015，偏遠地區中國中小地理資訊查訊系統。http://stats.moe.gov.tw/remotegis/Definition.htm，取用日期：2017年4月5日。教育部，2015，重編國語辭典修訂本。http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cbdic/search.htm，取用日期：2017年7月4日。二、 中文部份王家通，1993，《教育機會均等調查報告》。 南投縣：台灣省教育廳。吳清山、林天祐，2002，〈文化不利〉。《教育資料與研究》45:126。李秀如、王德睦，2007，〈係貧窮的原罪? 或係城鄉差距? 談影響兒童英語學習機會的因素〉。《教育與社會研究》 12:113-135。李宜玫、孫頌賢， 2010，〈大學生選課自主性動機與學習投入之關係〉。《教育科學研究期刊》55:155-182。林文達，1984，《教育經濟學》。台北：三民書局。林俊瑩、吳裕益，2007，〈家庭因素、學校因素對學生學業成就的影響：階層線性模式的分析〉。《教育研究集刊林淑惠、黃韞臻，2012，〈大學生學習投入量表之發展〉。《測驗學刊》59:373-396。》53(4):107-144。馬信行，1998，〈台灣鄉鎮市區社會地位對教育投入的影響〉。《國家科學委員會研究彙刊：人文及社會科學》8(4):596-615張芳全，2008，〈數學成就的城鄉差距探討─以 TIMSS 為例〉。《國民教育》48(6):22-29。張苙雲，2011，〈台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫: 資料使用手冊 (2011.12. ), 第一波 (2001) 國中學生問卷〉。http://survey.sinica.edu.tw/srda/teps/W1W2W3W4_JSF_ manual_20111201. pdf，取用日期：2017年4月5日。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》41-62。陳奕奇、劉子銘，2008，〈教育成就與城鄉差距：空間群聚之分析〉。《人口學刊》 1-43。陳婉琪，2012，〈再探台灣的都市教育優勢：集體社會化論的可能性〉。頁143-184，收錄於《臺灣的社會變遷1985~2005：社會階層與勞動市場》。臺北市：中央研究院社會學研究所。黃瓊瑤，2011，〈「台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫」現況介紹〉。《SRDA學術調查研究資料庫通訊》37: 14-23。黃敏雄，2015，〈學生數學表現的城鄉差異〉。《教育研究集刊》61(4): 33-61。甄曉蘭，2007，〈偏遠國中教育機會不均等問題與相關教育政策初探〉。《教育研究集刊》36:26-39。鄭皓駿、陳婉琪，2017，〈寧為雞首，不為牛後？班級排名對個人學業能力的影響〉。《教育研究集刊》63(1):1-30。駱明慶，2002，〈誰是台大學生?-性別、省籍與城鄉差異〉。《經濟論文叢刊》30(1): 113-147。蕭佳純、董旭英、饒夢霞，2009，〈以結構方程式探討家庭教育資源、學習態度、班級互動在學習成效的作用〉。《教育科學研究期刊》54(2):135-162。關秉寅，2016，〈同儕補習風氣對國中生學習成就之影響〉。《台灣社會學刊》60:99-133。羅啟宏，1992，〈台灣省鄉鎮發展類型之研究〉。《台灣經濟》190:41-68。三、 英文部份Blau, P.M., Duncan, O.D., 1967, The American occupational structure. New York: Willey.Bourdieu, P., 1986, “ The Forms of Capital. ” Pp. 241-258 in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education , Edited by J. Richardson. New York: Greenwood Press.Burke, M. A., & Sass, T. R., 2013, “ Classroom peer effects and student achievement. ” Journal of Labor Economics, 31(1):51-82.Coleman, J.S., E. Q. Campbell, C.J. Hobson, J. McPartland, A. M. Mood, F. D. Weinfeld, and R. L. York. 1966, Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.Coleman, J. S, 1988, “Social Capital In the Creation of Human Capital,” American Journal of Sociology, 94:5-120.Cohen, J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Duncan, O., Curzort, Duncan, R., 1966, Statistical Geography: Problems in Analyzing A real Data. Free Press, Glencoe:IL.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(3):413.Elliott, J., Hufton, N., Willis, W., Illushin, L., 2005, Motivation, engagement and educational performance: International perspectives on the contexts for learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Enders, C. K.,Tofighi, D., 2007, “Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: a new look at an old issue.” Psychological methods 12(2):121.Fantuzzo, J. W., Riggo, R. E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A., 1989, “Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: A component analysis.” Journal of Education Psychology 81(2), 173-177.Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., Paris, A.H., 2004, “School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.” Review of educational research 74(1): 59-109.Gamoran, Adam., 1992, “The variable effects of high school tracking.” American Sociological Review 812-828.Hauser, R. M., 1974, “Contextual analysis revisited.” Sociological methods and research 2(3):365-375.Hofmann, D. A.,Gavin, M. B., 1998, “Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations.” Journal of Management 24(5):623-641.Hoxby, Caroline, 2000, “Peer Effects in the Classroom: Learning from Gender and Race Variation.”National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 7867.Hanushek, Eric A., John F. Kain, Jacob M. Markman, and Steven G. Rivkin, 2003, “Does Peer Ability Affect Student Achievement?” Journal of Applied Econometircs 18:527-544.Hoxby, C., Weingarth Salyer, G., 2006,“ School Reassignment and the Structure of Peer Effects, manuscrito. ” Universidad de Harvard.Imberman, Scott A., Adriana D. Kugler, and Bruce I. Sacerdote., 2012, “Katrina`s children: Evidence on the structure of peer effects from hurricane evacuees.” The American Economic Review 102(5):2048-2082.Kuh, G.D., 2003, “What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices.” Change:The Magazine of Higher Learning 35(2):24-32.