The Empirical Research into College Students’ Learning and Development in China (2015—2019): Themes, Methods and Commentary

Yin Hongbiao; Shi Lian; Yang Liu

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.09.010

Volume 38 Issue 9

Sep. 2020

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences) > 2020 > 38(9): 179-199

Yin Hongbiao, Shi Lian, Yang Liu. The Empirical Research into College Students’ Learning and Development in China (2015—2019): Themes, Methods and Commentary[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(9): 179-199. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.09.010

Citation:

Yin Hongbiao, Shi Lian, Yang Liu. The Empirical Research into College Students’ Learning and Development in China (2015—2019): Themes, Methods and Commentary[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(9): 179-199. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.09.010

Citation:

PDF( 1012 KB)

The Empirical Research into College Students’ Learning and Development in China (2015—2019): Themes, Methods and Commentary

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.09.010

1.
Faculty of Education, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
2.
Institute of Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

Available Online: 2020-09-14
Publish Date: 2020-09-01

Abstract

Abstract

Due to the international attention to quality assurance of higher education, the enrollment expansion policy in China, and the global rise of “evidence-based” educational research, there has been a worldwide growth and prosperity of research into college students’ learning and development. This study comprehensively reviewed the empirical studies on college students’ learning and development published in Chinese journals in 2015—2019. It summarized the various themes emerging from these empirical studies, and analyzed the features and defects in their research methodology and design. As revealed, in the past five year, eight themes have emerged from the empirical studies on college students’ learning and development in China and quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods designs have been widely used. Researchers from 15 “Double First-Class” universities take the leading role in the empirical research into college students’ learning and development. Based on these findings, we suggest that the “Pyramid Model” of Chinese college students’ growth should be further enhanced by embedding students’ multi-layer growth into a nested contexts consisting of the individual, instructional, institutional, and policy factors which influence college students’ learning and development. These empirical studies, with varied themes, methods, and scholars’ increasing awareness of methodology, have deepened our understanding. However, some notable defects are also revealed, such as unbalanced application of research methods, unjustified research designs and procedures, lack of accumulations, and insufficient theoretical awareness, etc. These shortcomings point out the directions for future improvement.
- quality assurance,
- college students’ learning and development,
- empirical research,
- systematic literature review,
- China

FullText(HTML)

References(95)

