跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.211.31.134) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/13 20:00
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:賴昭文
研究生(外文):Chao-Wen Lai
論文名稱:大學生校系選擇因素及過程之探究
論文名稱(外文):College and college major choice:A study of factors and choice College and college major choice:A study of factors and choice process among Undergraduate in Taiwan
指導教授:趙長寧趙長寧引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chang-Nin Chao
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:東海大學
系所名稱:教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2008
畢業學年度:96
語文別:中文
論文頁數:140
中文關鍵詞:選擇大學選擇科系大學入學
外文關鍵詞:college choicecollege major choiceenter a university
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:20
  • 點閱點閱:1697
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
本研究主要目的在了解大學生校系選擇的相關因素,以及選擇校系的過程及決定。本研究同時使用量化及質性研究方法,量化方面以台灣高等教育資料庫中九十二學年度及九十四學年度的調查資料,探討不同因素對大學生校系選擇的重要性。質性部份,以Hossler and Galagher(1987)所提出的傾向、搜尋、決定三階段模式做為研究架構,並以九十五學年度中部某一所私立綜合大學十八位大一學生進行半結構式訪談,以了解大學生在選擇校系時考量的因素及決定過程。
本研究之研究發現分量化及質性二部份,說明如下:
(一)量化研究:影響九十二學年度及九十四學年度大一學生的校系選擇因素中,選校的前三個重要因素為科系考量、就業考量、考試分數落點。選系的前三個重要因素為自己的興趣、自己的學(術)科能力、工作機會。不同學生背景對校系選擇因素重要性的看法亦有所差異。選校因素部份,女生比男生更重視父母及家人的影響或建議,男生則比女生更重視校園環境、設施、設備。父母親教育程度越高者,父母及家人的影響或建議的重要性越大。家庭年收入越低者,除了父母及家人的影響或建議的重要性越高,經濟考量的重要性也越大。高中職畢業時成績較好的學生,更重視父母及家人的影響或建議、師長的影響或建議、學校聲望、師資、校風等。與家庭關係越親密者在選校時越重視父母及家人的影響或建議。選系部份,女生比男生更重視父母及家人的影響或建議、師長的影響或建議以及自己的學(術)科能力,男生則比女生更重視為了進這所學校(選校不選系)這項因素。父母親教育程度越高對子女在科系選擇上的影響也越大。家庭年收入較低的子女越希望得到獎學金的幫助。高中職畢業時成績較好者,父母及家人的影響或建議、師長的影響或建議、獎學金、生涯發展的潛力這些因素在考量科系時,重要性明顯高於成續較低者。與家庭關係越疏遠,選擇科系時父母及家人的影響或建議重要性明顯低於與家庭關係親密者。
(二)質性研究:選校部份,在傾向階段,受訪者大部份在國中階段意識到自己將來要唸大學,影響自己要唸大學的因素包含家庭因素以及在教育過程中受教育分流的影響。在搜尋階段,取得大學資訊的管道包含學校網站、大學博覽會、師長、父母、高中輔導室、學長姐、同學、報章媒體等。對大學生而言,有用的大學資訊其特質包含:深入、資訊與被提供者個人目前的大學經驗有關、資訊符合學生的個人需求。在決定階段,在相近的學校中進行選擇時,大學生會根據分數、出路、學校風氣、個人因素等對學校進行排序。選擇大學過程中的困難則包含他人的意見太多以及選擇大學過程中的不確定性。選系部份,在傾向階段,大部份受訪者都在高中時才確定想就讀的科系。在搜尋階段,科系網站、大學博覽會、師長、學長姐、重要他人、報章雜誌等都是他們取得科系資訊的管道。在決定階段,大學生選擇科系的策略包含分析取向、刪減取向、分類取向以及理想化取向。選系過程中最困難的部份則包含找出其它自己感興趣的科系、對是否能勝任科系的課程擔心以及考慮科系的出路問題。
本研究根據研究發現提出建議:(一)校系選擇部份:1、準大學生應及早確定自己的學科興趣,並充份了解大學校系相關相資訊。2、中等學校應為學生妥善規劃升學輔導課程。3、大學應提供有關校系更深入而豐富的資訊。(二)研究方法部份:1、在研究設計上可以使用其它的校系選擇相關理論及觀點進行研究。2、在研究對象上可以選擇正在進行校系選擇的準大學生做為研究對象。


關鍵詞:選擇大學、選擇科系、大學入學
This article is mainly focusing on understanding the factors that have involved when come to choose a university and a college major and also the process of decision making in choosing one. The author has used both quantitative and qualitative methods. In quantitative method, the author has looked into the date base of the higher education in Taiwan of year 2003 and year 2005 in discussing the different factors. In qualitative method, the author has used the three stages: predisposition, search and choice –making model that Hossler and Galagher (1987) had proposed as the methodology in proceeding the interview with 18 freshmen of a private university in central Taiwan.