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.Kuh, G.D., 2009, “The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations.” New Directions for Institutional Research 141:5-20.Kang, C. (2007). “Classroom peer effects and academic achievement quasi-randomization evidence from South Korea. ”Journal of Urban Economics 61(3): 458-495.Marsh, H. W., Parker, J. W., 1984,“Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? ” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47(1):213-231.Miller, A.D., Murdock, T.B., 2007, “Modeling latent true scores to determine the utility of aggregate student perceptions as classroom indicators in HLM: The case of classroom goal structures.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 32:83-104.Mathieu, J. E., Taylor, S. R., 2007, “A framework for testing meso‐mediational relationships in Organizational Behavior. ” Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(2):141-172.Pedhazur, E. J., 1997, Multiple regression in behavior research: Explanation and prediction. Forth Worth, TA: Harcourt.Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., 2002, Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S., Cheong, Y.F., Congdon, R., du Toit, M., 2004, HLM 6: Hiarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: SSI Scientific Software International. Inc.Sewell, W.H., Haller, A.O., Portes, A., 1969, “The educational and early occupational attainment process.” American sociological review 34:82-92.Welch, W. W., Anderson, R. E., Harris, L. J., 1982, “The effects of schooling on mathematics achievement. ” American Educational Research Journal 19(1):145-153.Wentzel, K. R., 1994, “Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom behavior, and perceived social support.” Journal of Education Psychology 86:173-182.Wu, Y. W. B., Wooldridge, P. J., 2005, “The Impact of Centering First‐Level Predictors on Individual and Contextual Effects in Multilevel Data Analysis.” Nursing research 54(3): 212-216.Yazzie-Mintz, E., 2010, Charting the path from engagement to achievement: A report on the 2009 High School Survey of Student Engagement. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
社會學系
103254002資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1032540021 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 張峯彬 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) 林靜怡 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) 林靜怡 zh_TW dc.date (日期) 2017 en_US dc.date.accessioned 13-九月-2017 15:20:23 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 13-九月-2017 15:20:23 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 13-九月-2017 15:20:23 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G1032540021 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112761 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 社會學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 103254002 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 學習表現為教育社會學中的重要議題，其中城鄉間的學習表現差距受到重視。過去研究認為家庭背景與地區的教育資源是影響學生學習表現的主要因素，然而這些研究缺乏班級因素與同儕效果的分析。因此本研究使用台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫（Taiwan Education Panel Survey, TEPS）在2001年與2003年的國中生樣本，以階層線性模型（Hierarchical Linear Modeling, HLM）分析國一班級同儕學習投入對國三數學表現的影響，學習投入以學生為課業所付出的時間為指標。分析結果發現：(1)學生數學表現的總變異中有24%來自班級因素的影響，76%為學生因素。(2)國三數學表現、個人學習投入與班級同儕學習投入有城鄉差距。(3)在控制其他變項下，個人學習投入、班級同儕學習投入對數學表現有正向效果。(4)班級所在地區的都市化程度透過班級同儕學習投入間接影響國三數學表現。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Academic performance has been an important topic of research on educational sociology for a long time, while urban-rural differences have been already well documented in literatures. In the past, the literature indicated that the key factors to affecting academic performance are family background and the educational resources. But these researches have ignored the factors of class level and peer effects. In this study, the data are from Taiwan Education Panel Survey (TEPS) in 2001 and 2003, use Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) to assess how peer engagement affects junior