影響科技大學學生流失因素之初探研究－以北區某科技大學為例

A Preliminary Study on the Factors of Why Students of Universities of Technology Drop Out: A Case Study of One University of Technology from Northern Taiwan

10.6506/SAGC.2016.5501.05

吳建隆(Chien-Lung Wu)

科技大學 ； 學術投入 ； 人際投入 ； 校園經驗 ； 持續就讀 ； University of Technology ； academic involvement ； social involvement ； campus experience ； continue studying

學生事務與輔導

55卷1期（2016 / 06 / 01）

43 - 61

繁體中文

本研究旨在瞭解科技大學學生個人因素、校園經驗對於持續就讀或流失的關係。除探討學生個人因素對於校園經驗的關聯外，更進一步探討校園經驗對於學生持續就讀或流失 之預測力。本研究對象為北區某科技大學103學年度持續就讀或流失學生進行調查，做出結論並提出建議，以提供學校相關單位、教師作為日後協助學生持續就讀及相關政策之參考。本研究共發出300份問卷，回收249份，有效回收率為83%。所得資料以IBM SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows進行問卷信效度、描述統計、相關分析、逐步迴以及邏輯斯迴歸分析。本研究結果歸納如下：一、學生的高中（職）三年的學業總成績對於滿意度、目標發展與承諾沒有關聯程度，但對於學術投與人際投入有正向的關聯程度；而社經地位對於各變項間沒相關性，亦即家庭社經地位並不會影響到學生的校園經驗。二、滿意度與學術投入與人際投入之間有著正向中度的相關性，因此學生的學術投入與人際投入確實會影響到學生的滿意度；而學生目標發展與承諾、學術投入和人際投入有著正向中度的相關性。三、學術投入、人際投入、學生目標發展與承諾和滿意度等變項與學生就讀意願達顯著水準，共可以有效解釋就讀意願變項67%的變異量。四、學術投入、人際投入、學生目標發展與承諾和學生滿意度等變項，所建立的邏輯迴歸模式之整體適配達顯著水準，並可以有效預測學生持續就讀或流失。

This paper aims at exploring how students’ personal reasons and their campus experience affect them to continue studying or to become dropouts. In addition to the relevance between students’ personal reasons and their campus experience, we further discuss the predictive power of campus experience. Our samples are students of the school year 103 from one University of Technology in northern Taiwan. We collected the data of both persistent and dropout students, and then provided results and suggestions. A total number of 300 questionnaires were released; 249 of them were collected afterwards. The effective response rate reached 83%. IBM SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows was applied on the collected data for questionnaire reliability and validity, descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, stepwise regression analysis and logistic regression analysis. Research results are summarized as the following: 1. There is no correlation between students’ high school (vocation school) three-year scores and their satisfaction degree, goal development and commitment. However, there is positive correlation toward academic and human relationship input. Furthermore, students’ family socioeconomic status has no correlations against all variables, which reveals that family and socioeconomic status have no influence on students’ campus experience. 2. Students’ satisfaction degree shows positive middle correlation toward their academic and human relationship input; thus, there will be influence from above inputs to students’ satisfaction degree. Also, there is positive middle correlation between students’ goal development and commitment, academic and human relationship input. 3. Variables like academic input, human relationship input, students’ goal development, goal commitment and satisfaction degree reach a significant level toward students’ willingness to continue studying. This can explain 67% variance for students’ willingness to continue studying variable. 4. The overall fitness of logistic regression model built up by variables including academic input, human relationship input, students’ goal development, goal commitment and satisfaction degree -- all has reached a significant level. As a result, it can effectively predict students’ choice to continue studying or to become dropouts.