The findings of this research are as following:
(1)In quantitative method: The premier three factors in choosing the university are the departments, the career development, and the scores of the entrance exam. As for choosing the majors, the students tend to concern more on their own interests, their competence and the career potential. The students from different backgrounds show their differences in those factors as well. As for choosing a university, girls weigh the suggestions from the parents and family more than boys. Boys consider more on the atmosphere and the infrastructure of the campus. Those who have parents with higher education background accept their parents’ opinions more easily and so do those who have a closer relationship with their families. As for choosing a major, the influence or suggestions from the parent, family members, or the teachers and the competence of oneself play an important role more on girls than the boys. Boys value more on the university as a whole than the major itself. The education background of the parents also affects the students’ decision making. The students from a family with lower income choose one with the scholarship. Those who got higher grades from their high school concern more on the suggestions from their parents and teachers, the scholarship, the career development than those with lower grades. Those with a closer relationship with their families show the same tendency as well.
(2)In qualitative method: As for choosing a university, most students tend to have the concept that they are going to a university from junior high in the predisposition stage. Families and the education experience are the important factors. In the search stage, students gather the information from the university websites, university fairs, teachers, parents, the consultant room from their own schools, seniors, peers and media. The information more profound, more related to students’ own experiences and fulfill the individual needs is considered more useful. In the choice stage, students will make the preference according to their scores, the career potential, the reputation of the university and other personal factors. The difficulties within this process include receiving too many opinions from others and also other uncertain matters. As for choosing a major, in the predisposition stage, most interviewees decide their majors in senior highs. In the search stage, the website of the departments, university fairs, teachers, seniors, friends, and media are their resources. In the choice stage, students use the analyzing, deleting, classifying, and idealizing to be their strategy. The difficulties include finding out one’s own interest, the capability in the courses taken, and also the future career development.
The following suggestions are made according to this research: The aspect in making a choice: 1. Students should find out their own interests and competence as soon as possible and review thoroughly the information about the university. 2. Senior high schools should plan the consultant program in helping their students. 3. The universities should be accessible as information providers. The aspect in research methodology: 1. The research students can make the reference of other related researches. 2. Use the freshmen-to-be to conduct the research.