high students’ mathematics performance. The time students spend in studying is an index of engagement. The main finding are: (1) This research model accounts for 76% of the variation in student level and for 24% of the class variation in class level with regard to mathematical performance. (2) Students in the urban and rural city show a differences in their mathematics performance, student’s own engagement and peer engagement. (3) When controlling variables, student’s own engagement and peer engagement have positive effect on mathematics performance. (4) Urbanization levels indirectly affect mathematics performance through peer engagement. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章、導論 1第二章、文獻回顧 5 第一節、學習投入與同儕效應 5 第二節、城鄉差距與家庭背景：教育資源的取得 6 第三節、學習投入與都市優勢 8第三章、研究設計 9 第一節、資料來源與處理 9 第二節、變項測量 10 第三節、研究方法與架構 12 第四節、分析策略 13 第五節、潛在研究限制 18第四章、研究發現 19 第一節、描述性統計 19 第二節、單因子變異數分析 19 第三節、階層線性模型分析 23第五章、結論與討論 29 第一節、結論 29 第二節、討論 31參考文獻 33附錄 39 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1698068 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1032540021 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 城鄉差異 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 數學表現 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 同儕學習投入 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Urban-rural differences en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Taiwan educational panel survey en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Mathematics performance en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Peer engagement en_US dc.title (題名) 班級同儕學習投入與數學表現的城鄉差距 —階層線性模型的分析 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Urban-rural differences in peer engagement and mathematics performance: an analysis of hierarchical linear modeling en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、 官方資料教育部，2015，偏遠地區中國中小地理資訊查訊系統。http://stats.moe.gov.tw/remotegis/Definition.htm，取用日期：2017年4月5日。教育部，2015，重編國語辭典修訂本。http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cbdic/search.htm，取用日期：2017年7月4日。二、 中文部份王家通，1993，《教育機會均等調查報告》。 南投縣：台灣省教育廳。吳清山、林天祐，2002，〈文化不利〉。《教育資料與研究》45:126。李秀如、王德睦，2007，〈係貧窮的原罪? 或係城鄉差距? 談影響兒童英語學習機會的因素〉。《教育與社會研究》 12:113-135。李宜玫、孫頌賢， 2010，〈大學生選課自主性動機與學習投入之關係〉。《教育科學研究期刊》55:155-182。林文達，1984，《教育經濟學》。台北：三民書局。林俊瑩、吳裕益，2007，〈家庭因素、學校因素對學生學業成就的影響：階層線性模式的分析〉。《教育研究集刊林淑惠、黃韞臻，2012，〈大學生學習投入量表之發展〉。《測驗學刊》59:373-396。》53(4):107-144。馬信行，1998，〈台灣鄉鎮市區社會地位對教育投入的影響〉。《國家科學委員會研究彙刊：人文及社會科學》8(4):596-615張芳全，2008，〈數學成就的城鄉差距探討─以 TIMSS 為例〉。《國民教育》48(6):22-29。張苙雲，2011，〈台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫: 資料使用手冊 (2011.12. ), 第一波 (2001) 國中學生問卷〉。http://survey.sinica.edu.tw/srda/teps/W1W2W3W4_JSF_ manual_20111201. pdf，取用日期：2017年4月5日。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》41-62。陳奕奇、劉子銘，2008，〈教育成就與城鄉差距：空間群聚之分析〉。《人口學刊》 1-43。陳婉琪，2012，〈再探台灣的都市教育優勢：集體社會化論的可能性〉。頁143-184，收錄於《臺灣的社會變遷1985~2005：社會階層與勞動市場》。臺北市：中央研究院社會學研究所。黃瓊瑤，2011，〈「台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫」現況介紹〉。《SRDA學術調查研究資料庫通訊》37: 14-23。黃敏雄，2015，〈學生數學表現的城鄉差異〉。《教育研究集刊》61(4): 33-61。甄曉蘭，2007，〈偏遠國中教育機會不均等問題與相關教育政策初探〉。《教育研究集刊》36:26-39。鄭皓駿、陳婉琪，2017，〈寧為雞首，不為牛後？班級排名對個人學業能力的影響〉。《教育研究集刊》63(1):1-30。駱明慶，2002，〈誰是台大學生?-性別、省籍與城鄉差異〉。《經濟論文叢刊》30(1): 113-147。蕭佳純、董旭英、饒夢霞，2009，〈以結構方程式探討家庭教育資源、學習態度、班級互動在學習成效的作用〉。《教育科學研究期刊》54(2):135-162。關秉寅，2016，〈同儕補習風氣對國中生學習成就之影響〉。《台灣社會學刊》60:99-133。羅啟宏，1992，〈台灣省鄉鎮發展類型之研究〉。《台灣經濟》190:41-68。三、 英文部份Blau, P.M., Duncan, O.D., 1967, The American occupational structure. New York: Willey.Bourdieu, P., 1986, “ The Forms of Capital. ” Pp. 241-258 in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education , Edited by J. Richardson. New York: Greenwood Press.Burke, M. A., & Sass, T. R., 2013, “ Classroom peer effects and student achievement. ” Journal of Labor Economics, 31(1):51-82.Coleman, J.S., E. Q. Campbell, C.J. Hobson, J. McPartland, A. M. Mood, F. D. Weinfeld, and R. L. York. 1966, Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.Coleman, J. S, 1988, “Social Capital In the Creation of Human Capital,” American Journal of Sociology, 94:5-120.Cohen, J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Duncan, O., Curzort, Duncan, R., 1966, Statistical Geography: Problems in Analyzing A real Data. Free Press, Glencoe:IL.