台灣第一代大學生的背景和特質：台灣和美國的發現一樣嗎？

Backgrounds and Characteristics of First- Generation College Students in Taiwan

10.29882/JTNUE.200808.0005

黃雅容(Ya-Rong Huang)

父母教育程度 ； 第一代大學生 ； 選系 ； 選校 ； parental education ； first-generation college students ； choosing majors ； choosing schools

師大學報：教育類

53卷2期（2008 / 08 / 01）

111 - 130

繁體中文

第一代大學生，即父母沒有受過大學教育的大學生，獲得美國學術界和政府機構的關注，在台灣則尚未受到注意，因此，本文以台灣高等教育資料庫94學年度大一學生問卷調查為分析資料，探討台灣第一代大學生的背景和特質。本研究主要發現如下：相較於其他學生，第一代大學生女性、低收入戶的比例較高，父親是外省人的比例較低；他們就讀技職體系和私立學校的比例較高，入學前的學業成就較低；在選校和選系時，他們比較重視經濟因素、學校地理位置因素、務實因素，對朋友同學的建議重視程度較高；他們重視的人生目標和其他學生不同，未來規劃要再念國內外研究所的比例較低。這些背景和特質基本上與美國第一代大學生相似，大部份可用文化資本和社會資本的概念去理解。

American researchers, and in particular the National Center for Educational Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education, have found first-generation college students (FGCSs)-students whose parents are not college-educated-to be dissimilar from more traditional college students, and to be at a disadvantage in several respects. To understand whether FGCSs in Taiwan face a similar situation, this study investigated the backgrounds and characteristics of FGCSs in Taiwan. Using data drawn from the 2005 Freshman Survey in the Taiwan Higher Education Database, this study compared FGCSs with non-FGCSs on five issues. The major findings were as follows: First, the FGCSs in Taiwan, as compared with the ”traditional” college students in Taiwan, were more likely to be female, to come from low-income families, and to be less likely to have a father who came from mainland China. Second, FGCSs were more likely to be on the vocational and technical track rather than the general education track, and to study at private colleges and universities. Third, FGCSs on average got lower scores on the standardized college entrance tests. Fourth, in choosing schools and majors, FGCSs were concerned more about costs and scholarships, school locations and job opportunities, and less about a school's prestige or their own academic interests and abilities. Fifth, Taiwan's FGCSs placed greater importance on ”being successful in one's own business” and ”having a happy family,” and cared less about goals associated with wealth, achievement, status, and spiritual life. They were less likely to pursue advanced study after they graduated. The backgrounds and characteristics of FGCSs in Taiwan turned out to have much in common with their American counterparts, and supported expectations based on ”cultural and social capital” concepts.