Key word: college choice, college major choice, enter a university.
目次i
表目次iii
圖目次iv
附錄目次V
第一章 緒論1
第一節 研究動機與背景1
第二節 研究目的3
第三節 研究問題4
第四節 研究的重要性4
第五節 名詞釋義5
第二章 文獻探討7
第一節 高等教育的參與和選擇 7
第二節 大學生選校17
第三節 大學生選系31
第三章 研究設計39
第一節 研究架構39
第二節 研究方法40
第三節 研究對象42
第四節 研究工具46
第四章 大學生校系選擇因素重要性49
第一節 樣本背景變項分析49
第二節 選擇大學因素重要性分析52
第三節 選擇科系因素重要性分析63
第五章 大學生選校的階段、因素及策略72
第一節 傾向階段72
第二節 搜尋階段77
第三節 決定階段86
第六章 大學生選系的階段、因素及策略102
第一節 傾向階段102
第二節 搜尋階段105
第三節 決定階段112
第七章 結論與建議125
第一節 結論125
第二節 建議129
參考文獻132











表目次
表3-3-1:訪談個案基本資料之一 43
表3-3-2:訪談個案基本資料之二 43
表3-3-3:訪談個案基本資料之三 44
表3-3-4:訪談個案基本資料之四 44
表3-3-5:訪談個案基本資料之五 45
表4-1-1:九十二學年度及九十四學年度大一學生背景變項 50
表4-2-1:選擇大學相關因素重要性排序 52
表4-2-2:性別與選擇大學相關因素重要性排序 53
表4-2-3:父母親教育程度與選擇大學相關因素重要性排序 55
表4-2-4:家庭年收入與選擇大學相關因素重要性排序 56
表4-2-5:高中職畢業時在班上排名與選擇大學相關因素重要性排序 58
表4-2-6:與家庭的關係與選擇大學相關因素重要性排序 60
表4-2-7:選擇科系相關因素重要性排序 63
表4-2-8:性別與選擇科系相關因素重要性排序 64
表4-2-9:父母親教育程度與選擇科系相關因素重要性排序 65
表4-2-10:家庭年收入與選擇科系相關因素重要性排序 66
表4-2-11:高中職畢業時在班上排名與選擇科系相關因素重要性排序 68
表4-2-12:與家庭的關係與選擇科系相關因素重要性排序 69
表5-2-1:選擇大學的資訊管道 77
表5-3-1:受訪者認為選校因素的重要性 86
表6-2-1:選擇科系的資訊管道 105
表6-2-2:受訪者選填志願前對科系的了解程度 108
表6-3-1:受訪者認為選系因素的重要性 112








圖目次
圖2-2-1:Jackson模式(1982) 16
圖2-2-2:Chapman模式(1984) 18
圖2-2-3:Hanson and Litten模式(1982) 19
圖2-2-4:Hossler and Galagher(1987) 20
圖2-3-1:選系的期望價值模式 29
圖2-3-2:科系和職業的選擇模式 30
附錄目次
附錄一 大學生校系選擇訪談大綱 136
1.中文部份
主計處(2005)。受雇就業者每月主要工作之收入-按教育程度分。2006年6月18日,取自 http://www.stat.gov.tw/public/data/dgbas04/bc4/mpwutility/94/mtable48.xls
周素琴 (1992)。從生涯發展的觀點談大專學生選系、轉系及雙主修之輔導。測驗與輔導,110,2202-2204。
邱天助 (1998)。布爾迪厄文化再製理論。台北:桂冠出版社。
林世華 (1995)。社會科學研究法-量化與質化取向。臺北市:心理出版社。
吳毓津(1997)。大學生科系選擇因素的分析--以中央大學與政治大學為例。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,桃園縣。
陳麗如(2003)。大學會計系學生科系選擇影響因素之探討。國立彰化師範大學會計學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化縣。
教育部(2006)。大學法施行細則。2006年6月18日,取自
http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/HIGH-SCHOOL/EDU4584001/i1301/rules/high/1-11.htm?FILEID=22757&open
曾依嵐(2004)。科系選擇因素與大學生心理適應之研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化縣。
黃昌誠(1993)。選讀科系與轉科系應有的認識。測驗與輔導,110,2205-2206。
彭森明(2004)。台灣高等教育資料庫。2008 年 5 月 12 日,取自
http://www.cher.ntnu.edu.tw/analyze.php
彭森明(2006)。台灣高等教育資料庫。2008 年 5 月 12 日,取自
http://www.cher.ntnu.edu.tw/analyze.php
孫志麟(2006)。台灣高等教育擴張政策分析:困境與轉化。台灣教育之回首: 駐足與展望。2005 年台灣教育學術研討會,國立台東大學。
楊惠真(2003)。從行銷觀點探討技職院校學生科系選擇偏好因素之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告(報告編號:NSC 91-2511-S-167-001),未出版。
鄧志平(1996)。高中生選擇大學主修科系決策歷程之研究。國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
戴曉霞(2000)。高等教育的大眾化與市場化。臺北市:揚智文化。
鄭秋霞(2003)。從教育改革談台灣地區入學制度之變革(1994迄今)。私立南華大學公共行政與政策管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。
2.英文部份
Appiah, E. N. (2002). Race and gender differences in educational attainment, field of study, and increments to earnings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign.
Barnes-Teamer, T. A. M. (2003). Confirming college choice: How career aspirations and social capital influence decision-making of technical college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of New Orleans. Louisiana.
Bers, T. H., & Galowich, P. M. (2002). Using survey and focus group research to learn about parents' roles in the community college choice process. Community College Review, 29(4), 67-81.