References

[1]	岑逾豪. (2016). 大学生成长的金字塔模型——基于实证研究的本土学生发展理论. <italic>高等教育研究</italic>,37(10),74−80.
[2]	陈海波, 胡智愚, 陈丽珍. (2017). 研究生导师选择偏好关键因素的实证研究. <italic>黑龙江高教研究</italic>, (06),140−143. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2614.2017.06.038
[3]	陈鑫, 吕林海. (2019). 大班课堂学生学习特征的实证研究. <italic>高教发展与评估</italic>,35(03),98−108+114. doi: 10.3963/j.issn.1672-8742.2019.03.011
[4]	程建坤, 陈婧. (2017). 教育实证研究: 历程、现状和走向. <italic>华东师范大学学报 (教育科学版)</italic>,35(3),150−158.
[5]	邓晶. (2018). 高校第二课堂对大学生学习方式的影响研究——以“985高校”学术科技创新活动为例. <italic>高教探索</italic>, (01),11−15+87. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9760.2018.01.002
[6]	段朝辉, 洪建中. (2019). 网络视频课程中师生交互与大学生网络学习绩效的关系: 学习自我效能感与学习动机的序列中介作用. <italic>心理发展与教育</italic>,35(02),184−191.
[7]	郭卉, 韩婷, 姚源, 唐旭亭. (2018). 本科生科研学习收获因子相互关系研究. <italic>高等教育研究</italic>,39(09),73−82.
[8]	衡书鹏, 周宗奎, 孙丽君, 李俊一. (2018). 游戏暴力合理性对攻击性的影响: 一个有中介的调节模型. <italic>心理发展与教育</italic>,34(01),49−57.
[9]	胡锦涛. (2011). 在庆祝清华大学建校100周年大会上的讲话. <italic>中国大学教学</italic>, (5),4−6. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-0450.2011.05.001
[10]	胡瑞, 王伊凡, 张军伟. (2018). 创业教育组织方式对大学生创业意向的作用机理——一个有中介的调节效应. <italic>教育发展研究</italic>,38(11),73−79.
[11]	胡元林. (2018). 地方本科高校学生学习满意度影响因素研究——基于学生自我学习效能的视角. <italic>高教探索</italic>, (03),43−50. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9760.2018.03.008
[12]	嵇艳, 汪雅霜. (2016). 学习动机对大学生学习投入的影响: 人际互动的中介效应. <italic>高教探索</italic>, (12),23−28. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9760.2016.12.005
[13]	柯政. (2017). 教育科学知识的积累进步——兼谈美国教育实证研究战略. <italic>华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)</italic>,35(03),37−46+168.
[14]	况姗芸, 张慧, 卢昀, 周国林. (2019). 基于PRATAM的高校学生SPOC学习意愿影响因素模型构建研究. <italic>现代远距离教育</italic>, (05),34−42. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8700.2019.05.005
[15]	李文辉. (2018). 最熟悉的陌生人: 大学生宿舍人际冲突个案研究. <italic>黑龙江高教研究</italic>, (03),87−93. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2614.2018.03.020
[16]	李宪印, 张宝芳, 姜丽萍. (2019). 大学生创新行为的构成因素及其实证研究. <italic>教育研究</italic>,40(04),91−100.
[17]	李永刚. (2019). 阈限过渡:博士生学术成长的关键期及其跨越——以理科博士生为例. <italic>高等教育研究</italic>,40(12),58−67.
[18]	李玉倩. (2017). 基于结构方程模型的高等教育学生满意度研究. <italic>高教探索</italic>, (02),45−50. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9760.2017.02.009
[19]	林琳, 杨丽, 杨学博. (2019). 研究生学术激情与学习投入的关系研究. <italic>学位与研究生教育</italic>, (02),30−34.
[20]	刘加凤. (2017). 基于计划行为理论的创业教育对大学生创业意愿影响分析. <italic>高教探索</italic>, (05),117−122. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9760.2017.05.023
[21]	刘声涛, 张婷, 徐丹. (2015). 本科生课外时间投入对能力发展的影响——基于H大学学生就读经历调查数据. <italic>复旦教育论坛</italic>,13(05),55−61. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0059.2015.05.010
[22]	刘澍. (2015). “90后”大学生日常行为的时空特征分析——基于行为地理学研究方法. <italic>教育研究</italic>,36(11),49−55.
[23]	刘延东. (2012). 深化高等教育改革走以提高质量为核心的内涵式发展道路. <italic>求是</italic>, (10),3−9.
[24]	陆根书, 胡文静, 闫妮. (2013). 大学生学习经历: 概念模型与基本特征——基于西安交通大学本科生学习经历的调查分析. <italic>高等教育研究</italic>,34(08),53−61.
[25]	罗良针, 余正台. (2017). “挫折”的结构分析: 一项对当代大学生挫折内隐观的调查研究. <italic>黑龙江高教研究</italic>, (03),122−126. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2614.2017.03.029
[26]	吕林海, 龚放. (2018). 研究型大学本科生深层学习及其影响机制的比较研究——基于中美八所大学SERU调查的实证分析. <italic>教育研究</italic>,39(04),111−120.
[27]	吕林海, 张红霞. (2015). 中国研究型大学本科生学习参与的特征分析——基于12所中外研究型大学调查资料的比较. <italic>教育研究</italic>,36(09),51−63.
[28]	吕林海. (2016). 大学生学习参与的理论缘起、概念延展及测量方法争议. <italic>教育发展研究</italic>,36(21),70−77.
[29]	吕林海. (2018). 中国大学生的课堂沉默及其演生机制——审思“犹豫说话者”的长成与适应. <italic>中国高教研究</italic>, (12),23−30.
[30]	任学柱, 龚琴. (2016). 大学生自我对话的使用频率及对焦虑和冲动性的影响. <italic>高等教育研究</italic>,37(10),81−88.
[31]	史静寰, 王文. (2018). 以学为本, 提高质量, 内涵发展: 中国大学生学情研究的学术涵义与政策价值. <italic>华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)</italic>,36(04),18−27+162.
[32]	史静寰. (2016). 走向质量治理: 中国大学生学情调查的现状与发展. <italic>中国高教研究</italic>, (02),37−41.
[33]	史秋衡, 郭建鹏. (2012). 我国大学生学情状态与影响机制的实证分析. <italic>教育研究</italic>, (2),109−121.
[34]	孙洪义, 梁波, 卢彩彤. (2017). 大学生通识型创业教育有效性的理论模型和实证研究. <italic>清华大学教育研究</italic>,38(05),118−124.
[35]	田苗, 王萌, 周子航. (2019). 多模态翻转课堂教学模式对大学生英语听力培养效果的实证研究. <italic>黑龙江高教研究</italic>,37(11),152−156. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2614.2019.11.032
[36]	田甜. (2018). 高校环境对大学生学习投入的影响研究: 基于CCSS2016问卷. <italic>教育发展研究</italic>,38(17),43−49.
[37]	王纾. (2019). 中国研究型大学本科生学习性投入行为的群体类型研究. <italic>江苏高教</italic>, (04),32−41.
[38]	王伟宜, 刘秀娟. (2016). 家庭文化资本对大学生学习投入影响的实证研究. <italic>高等教育研究</italic>,37(04),71−79.