1. 教育部統計處（2014） 。102 學年度各級教育統計概況分析。2014 年9 月28日，擷取自http://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED4500/Common/HitCount.as-hx?p=41EF76E649FDF3EC21079C6F8-C4EB9E165EC33B6B9D5ED38CD4FFDF86B4EBCD2704236D85E28FD97DB4EF934D96753A1231DA426F5BB63BF7A87BFACEAEF3D5C&type=FB01-D469347C76A7&s=66B279A508805995
2. Astin, A. W.(1971).Predicting academic performance in college.New York:Free Press.
3. Astin, A. W.(1999).Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.Journal of College Student Development,40(5),518-529.
4. Astin, A. W.(1997).What matters in college? Four critical years revisited.San-Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
5. Astin, A. W.(1975).Preventing students from dropping out.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
6. Berger, J.,Milem, J. F.(1999).The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence.Research in Higher Education,40(6),641-664.
7. Braxton, J. M.(2000).Reworking the student departure puzzle.Nashville, TN:Vanderbilt University Press.
8. Braxton, J. M.(Ed.)(2000).Reworking the student departure puzzle.Nashville, TN:Vanderbilt University Press.
9. Braxton, J. M.,Hirschy, A. S.,McClendon, S. A.(2004).Understanding and reducing college student departure.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
10. Dobbins, J. W.(1999).New York,New York University.
11. Dyer, H.(1968).School factors and equal educational opportunity.Harvard Educational Review,38(1),38-56.
12. Getzlaf, S. B.,Sedlacek, G. M.,Kearney, K. A.,Blackwell, J. M.(1984).Two types of voluntary undergraduate attrition: Application of Tinto's model.Research in Higher Education,20(3),257-268.
13. Guiffrida, D. A.(2003).African American student organizations as agents of social integration.Journal of College Student Development,44(3),304-319.
14. Guiffrida, D. A.,Lynch, M. F.,Wall, A. F.,Abel, D. S.(2013).Do reasons for attending college affect academic outcomes? A test of a motivational model from a self-eetermination theory perspective.Journal of College Student Development,54(2),121-139.
15. Ishitani, T. T.,DesJardins, S. L.(2002).A longitudinal investigation of dropout from college in the United States.Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice,4(2),173-201.
16. Lola, D.(2011).Student's concretion learning outcomes, satisfaction and dropout intentions.Asociación de Economía de la Educación,6,448-459.
17. Mamiseishvili, K.(2012).International student persistence in U.S. postsecondary institutions.Higher Education,64(1),1-17.
18. Milem, J. F.,Berger, J. B.(1997).A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring the relationship between Astin's theory of involvement and Tinto's theory of student departure.Journal of College Student Development,38(4),387-400.
19. Munro, B. H.(1981).Dropouts from higher education: Path analysis of a national sample.American Educational Research Journal,18(2),133-141.
20. Panos, R. J.,Astin, A.W.(1968).Attrition among college students.American Educational Research Journal,5(1),57-72.
21. Seidman, A.(Ed.)(2005).College student retention: Formula for student success.Westport, CT:Praeger.
22. Simpson, C.,Baker, K.,Mellinger, G.(1980).Conventional failures and unconventional dropouts: Comparing different types of university withdrawals.Sociology of Education,53(4),203-214.
23. Tinto, V.(1975).Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.Review of Educational Research,45(1),89-125.
24. Tinto, V.(1993).Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
25. Upcraft, M. L.(Ed.),Gardner, J. N.(Ed.),Barefoot, B. O.(Ed.)(2005).Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college.San Francisco, CA:Jossey Bass.
26. 李育齊、陳姿方(2014)。大學新生流失可能性模式之建構與驗證。高等教育，9(1)，97-128。
27. 林生傳(2005)。教育社會學。高雄市:巨流圖書。
28. 林秀芬(2008)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系。
29. 姜怡君(2012)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系。
30. 張家宜(2000)。大學學生滿意度之實証研究。淡江人文社會學刊，6，1-27。
31. 陳姿方(2008)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系。
32. 劉若蘭(2005)。博士論文(博士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系。

1. 蔡昕璋(2018)。技專校院學生校園參與經驗、美感素養與公民行動特質之因果關係研究。學生事務與輔導，57(1)，31-47。
2. 蔡昕璋(2020)。2010年代臺灣學生事務的社會脈動與相關研究分析。學生事務與輔導，58(4)，13-32。
3. 蔡昕璋(2020)。課室外學習經驗與基本核心能力之關係研究：以某大學三年級學生為例。學生社團學刊，8，27-48。
4. 簡信男(2020)。社會服務方案對大學生人際關係發展成效探討以逢甲大學暑期服務隊為例。社團經營與輔導，5，5-22。