跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.235.120.150) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/31 14:54
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:劉育志
研究生(外文):Liu, Yu-Chih
論文名稱:我國大學入學制度公平性之能力取向分析
論文名稱(外文):Analyzing Social Justice in Access to University in Taiwan from the Capability Approach
指導教授:楊深坑楊深坑引用關係
指導教授(外文):Yang, Shen-Keng
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:教育學系
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文出版年:2021
畢業學年度:109
語文別:中文
論文頁數:201
中文關鍵詞:能力取向大學入學公平
外文關鍵詞:capability approachuniversity admissionsocial justice
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:40
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:11
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
我國自2002年實施大學多元入學方案以來,在入學機會及弱勢入學方面,均仍有許多公平問題值得深入探究。能力取向相較於其他教育公平理論關照更加全面,且能力取向在大學入學制度之研究尚待開拓,過去國內以能力取向探討教育問題之研究,均未建立分析架構,因此,本研究透過詮釋學方法及文件分析法,深入探討能力取向之個體殊異性、資源與轉化因素、抉擇(能動性)、能力與功能運作等核心概念後建立分析架構,並據以分析我國大學入學相關政策、法規及實務上的公平問題。研究發現分述如下:
一、大學入學機會:(一)雖然目前已有繁星推薦、個人申請、考試分發及特殊選才等入學管道,但其中只有個人申請及特殊選才能夠彰顯個體殊異性;(二)家庭經濟及文化資本是影響個體學業表現的重要資源,而個體身心健康、父母職業、高中教師資歷、個體所在縣市等,亦是重要的轉化因素;(三)即使入學管道相當多元,但家庭社經地位影響個體抉擇,且指定科目考試與學科能力測驗有其時間序,考生報考指定科目考試未必出自自由抉擇;(四)符合學力資格,且身心狀態都能符合大學招生規定者才有機會進入大學;(五)選才將個體的優勢條件視為準備好上大學的條件,忽視個體達成該項表現的過程,也未關注到大學入學後能成功的能力;(六)高等教育階層化,家庭社經地位較低的學生進入學費昂貴品質較差的大學。
二、弱勢入學:(一)以經濟或文化不利定義弱勢略顯狹隘,並且以身分界定弱勢也忽視個體殊異性;(二)資源補助以經濟為主,忽視個體不同需求,且未關注個體抱負的重要性;(三)入學管道僅個人申請及特殊選才能凸顯弱勢生的特殊境遇。
針對前述問題,本研究提出實務改革措施及後續研究建議如下:
一、大學入學機會:(一)達成教育機會均等的政策目標,不宜由入學率之量化數據來呈現,必須深入探討限制個體實現這項功能運作的原因,逐一審視資源、轉化因素、個體抱負等關鍵,並將個體就讀的大學之品質亦納入衡量指標;(二)個人申請及特殊選才最能彰顯個體殊異性與能動性,也能以更多元資訊評價學生,應給予大學擴充名額的空間,並持續辦理招生專業化,提升審查員知能,避免個人申請選才淪為積點競賽;(三)個人申請審查尺規之訂定,應更全面考量準備好進入大學的能力,而不是僅以學業表現或優勢條件來選才;(四)調整考試期程,讓考生能真正依照自己的傾向做選擇。
二、弱勢入學:(一)弱勢定義範圍應更為擴大,並且讓不符合現行法定弱勢身分,但受教育之能力確實受到剝奪之個體有陳述的機會;(二)必須察覺「多重弱勢者」其能力受限的程度更為嚴重,分配資源時,應更加細緻地排序;(三)部分大學優先或逕行錄取弱勢生的作法應予修正,可參照美國1978年的Allan Bakke案之後建立的兩階段審查模式;(四)大學校系在建立書審評量尺規時,可將能力、能動性、抱負等概念作為重要的選才構面。
針對後續研究,建議可更進一步採取訪談法,了解個別學生的處境,另外,本研究以外國研究成果提出「準備好進入大學」、「入學後能成功的能力」之能力清單,未來可進一步建構合於我國的能力清單。
Since the implementation of the College Multiple Entrance Program in Taiwan in 2002, there are still many fairness issues that are worthy of in-depth exploration, in terms of admission opportunities and disadvantaged admissions. The capability approach is more comprehensive than other educational equity theories; however, the study of the capability approach has yet to be fully explored. In the past, domestic research on the capability approach, which discussed educational issues, has not established an analytical framework. Therefore, this research uses hermeneutics methods and documentary research, making in-depth exploration of individual diversity, resource and conversion factors; choice (agency); capability and functioning; and other core concepts of the capability approach; and then establishes an analysis framework to analyze relevant policies, regulations and practices of university admissions in Taiwan on fairness issues.