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(3):413.Elliott, J., Hufton, N., Willis, W., Illushin, L., 2005, Motivation, engagement and educational performance: International perspectives on the contexts for learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Enders, C. K.,Tofighi, D., 2007, “Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: a new look at an old issue.” Psychological methods 12(2):121.Fantuzzo, J. W., Riggo, R. E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A., 1989, “Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: A component analysis.” Journal of Education Psychology 81(2), 173-177.Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., Paris, A.H., 2004, “School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.” Review of educational research 74(1): 59-109.Gamoran, Adam., 1992, “The variable effects of high school tracking.” American Sociological Review 812-828.Hauser, R. M., 1974, “Contextual analysis revisited.” Sociological methods and research 2(3):365-375.Hofmann, D. A.,Gavin, M. B., 1998, “Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations.” Journal of Management 24(5):623-641.Hoxby, Caroline, 2000, “Peer Effects in the Classroom: Learning from Gender and Race Variation.”National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 7867.Hanushek, Eric A., John F. Kain, Jacob M. Markman, and Steven G. Rivkin, 2003, “Does Peer Ability Affect Student Achievement?” Journal of Applied Econometircs 18:527-544.Hoxby, C., Weingarth Salyer, G., 2006,“ School Reassignment and the Structure of Peer Effects, manuscrito. ” Universidad de Harvard.Imberman, Scott A., Adriana D. Kugler, and Bruce I. Sacerdote., 2012, “Katrina`s children: Evidence on the structure of peer effects from hurricane evacuees.” The American Economic Review 102(5):2048-2082.Kuh, G.D., 2003, “What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices.” Change:The Magazine of Higher Learning 35(2):24-32.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.Kuh, G.D., 2009, “The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations.” New Directions for Institutional Research 141:5-20.Kang, C. (2007). “Classroom peer effects and academic achievement quasi-randomization evidence from South Korea. ”Journal of Urban Economics 61(3): 458-495.Marsh, H. W., Parker, J. W., 1984,“Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? ” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47(1):213-231.Miller, A.D., Murdock, T.B., 2007, “Modeling latent true scores to determine the utility of aggregate student perceptions as classroom indicators in HLM: The case of classroom goal structures.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 32:83-104.Mathieu, J. E., Taylor, S. R., 2007, “A framework for testing meso‐mediational relationships in Organizational Behavior. ” Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(2):141-172.Pedhazur, E. J., 1997, Multiple regression in behavior research: Explanation and prediction. Forth Worth, TA: Harcourt.Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., 2002, Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S., Cheong, Y.F., Congdon, R., du Toit, M., 2004, HLM 6: Hiarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: SSI Scientific Software International. Inc.Sewell, W.H., Haller, A.O., Portes, A., 1969, “The educational and early occupational attainment process.” American sociological review 34:82-92.Welch, W. W., Anderson, R. E., Harris, L. J., 1982, “The effects of schooling on mathematics achievement. ” American Educational Research Journal 19(1):145-153.Wentzel, K. R., 1994, “Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom behavior, and perceived social support.” Journal of Education Psychology 86:173-182.Wu, Y. W. B., Wooldridge, P. J., 2005, “The Impact of Centering First‐Level Predictors on Individual and Contextual Effects in Multilevel Data Analysis.” Nursing research 54(3): 212-216.Yazzie-Mintz, E., 2010, Charting the path from engagement to achievement: A report on the 2009 High School Survey of Student Engagement. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy. zh_TW