[39]	王文. (2018). 中国大学生学习投入的内涵变化和测量改进——来自“中国大学生学习与发展追踪调查”(CCSS)的探索. <italic>中国高教研究</italic>, (12),39−45.
[40]	魏署光, 陈敏. (2016). 本科生学习效果影响机制研究——基于华中科技大学SSLD的分析. <italic>高等工程教育研究</italic>, (02),167−173.
[41]	文静. (2018). 大学生学习满意度的模型修订与动向监测. <italic>教育研究</italic>,39(05),50−58+75.
[42]	吴秋翔, 崔盛. (2019). 学生干部与学业成绩不可兼得?——基于北京市大学生追踪调查数据的研究. <italic>复旦教育论坛</italic>,17(04),71−79. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0059.2019.04.012
[43]	吴永源, 李硕豪. (2019). “拔尖计划”学生学业成就及其影响因素的实证研究. <italic>复旦教育论坛</italic>,17(01),68−75. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0059.2019.01.011
[44]	夏欢欢, 钟秉林. (2017). 大学生批判性思维养成的影响因素及培养策略研究. <italic>教育研究</italic>,38(05),67−76.
[45]	辛素飞, 王一鑫, 林崇德. (2018). 高职生心理健康水平变迁的横断历史研究: 1999—2016年. <italic>教育研究</italic>,39(11),120−130.
[46]	徐丹, 蒋扇扇, 刘声涛. (2018). 研究型大学本科生学习投入及其影响因素的学科差异. <italic>大学教育科学</italic>, (05),30−37+125. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0717.2018.05.006
[47]	许长青. (2017). 研究生教育服务质量评估及影响因素分析. <italic>高教发展与评估</italic>,33(05),30−49. doi: 10.3963/j.issn.1672-8742.2017.05.004
[48]	阎凤桥, 李欣, 杨钋, 范皑皑. (2017). 专业学位硕士生与学术学位硕士生实践能力培养的比较研究. <italic>学位与研究生教育</italic>, (04),9−16.
[49]	杨道建, 陈文娟, 徐占东. (2019). 创业动机在创业成长影响因素中的中介作用研究. <italic>高校教育管理</italic>,13(06),103−112.
[50]	尹弘飚. (2016). 大学生学习投入的研究路径及其转型. <italic>高等教育研究</italic>,37(11),70−76.
[51]	尹弘飚. (2017). 教育实证研究的一般路径: 以教师情绪劳动研究为例. <italic>华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)</italic>,35(03),47−56.
[52]	于文浩. (2015). “翻转课堂”的学习满意度——高校课程教学行动研究. <italic>开放教育研究</italic>,21(03),65−73.
[53]	俞可, 陈丹, 赵帅. (2017). 循证: 欧盟教育实证研究新趋向. <italic>华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)</italic>,35(03),142−149+173-174.
[54]	袁振国. (2017). 实证研究是教育学走向科学的必要途径. <italic>华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)</italic>,35(03),4−17+168.
[55]	张红霞. (2009). 教育科学研究方法. 北京: 教育科学出版社.
[56]	张华峰, 郭菲, 史静寰. (2017). 促进家庭第一代大学生参与高影响力教育活动的研究. <italic>教育研究</italic>,38(06),32−43.
[57]	张华峰, 史静寰. (2018). 走出“中国学习者悖论”——中国大学生主体性学习解释框架的构建. <italic>中国高教研究</italic>, (12),31−38.
[58]	张敏, 王敏敏. (2019). 信息特征和调节定向对大学生创业风险决策的影响. <italic>华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)</italic>,37(01),30−36+165.
[59]	张青根, 沈红. (2018). 独生子女与非独生子女大学生批判性思维能力的差异性分析. <italic>复旦教育论坛</italic>,16(04),58−64. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0059.2018.04.011
[60]	赵薇, 李越. (2019). 中国留英硕士生学术素养和身份转变研究. <italic>清华大学教育研究</italic>,40(01),79−86.
[61]	赵显通. (2015). 中外合作办学项目大学生学习观调查——基于“现象描述分析学”的研究方式. <italic>复旦教育论坛</italic>,13(02),32−37+59. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0059.2015.02.005
[62]	中华人民共和国教育部. (2013−12−12). 教育部关于开展普通高等学校本科教学工作审核评估的通知. 取自: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A08/s7056/201312/t20131212_160919.html.
[63]	中华人民共和国教育部. (2018−10−08). 教育部关于加快建设高水平本科教育全面提高人才培养能力的意见. 取自: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A08/s7056/201810/t20181017_351887.html.
[64]	中华人民共和国教育部. (2019−04−29). 介绍“六卓越一拔尖”计划2.0有关情况. 取自: http://www.moe.gov.cn/fbh/live/2019/50601/mtbd/201904/t20190430_380197.html.
[65]	朱红, 马莉萍, 熊煜. (2016). “大班授课、小班研讨”教学模式效果研究. <italic>中国高教研究</italic>, (01),42−47.
[66]	宗正, 刘伟臻, 董杰, 司继伟. (2018). 情绪、职业数量对不同职业生涯延迟满足大学生职业决策过程的影响. <italic>心理发展与教育</italic>,34(02),155−163.
[67]	Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. <italic>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes</italic>, 50(2), 179−211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
[68]	Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A development theory for higher education. <italic>Journal of College Student Personnel</italic>, 25(4), 297−308.
[69]	Beerkens, M. (2018). Evidence-based policy and higher education quality assurance: Progress, pitfalls and promise. <italic>European Journal of Higher Education</italic>, 8(3), 272−287. doi: 10.1080/21568235.2018.1475248
[70]	Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. <italic>British Journal of Educational Psychology</italic>, 63(1), 3−19. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01038.x
[71]	Blimling, G. (2010). The resident assistant: Applications & strategies for working with college students in residence halls (7th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Co.
[72]	Brown, J., Kurzweil, M., & Pritchett, W. (2017). Quality assurance in US higher education: the current landscape and principles for reform. New York: Ithaka S+R.
[73]	Brown, R. (2004). Quality assurance in higher education: The UK experience since 1992. London: Routldge.