The research findings are as follows:
1. University admission opportunities: (1) Although there are currently four admission channels including the stars program, personal application, examination and placement, and special admission program, only personal application and special admission program can demonstrate individual uniqueness; (2) Family economic and cultural capital are important resources that affect individual academic performance; individual physical and mental health, parental occupation, the applicants’ senior high school teachers’ qualifications, and the individual's geographical location are also important conversion factors; (3) Even though the admission channels are quite diverse, the socioeconomic status of the family affects the individual's choice; moreover, the Advanced Subjects Test and the General Scholastic Ability Test have their time sequence, and candidates may not make free choices when applying for the Advanced Subjects Test; (4) Only those who meet the equivalent education level and meet the university admission regulations can have the opportunity to enter the university; (5) The selection considers the individual's meritocracy as a condition for university readiness, ignores the process by which the individual achieves the performance, and does not pay attention to the capabilities to succeed after admission to the university; (6) Stratification in higher education; students with lower family socioeconomic status enter universities with expensive tuition and lower quality.
2. Enrollment by the disadvantaged: (1) The definition of disadvantage by economic or cultural disadvantage is slightly narrow, and the definition of disadvantage by identity also ignores individual diversity; (2) Resource subsidies are based on economy, ignoring the different needs of individuals, and failing to pay attention to the importance of individual aspirations; (3) Among the admission channels, only personal applications and special admission program can highlight the special circumstances of disadvantaged students.
In response to the aforementioned issues, this study proposes practical reform measures and follow-up research recommendations as follows:
1. University admission opportunities: (1) Achieving the policy goal of equal educational opportunities should not be presented by quantitative data depicting the enrollment ratio. It is necessary to thoroughly explore the reasons that restrict individuals from achieving the actualization of this policy, and examine key factors, such as resources, conversion factors, and individual aspirations. The quality of the individual’s university should also be included as a measure. (2) Personal applications and special admission program can best demonstrate an individual's heterogeneity and agency, and can also enable students to be evaluated with more meta-information. The university should be given room to expand the number of places, and continue to handle admissions specialization, improving the knowledge of examiners, to prevent personal application selection from becoming a point race. (3) The establishment of personal application document review rubrics should take a more comprehensive consideration of the level of university readiness, instead of selecting candidates based on academic performance or meritocracy. (4) Adjusting the examination schedule so that candidates can genuinely choose according to their own preferences.
2. Disadvantaged admission: (1) The scope of the definition of “disadvantaged” should be expanded, so that individuals who do not meet the current statutory disadvantaged status, but whose capability to receive education is indeed deprived, have the opportunity to make a statement. (2) It is necessary to realize that "multiple disadvantaged persons" are more severely restricted in their capabilities. When allocating resources, they should be sorted more carefully. (3) The practice of some universities preferentially or directly enrolling disadvantaged students should be revised. The two-stage review model established after the Allan Bakke case in the United States in 1978 can be a reference. (4) When establishing document review rubrics, the university department can take concepts such as capability, agency, and aspirations as an important aspect of selection.
For follow-up research, it is recommended to take further interviews to understand the situation of individual students. In addition, this research uses foreign research results to propose a capability list of "university readiness" and "capability to succeed after admission", which in the future can be further constructed into a capability list that fits the situation in Taiwan.