Bredo, O., Foersom, T. and Laursen(1993). Students’choice: A model. Higher Education Review, 26(1), 64-73.
Ceja, M. A. (2001). Applying, choosing, and enrolling in higher education: Understanding the college choice process of first- generation Chicana students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of California, Los Angeles. Los Angeles.
Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student college choice. The Journal of Higher Education, 52(5), 490-505.
David, M. E., Ball, S. J., Davies, J., & Reay, D. (2003).Gender issues in parental involvement in student choices of higher education. Gender & Education, 15(1), 21-37.
DeMarie, D., & Aloise-Young, P. A. (2003). College students’ interest in their major. College Student Journal, 27(3), 462-470.
Donnellan, J. (2002). The impact of marketer-controlled factors on college- choice decisions by students at a public research university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts.
Dillman, M. L. (2002). The college experience of Native American students: Factors associated with their choice of major, performance and persistence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of Central Florida, Florida.
Espinoza, S. & Bradshaw, G. & Hausman, C. (2002). The importance of college choice factors from the perspective of high school counselors. College and University, 77(4), 19-23.
Foskett, N., & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2001). Choosing futures: Young people’s decision-making in education, training and careers markets. London: RoutledgeFalmer Press.
Goyette, K. A., Mullen, A. L. (2006). Who studies the srts and sciences? Social background and the choice and consequences of undergraduate field of study. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 497-538.
Habibah, A. R. (2001). College major and career choices: Gender inequalities in science and engineering fields in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, California.
Hayton, A., & Paczuska, A. (2002). Access, participation and higher education: Policy and practice. London: Kogan Page.
Hung, T. (2003). Factors influencing school choice of students who would like to attend private technical colleges in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Idaho State University. Idaho.
Hoyt, J. E., & Brown, A. B. (2003). Identifying college choice factors to successfully market your institution. College and University, 78(4), 3-10.
Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N(1999). Going to College : How Social, Economic, and Educational Factors Influence the Decisions Students Make. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kimweli, D. M. S., & Richards, A. G. (1999). Choice of a major and students' appreciation of their major. College Student Journal, 33(1), 16-27.
Kinzie, J., Palmer, M., Hayek, J.n Hossler, D., Jacob, S. A., & Cummings, H. (2004). Fifty years of college choice: Social, political and institutional influences on the decision making process. Retrieved from http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/Hossler.pdf
Lackland, A. C., & De Lisi, R. (2001). Students' choices of college majors that are gender traditional and nontraditional. Journal of college student development, 42(1), 39-48.
Long, B. T. (2000). The market for higher education: Economic analyses of college choice, returns, and state aid policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Massachusetts.
Macrae, S., Maguire, M., & Ball, S. J. (1997). Whose learning society? A tectative deconstruction. Journal of Education Policy, 12(6), 499-509.
McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. New York: State University of New York Press.
Montmarquette, C., Cannings, K., & Mahseredjian, S. (2002). How do young people choose college majors? Economics of Education Review, 21(6), 543-556.
Pritchard, R. E. Potter, G. C. & Saccucci, M. S. (2004). The selection of a business major: Elements influencing student choice and implications for outcomes assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 79(3), 152-157.
Quatroche, T. J. (2004). A study of promotional marketing methods of contact and college-choice preferences among freshman community college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
St. John, E. P., Paulsen, M. B., & Carter, D. F. (2005). Diversity, college costs, and postsecondary opportunity. Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 545-569.
Streveler, T. I. (1986). Changes in the post-high school institutional selection of seniors and factors that influence selection changes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of South Dakota, State of South Dakota.
Shen, C. C. (2003). College choice: Factors and consumption values used by students at a selected Taiwanese university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of South Dakota, State of South Dakota.
Teranishi, R. T., Ceja, M., Antonio, A. L., Allen, W. R., & McDonough, P. (2004). The college-choice process for Asian Pacific Americans: Ethnicity and socioeconomic class in context. Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 527-551.
Uhm, S. Y. (2004). Factors influencing Chinese and Filipino American college students' stereotypical major and occupation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of California, Santa Barbara.
Pascarella, Ernest T. and Terenzini, Patrick T. (2005) How College Affects Students. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Wu, C. L. (2003). Marketing practices and their effectiveness in Taiwan's colleges of technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida International University. Florida.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