[74]	Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[75]	Coates, H., & McCormick, A. (2014). Introduction: Student engagement-A window into undergraduate education. In H. Coates & A. McCormick. (Eds.), Engaging university students: international insights from system-wide studies (pp. 1−12). Dordrecht: Springer.
[76]	Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[77]	Entwistle, N. J. (1998). Approaches to learning and forms of understanding. In B. Dart & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 72−101). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
[78]	Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[79]	Guo, F., & Shi, J. (2016). The relationship between classroom assessment and undergraduates’ learning within Chinese higher education system. <italic>Studies in Higher Education</italic>, 41(4), 642−663. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2014.942274
[80]	Guo, J., Yang, L., & Shi, Q. (2017). Effects of perceptions of the learning environment and approaches to learning on Chinese undergraduates’ learning. <italic>Studies in Educational Evaluation</italic>, 55, 125−134. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.09.002
[81]	Ho, D. (2014, October 29). Chinese universities must wake up and modernise or be left further behind. South China Morning Post. Retrieved from https://www.scmp.com.
[82]	Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.
[83]	Jones, G. A. (2013). Governing quality: Positioning student learning as a core objective of institutional and system-level governance. <italic>International Journal of Chinese Education</italic>, 2(2), 189−203.
[84]	Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. <italic>New Directions for Institutional Research</italic>, 141, 5−20.
[85]	Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students' perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. <italic>Studies in Higher Education</italic>, 27(1), 27−52. doi: 10.1080/03075070120099359
[86]	Lopez-Fernandez, O., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2011). The use of mixed methods research in the field of behavioural sciences. <italic>Quality & Quantity</italic>, 45(6), 1459−1472.
[87]	McCormick, A.C., Kinzie, J., & Korkmaz, A. (2011, April). Understanding evidence-based improvement in higher education: The case of student engagement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, USA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED526845.pdf
[88]	Pascarella, E. T. (1985). Racial differences in factors associated with bachelor’s degree completion: A nine-year follow-up. <italic>Research in Higher Education</italic>, 23(4), 351−373. doi: 10.1007/BF00973685
[89]	Rodgers, R. F. (1990). Recent theories and research underlying student development. In D. Creamer & Associates (ed.), College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990s (pp. 27−79). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.
[90]	Salmi, J. (2015). Evidence-based policies in higher education: Data analytics, impact assessment and reporting. In C. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi & P. Scott (ed.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 807−813). Dordrecht: Springer.
[91]	Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society. New York, NY: Wiley.
[92]	Shi, J., Wen, W., Li, Y., & Chu, J. (2014). China college student survey (CCSS): Breaking open the black box of the process of learning. <italic>International Journal of Chinese Education</italic>, 3(1), 132−159. doi: 10.1163/22125868-12340033
[93]	Yin, H. (2018). What motivates Chinese undergraduates to engage in learning? Insights from a psychological approach to student engagement research. <italic>Higher Education</italic>, 76(5), 827−847. doi: 10.1007/s10734-018-0239-0
[94]	Yin, H., & Ke, Z. (2017). Students’ course experience and engagement: An attempt to bridge two lines of research on the quality of undergraduate education. <italic>Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education</italic>, 42(7), 1145−1158.
[95]	Yin, H., Wang, W., & Han, J. (2016). Chinese undergraduates’ perceptions of teaching quality and the effects on approaches to studying and course satisfaction. <italic>Higher Education</italic>, 71(1), 39−57. doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9887-5