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究問題背景 1
第二節 本研究之重要性及研究目的 13
第三節 研究方法與研究設計 15
第四節 研究資料 21
第二章 能力取向的思想淵源及其核心概念 27
第一節 能力取向的思想淵源 27
第二節 能力取向之核心概念 35
第三節 能力取向之相關評論 59
第三章 能力取向與其他教育公平理論之比較 67
第一節 教育在能力取向中的重要性 67
第二節 能力取向對效益論及Rawls資源分配規則的批判 69
第三節 教育公平的個人及社會結構層面分析 81
第四節 能力取向在教育公平理論中的獨特性 89
第四章 大學入學公平性能力取向分析架構之建構 97
第一節 當代教育公平分析模式之能力取向批判 97
第二節 大學入學機會之能力取向分析架構 103
第三節 大學弱勢入學之能力取向分析架構 111
第五章 我國大學入學機會之能力取向分析 119
第一節 個體殊異性 119
第二節 資源與轉化因素 125
第三節 抉擇 128
第四節 能力與功能運作 130
第五節 綜合評述 138
第六章 我國大學弱勢入學之能力取向分析 149
第一節 弱勢定義 149
第二節 資源補助 157
第三節 入學管道 163
第四節 綜合評述 168
第七章 結論與建議 179
第一節 結論 179
第二節 建議 182
參考文獻 185
卜少平、駱明慶 (2015)。父母對子女教育投資的性別差異-以就學貸款為例。人文及社會科學集刊,27(2),361-393。
大學招生委員會聯合會(2019,4月14日)。數據追蹤發現 對弱勢生最不利的是考試。http://www.jbcrc.edu.tw/documents/news/20190414%20%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E%E7%A8%BF.pdf
王文珊(2009)。中部地區高中職學習障礙學生教育需求現況調查研究【未出版之碩士論文】。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系。
王秀槐(2014)。多元的教入學制度下育機會均等:經由不同入學管道進入不同類型學校的大一學生家庭社經背景之研究。市北教育學刊,47,21-46。
王秀槐、黃金俊(2010)。擇其所愛、愛其所擇:從自我決定理論看大學多元入學制度下學生的科系選擇、學業投入、學習成果與滿意程度。 教育科學研究,55(2),1-27
王俊斌(2007)。潛能取向理論與教育公平性問題。教育與社會研究,13,41-70。
王俊斌(2010)。論M. Nussbaum「能力取向」的正義觀與教育發展。教育研究集刊,56(2),41-69。
王俊斌(2012a)。效用、基本善與能力發展─論「平等」的多元視野及其教育蘊義。教育研究集刊,58(2),37-69。
王俊斌(2012b)。Amarya Sen的能力取向與育中的社會正義。當代教育研究,20(3),171-189。
王俊斌(2013)。論當代「能力取向理論」發展及其對高等教育研究之影響。教育科學期刊,12(2),1-22。
王俊斌(2016)。教育制度中的社會正義理論分析-多元觀點與比較基礎建構。臺灣教育社會學研究,16(2),29-63。
王逸慧(2007)。大學甄選入學制度之潛在課程探究。臺灣教育社會學研究,7(2),39-81。
王裕玫(2005)。國中普通班學習障礙學生及其教師所遇困難及支援服務需求之研究【未出版之碩士論文】。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所。
田弘華、田芳華(2008)。大學多元入學制度下不同入學管道之大一新生特性比較。人文及社會科學集刊,20(4),500-501。
石元康(1989)。洛爾斯。東大。
行政院主計總處(1994)。家庭收支調查報告。https://win.dgbas.gov.tw/fies/a11.asp?year=93
行政院主計總處(2019)。家庭收支調查報告。https://win.dgbas.gov.tw/fies/a11.asp?year=108
K. Marx & F. Engels(1991)。資本論(第一卷)【吳家駟譯】。時報文化。(原著出版年:1867)。
吳景雲、劉美慧( 2006 年 5 月19-20日)。高等教育原住民學生學校適應之研究【論文發表】。2006 年台灣高等教育與學生事務國際學術研討會,臺北市,臺灣。
吳雅玲、李清蓉(2011)。低收入戶高中職學生之學校教育經驗、學業自我概念、教育抱負與職業抱負之關係。技職教育期刊,4,23-38。
呂溪木、黃武次(2004)。暢通升學管道之成效與檢討。臺北市:監察院。
巫有鎰、黃毅志(2009)。山地原住民成績比平地原住民差嗎?可能影響臺東縣原住民各族與漢人國小學生學業成績差異的因素機制。臺灣教育社會學研究,9(1),41-89。
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。臺東大學教育學報,15(1),1-32。
李坤融(2017,11月15日)。身障生上大學也需適性選讀。大學問。https://www.unews.com.tw/News/Info/746