1. 林大森、陳憶芬(2006)。台灣高中生參加補習之效益分析。教育研究集刊，52(4)，35-70。
   連結：
2. 許崇憲(2002)。家庭背景因素與子女學業成就之關係：台灣樣本的後設分析。中正教育研究，1(2)，1-24。
   連結：
3. 陳婉琪(2005)。族群、性別與階級：再探教育成就的省籍差異。台灣社會學，10，1-39。
   連結：
4. 陳麗如(2005)。父母對子女學習的影響－家庭資源之探討。教育與社會研究，9，121-152。
   連結：
5. 駱明慶(2001)。教育成就的省籍與性別差異。經濟論文叢刊，29(2)，117-152。
   連結：
6. (1997).Missed opportunities: A new look at disadvantaged college aspirants.Boston and Washington, DC:Author.
7. Astin, A. W.(1999).Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.Journal of College Student Development,40(5),518-529.
8. Berkner, L.,Chavez, L.(1997).U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics Report (NCES 98-105).Washington DC: U.S.:Government Printing Office.
9. Bourdieu, P.,J. G. Richardson (Ed.)(1986).Handbook of Theory and Research for Sociology of Education.NY:Greenwood Press.
10. Bourdieu, P.,J. Karabel,A. H. Halsey (Eds.)(1977).Power and ideology in education.New York:Oxford University Press.
11. Brooks-Terry, M.,S. K. Steinmetz (Ed.)(1988).Family Support Systems Across the Life Span.New York:Plenum Press.
12. Chen, X.(2005).U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Report (NCES 2005-171).WashingtonDC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
13. Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
14. Coleman, J. S.(1988).Equality of educational opportunity.Salem, NH:Ayer.
15. Coleman, J. S.(1988).Social capital in the creation of human capital.American Journal of Sociology,94,95-120.
16. Horn, L.,Nunez, A.(2000).U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistic Report.Washington DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
17. Huang, Y. R.,Chang, S. M.(2004).Academic and cocurricular involvement; Their relationship and the best combinations for student growth.Journal of College Student Development,45(4),391-406.
18. Inman, W. E.,Mayes, L. D.(1999).The importance of being first: Unique characteristics of first-generation community college students.Community College Review,26(4),3-22.
19. Kuh, G. D.,Schuh, J. H.,Whitt, E. J.,Associates.(1991).Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
20. McConnell, P. J.(2000).ERIC review: What community colleges should do to assist first-generation students.Community College Review,28(3),75-87.
21. Nomi, T.(2005).Faces of the future: A portrait of first-generation community college students.American Association of Community College.
22. Nunez, A.,Cuccaro-Alamin, S.(1998).U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics Report.Washington DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
23. Pace, C. R.(1990).The undergraduates.Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
24. Pascarella, E. T.,Pierson, C. T.,Wolniak, G. C.,Terenzini, P. T.(2004).First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes.The Journal of Higher Education,75(3),249-284.
25. Riehl, R. J.(1994).The academic preparation, aspirations, and first-year performance of first-generation students.College and university,70(1),14-19.
26. Rodriguez, S.(2003).What helps some first-generation students succeed.About Campus,17-22.
27. Teachman, D. J.(1987).Family background, educational resource, and educational attainment.American Sociological Review,52,548-557.
28. Terenzini, P. T.,Springer, L.,Yaeger, P. M.,Pascarella, E. T.,Nora, A.(1996).First-college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development.Research in Higher Education,37(1),1-22.
29. Trow, M.,OECD (ed.)(1974).Policies for Higher Education.Paris:OCED.
30. Van T. Bui, K.(2002).First-generation college students at a four-year university: Background characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first-year experience.College Student Journal,36(1),3-11.
31. 李文益(2004)。文化資本、多元入學管道與學生學習表現－以台東師院為例。台東大學教育學報，15(1)，1-32。
32. 孫清山、黃毅志(1996)。補習教育、文化資本與教育取得。台灣社會學刊，19，95-130。
33. 張雪梅(1999)。大學教育對大學生的衝擊。台北:張老師出版社。
34. 楊瑩(1994)。教育機會均等：教育社會學的探究。台北:師大書苑。
35. 鄭耀男、陳怡靖(2000)。台灣地區家庭背景對就讀公/私立學校與受教育年數的影響：並檢證文化資本論財務資本論社會資本論之適用性。國民教育研究學報，6，103-140。
36. 戴曉霞(2000)。高等教育的大眾化與市場化。台北:揚智文化。
37. 謝小岑、劉毓秀主編(1995)。台灣婦女處境白皮書。台北:時報文化。
38. 簡茂發(1984)。高級中學學生家庭社經背景、教師期望、學業成就之關係。師大教育研究所集刊，26，1-95。
39. 網路社會學通訊期刊

1. 賴慧敏、蕭錫錡、鄭博文、陳清檳(2015)。大學畢業生取得證照與薪資所得─傾向分數配對法之分析。當代教育研究季刊，23(1)，071-111。
2. 林怡芯(2021)。大學生理財認知與校園貸款行為之關聯性。高雄師大學報：教育與社會科學類，50，29-48。
3. 劉若蘭、林大森(2012)。家中第一代大學生的就學經驗、學習成果與畢業流向：與非第一代相比。教育實踐與研究，25(2)，97-130。
4. 孫頌賢、李宜玫(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(1)，155-182。
5. 周雅瑱,李宜玫(2020)。國小高年級家貧與一般學童的可能自我與成就目標之比較。高雄師大學報：教育與社會科學類，48，1-29。
6. (2018)。以全心學習為中介角色：僑生與本地生的生活目標與品味之關係。教育與心理研究，41(2)，29-58。
7. (2018)。由IEO模式探討美國高等教育中的師生互動。教育研究月刊，294，123-134。