李奉儒(2014)。教育哲學研究之詮釋學方法。載於林逢祺、洪仁進(主編),教育哲學:方法篇(頁45-75)。學富。
李俊豪(2010)。解釋學生基測成績差異之個人因素與地區因素。地理學報,60,67-102。
汪耀文(2018)。我國身心障礙者就學權益之初探- 以「就學費用減免」及「升學輔導與保障」為例。社區發展季刊,162,169-178。
沈姍姍(2010)。英國高等教育入學機制之探討-教育篩選意義、能力訴求與社會公平。教育資料研究集刊,48,139-168。
沈暉智、林明仁(2019)。論家戶所得與資產對子女教育之影響-以1993-1995 出生世代及其父母稅務資料為例。經濟論文叢刊,47(3),393-453。
周新富(2008)。社會階級對子女學業成就的影響-以家庭資源為分析架構。臺灣教育社會學研究,8(1),1-43。
林生傳(2004)。台灣近期教育改革的透視與省思。教育學刊,24,1-35。
A. Sen(2013)。正義的理念【林宏濤譯】。商周。(原著出版年:2009)。
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,53(4),107-144。
林建福(2009)。德行取向的道德教育:從亞里斯多德、康德與彌爾的德行思想到當代品格教育。學富。
林真平、陳靜江(2003)。身心障礙大學生壓力因應歷程之探討。東台灣特殊教育學報,5,143-162。
邱皓政、林碧芳(2016)。孰優、孰弱?臺灣學生學習成就軌跡之異質性分析。當代教育研究季刊,24(1),33-79。
柯志堂(2007)。我國高等教育弱勢學生平等權利保護之初探。載於鄧毓浩(主編),高等教育與學生事務(頁421-442)。國立臺灣師範大學。
洪伯勳(2015)。製造低收入戶。群學。
秦夢群(2004)。大學多元入學制度實施與改革之研究。教育政策論壇,7(2),59-84。
張宜君、林宗弘(2015)。臺灣的高等教育擴張與階級複製:混合效應維續的不平等。臺灣教育社會學研究,15(2),85-129。
張芳華(2013)。學業成就成長軌跡:檢視教師品質與教學實踐對學生學習的重要性。教育政策論壇,16(4),135-168。
張芳華(2015)。家庭社經地位、社會資本對高中學生教育抱負影響之分析。教育研究學報,49(2),19-40。
張訓譯(2017)。大學入學甄試影響教育機會均等之分析。育達科大學報,45,69-90。
張統偉(2000)。由情緒輔導方案探討身心障礙大學生同儕關係情緒覺察、認知思考及行為因應模式之研究【未出版之碩士論文】。國立東華大學教育研究所。
張鈿富(2006)。大學多元入學機會與壓力。五南。
張鈿富、葉連祺、張奕華(2005)。大學多元入學方案對入學機會之影響。教育政策論壇,8(2),1-23。
張碧芬、余民寧 (1993)。我國大學的教育機會均等、需求與發展之因果模式的探討。教育與心理研究,16,223-254。
教育部(2001)。2001年教育改革之檢討與改進會議。
教育部(2002)。中華民國教育年報91年版。
教育部(2013)。教育部人才培育白皮書。https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/attach/5/pta_2189_2524507_39227.pdf
教育部(2014)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/288/%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C%E5%B9%B4%E5%9C%8B%E6%95%99%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%B6%B1%E8%A6%81%E7%B8%BD%E7%B6%B1.pdf
教育部(2015a年8月18日)。起飛計畫-啟動對弱勢學生的全程關照。https://www.edu.tw/news_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=1FEB9E95590E50D8
教育部(2015b)。近年經濟弱勢生以多元管道進入大學之概況分析。https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/analysis/%E8%BF%91%E5%B9%B4%E7%B6%93%E6%BF%9F%E5%BC%B1%E5%8B%A2%E7%94%9F%E4%BB%A5%E5%A4%9A%E5%85%83%E7%AE%A1%E9%81%93%E9%80%B2%E5%85%A5%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%B8%E4%B9%8B%E6%A6%82%E6%B3%81%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90.pdf
教育部(2019a年5月22日)。關於大學擴大個人申請招生名額比例之補充說明。https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ed2200/News_Content.aspx?n=90774906111B0527&s=CD16E711A490159D
教育部(2019b年10月23日)。109學年度特殊選才開始招生 提供不同才能學生升學便利通。https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=A73981D9E13CD0D9
教育部(2020a)。多元入學。http://history.moe.gov.tw/policy.asp?id=3
教育部(2020b)。大學多元入學方案(壹百壹拾壹學年度起適用)。http://www.jbcrc.edu.tw/documents/others/111%E5%AD%B8%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E8%B5%B7%E9%81%A9%E7%94%A8%E4%B9%8B%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%B8%E5%A4%9A%E5%85%83%E5%85%A5%E5%AD%B8%E6%96%B9%E6%A1%88.pdf
教育部國民及學前教育署(2020)。高級中等教育階段學生學習歷程檔案:109學年度高級中等學校說明版 。http://www.dysh.tyc.edu.tw/resource/openfid.php?id=13860
曹亮吉(1995)。大學入學制度。教改通訊,6,5-7。
許崇憲(2002)。家庭背景因素與子女學業成就之關係:臺灣樣本的後設分析。中正教育研究,1(2),25-62。
許雅惠(2009)。大專校院身心障礙學生依附內在運作模式與人際衝突因應方式之分析研究。特殊教育研究學刊,34(2),27-46。
陳正昌(2005年11月11日)。社會階層背景與大學入學機會【論文發表】。第三屆社會理論與教育研討會,屏東市,臺灣。
陳伊琳(2016)。Aristotle幸福論觀點下的致福之道與幸福的脆弱性:幸福、運氣與品德教育。教育研究集刊,62(2),1-34。
陳建州、劉正(2004)。論多元入學方案之教育機會均等性。教育研究集刊,50(4),115-146。
陳聖明、王心怡、黃靜雯(2013)。從文化資本及能力取向探討社經文化殊異資優生之教育機會均等議題。資優教育季刊,126,33-40。
陳儒晰(2007)。教育選拔與多元入學的批判教育社會學分析。育達學院學報,13,91-112。
陳學志(2017)。新移民學童的領域特定與領域一般創造力表現及其心理機制研究:以種族增長觀信念、文化距離以及多元文化創造性教學為中介及調節變項。科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告(MOST 103-2511-S-003-021-MY3)。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系。
陳麗如(2008)。大專校院身心障礙學生生活困擾與資源運用之分析。特殊教育研究學刊,33(3),25-54。
陶宏麟、吳澤玫(2019)。從效率與公平評估臺灣的大學入學制度改革。人文及社會科學集刊,31(3),385-426。
陸慧蓮(2011)。一般大學多元入學與就學機會之研究【未出版之碩士論文】。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系。
傅祖壇(2011)。臺灣高等教育院校之學校品質、經營效率與最適規模分析。教育科學研究期刊,56(3),181-213。
曾大千、陳炫任、葉盈君(2014)。論教育政策之弱勢類別及其法制規範內涵。彰化師大教育學報,26,73-96
曾大千、陳盈宏(2018)。弱勢學生大學入學優惠政策及其入學前協助措施之研究。教育政策與管理,3,1-27。
曾瓊禎(2011)。從能力理論及社會關係模式探討特殊教育議題。特殊教育季刊,120,27-36。
黃宇瑀(2018)。我國大學繁星計畫之政策發展與分析【未出版之碩士論文】。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系。
黃俊峰(2015)。在教育機會均等與適足性之間-Amartya Sen能力取向的觀點【未出版之博士論文】。國立高雄師範大學教育學系。
黃國彥(2000)。文件分析法。教育大辭書。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1303274/?index=1
黃毅志、陳怡靖(2005)。臺灣的升學問題:教育社會學理論與研究之檢討。台灣教育社會學研究,5(1),77-118。
楊深坑(1988)。理論、詮釋與實踐-教育學方法論論文集(甲輯)。師大書苑。
楊深坑(2008)。社會公義、差異政治與教育機會均等的新視野。當代教育研究季刊,16(4),1-37。
楊凱傑(2013)。從教育機會均等論原住民學生在大學申請入學時之積極優惠措施【未出版之碩士論文】。國立政治大學公共行政研究所。
楊瑩(1994)。教育機會均等-教育社會學的探究。師大書苑。
楊瑩(2014)。我國高等教育受教機會公平性之探討。載於中國教育學會(主編),教改20年:回顧與前瞻(頁247-284)。學富。
銀慶貞、陶宏麟、洪嘉瑜(2015)。由大學多元入學者的個人背景與滿意度評估多元入學的成效。應用經濟論叢,98,1-53。
劉若蘭、林大森(2011)。影響大學生畢業流向因素之研究。當代教育研究季刊,19(1),101-144。
W. Kymlicka(2003)。當代政治哲學導論【劉莘譯】。聯經。(原著出版年:1990)。
A. Sen(2001)。經濟發展與自由【劉楚俊譯】。先覺。(原著出版年:1999)。
M. Sandel(2011)。正義:一場思辨之旅【樂為良譯】。雅言文化。(原著出版年:2008)。
蔡淑鈴(2004)。高等教育的擴展對教育機會分配的影響。台灣社會學,7,47-88。
蔡錦德、廖鳳池(2003)。不同性別、志願序學校、家庭經濟狀況高中生職業可能自我之差異研究。咨商與輔導學報,9,103-134。
衛生福利部(2016)。105身心障礙者生活狀況及需求調查報告。https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/dos/cp-1770-3599-113.html
鄭英耀、方德隆、莊勝義、陳利銘及劉敏如(2015)。大學經濟弱勢學生入學及就學扶助政策分析與建議。教育科學研究期刊,60(4),1-19。
鄭勝耀(2011)。弱勢教育公平指標之研究。教育政策論壇,14(4),63-88。
鄭勝耀、黃瀞瑩(2014)。我國弱勢教育政策與社會公平之研究。教育研究月刊,242,5-16。
鄭雯如(2006)。WTO-GATS下高等教育市場化與資源分配論述之反思-Amartya Sen與Martha Nussbaum「能力理論之應用」【未出版之碩士論文】。東吳大學政治學系。
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。
駱明慶(2004)。升學機會與家庭背景。經濟論文叢刊,32(4),417-445。
戴台馨(2011)。從經濟思想家Amartya Sen的「發展」觀點談身心障礙生的潛能發展。全人教育學報,8,159-180。
謝一民(2017)。如何提升弱勢生的社會流動性-以中央大學為例【未出版之碩士論文】。國立中央大學數學研究所。
謝嘉璘(2006)。臺灣原住民升學優待政策之研究-以升學加分和原住民族教育體系為例【未出版之碩士論文】。國立台北教育大學教育政策與管理研究所。
顏國樑(2014)。我國中小學教師專業發展評鑑執行成效、挑戰與對策-教育政策運作過程的觀點。新竹縣教育研究集刊,14,5-38。
譚以敬、吳清山(2009)。臺北市弱勢學生教育政策的現況及其未來因應措施之研究。教育行政與評鑑學刊,8,77-94。
Alkire, S. (2005). Why capability approach? Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 115-133.
Alkire, S., & Deneulin, S. (2009). The human development and capability approach. In S. Deneulin & L. Shahani (Eds.). An introduction to the human development and capability approach: Freedom and agency (pp.22-48). Earthscan.
Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2009). Poverty and inequality measurement. In S. Deneulin & L. Shanai (Eds.). An introduction to the human development and capability approach: Freedom and agency (pp.121-161). Earthscan.
Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). In Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 127-186). New Left Press.
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive Methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage.
Alexander, M. (2008). Capabilities and social justice: the political philosophy of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. Ashgate.
Aristotle (1975). The Nicomachean ethics. (H. G. Apostle, Trans.). D. Reidel.
Aristotle (1984). The politics (C. Lord, Trans.). The University of Chicago Press.
Benadusi, L. (2001). Equity and education: A critical review of sociological research and thought. In W. Hutmacher, D. Cochrane, & N. Bottani (Eds.), In pursuit of equity in education: Using international indicators to compare equity policies (pp. 25-64). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bentham, J. (1823). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/bentham1780.pdf
Boni, A., & Walker, M. (Eds.). (2013). Human development and capabilities: Re-imagining the university of the twenty-first century. Routledge.
Boudon, R. (1973). Education, opportunity, and social inequality: Changing prospects in western society. Librairie Armand.
Boudon, R. (2009). Rational choice theory. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new blackwell companion to social theory (pp.179-195). Wiley-Blackwell.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (N. Richard, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1979)
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp.241-258). Greenwood.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2011). Schooling in capitalist America. Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. Haymarket Books.
Burchardt, T., & Hick, R. (2016). The capability approach to advantage and disadvantage. In Dean, H. and Platt, L. (Eds.), Social Advantage and Disadvantage (pp.25-41), Oxford University Press.
Calitz, T. M. (2019). Enhancing the freedom to flourish in higher education. Routledge.
Calitz, T. M. L., Walker, M., & Wilson-Strydom, M. (2016). Theorising a capability approach to equal participation for undergraduate students at a South African university. Perspectives in Education, 34(2), 57-69.
Campbell, L. A., & McKendrick, J. H. (2017). Beyond aspirations: deploying the capability approach to tackle the under-representation in higher education of young people from deprived communities. Studies in Continuing Education, 39(2), 120-137.
Cheng, S. Y., & Jacob, W. J. (2012). Expansion and stratification of higher educational opportunity in Taiwan. Chinese Education and Society, 45(5-6), 112-133.
Cohen, G. A. (1993). Equality of what? On welfare, goods, and capabilities. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of live (pp. 9-29). Oxford University Press.
Conley, D. T. (2003). Understanding university success. A report from standards for success. Center for Educational Policy Research.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299.
Crocker, C., & Robeyns, I. (2010). Capability and agency. In C. W. Morris (Ed.), Amartya Sen (pp. 60-90). Cambridge University Press.
Davis, K., & Moore, W. E. (1944). Some principles of stratification. American Sociological Review, 10(2), 242-249.
Deneulin, S., & McGregor, J. A. (2010). The capability approach and the politics of a social conception of wellbeing. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(4), 501-519.
Deprez, L. S., & Butler, S. S. (2007). The capability approach and women’s economic security: Access to higher education under welfare reform. In M. Walker & E. Unterhalter (eds.), Amartya Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education (pp. 215-235). Palgrave Macmillan.
Drèze, J., & Sen, A. (2002). India: Development and participation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press
Driver, J. (2014). The history of utilitarianism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/utilitarianism-history/.
Dworkin, R. (2000). Sovereign virtue. Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, R. (2011). Justice for hedgehogs. Harvard University Press.
East, L., Stokes, R., & Walker, M. (2014). Universities, the public good and professional education in the UK. Studies in Higher Education, 39(9), 1617-1633.
European Group of Research on Equity of the Educational System. (2001). Equity of the European educational system: A set of indicators (Project Socrates SO2-61OBGE). Retrieved from http://www.okm.gov.hu/download.php?docID=296
Field, S., Kuczera, M., & Pont, B. (2007). No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/45179151.pdf
Gosepath, S. (2007). Equality. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/equality/.
Gutman, L.M., & Akerman, R. (2008). Determinants of aspirations. Centre for Research on wider benefits of learning.
Harrison, N. (2017). Student choices under uncertainty: Bounded rationality and behavioural economics. In A. Mountford-Zimdars & N. Harrison (Eds.), Access to higher education: Theoretical perspectives and contemporary challenges (pp. 85-100). Routledge.
Hart, C. S. (2007). The capability approach as an evaluative and development framework for education policy: The example of widening participation in higher education in England. Prospero, 13(3), 34-52.
Hart, C. S. (2009). Quo vadis? The capability space and new directions for the philosophy of educational research. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28, 391-402.
Hart, C. S. (2013). Aspirations, education and social justice: Applying Sen and Bourdieu. Bloomsbury.
Hyun, H. S. (2011). Equity and well-being: Measurement and policy practice. Routledge.
Ibrahim, S. (2014). Introduction. In M. Tiwari & S. Ibrahim (Eds.), The capability approach: From theory to practice (pp. 1-28). Palgrave Macmillan.
Jupp, V., & Norris, C. (1993). Traditions in documentary analysis. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Social research: Philosophy, politics and practice. Sage.
Kellaghan, T. (2001). Towards a definition of educational disadvantage. The Irish Journal of Education, xxxii, 3-22.
Kerr, C. (1994). Troubled times for American higher education: the 1990s and beyond. State University of New York Press.
Leßmann, O. (2012). Applying the capability approach empirically: An overview with special attention to labor. Management Revue, 23(2), 98-118.
Louzano, P. (2001). Developing education equity indicators in Latin America (OREALC/2001/PI/H/18). http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001617/161770e.pdf
Lucas, S. (2001). Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1642-1690.
Lynch, K., & O’Riordan, C. (1998). Inequality in higher education: A study of class barriers. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(4), 445-478.
Marx, K. (1845-46). The German ideology. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/
Marx, K. (1875). Critique of the Gotha Programme. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
McCulloch, G. (2004). Documentary research in education, history and the social science. RoutledgeFalmer.
McDonough, K. (2014). Utilitarianism. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy (pp. 821-823). Sage.
Meuret, D. (2001a). A system of equity indicators for educational system. In W. Hutmacher, D. Cochrane, & N. Bottani (Eds.), In pursuit of equity in education: Using international indicators to compare equity policies (pp. 133-164). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Meuret, D. (2001b). School equity as a matter of justice. In W. Hutmacher, D. Cochrane, & N. Bottani (Eds.), In pursuit of equity in education: Using international indicators to compare equity policies (pp. 93-112). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/utilitarianism.pdf
Mitra (2006). The capability approach and disability. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16(4), 236-247.
Nelson, E. (2008). From primary goods to capabilities distributive justice and the problem of neutrality. Political Theory, 36(1), 93-122.
Nussbaum, M. & Sen, A. (1993). Introduction. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of live (pp. 1-6). Oxford University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (1987). Nature, function and capability: Aristotle on political distribution (WP 31). World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University.
Nussbaum, M. (1995a). Introduction. In M. Nussbaum & J. Glover (Eds.), Women, culture, and development: A study of human capabilities (pp. 1-34). Oxford University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (1995b). Human capabilities, female human beings. In M. Nussbaum & J. Glover (Eds.), Women, culture, and development: A study of human capabilities (pp. 61-104). Oxford University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (1997). Capabilities and human rights. Fordham Law Review, 66(2), 273-300.
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capability approach. Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
Parsons, T. (1940). An analytical approach to the theory of social stratification. American Journal of Sociology, 45(6), 841-862.
Parsons, T. (1961). The school class as a social system: Some of its functions in American society. In A. H. Halsey, J. Floud, & C. A. Anderson (Eds.), Education, economy and society: A reader in the sociology of education (pp.434-455). The Free Press.
Pierik, R., & Robeyns, I. (2007). Resources versus capabilities: Social endowments in egalitarian theory. Political Studies, 55, 133-152.
Pogge, T. W. (2002). Can the capability approach be justified? Philosophical Topics, 30(2), 167-228.
Raftery, A. E., & Hout, M. (1993). Maximally maintained inequality: Expansion, reform, and opportunity in Irish education, 1921-75. Sociology of Education, 66(1), 41-62
Rajapakse, N. (2016). Amartya Sen’s capability approach and education: Enhancing social justice. Revue LISA/LISA e-journal, XIV-n°1. http://journals.openedition.org/lisa/8913
Rawls, J. (1958). Justice as fairness. The philosophical review, 67(2), 164-194.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (1982). Social unity and primary goods. In A. Sen & B. Williams (eds.), Utilitarianism and beyond (pp.159-186). Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, J. (1988). The priority of right and ideas of the good. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 17(4), 251-276.
Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press.
Robeyns, I. (2003). Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: Selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2-3), 61-92.
Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: a theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93-114.
Robeyns, I. (2006). Tree models of education: Right, capabilities and human capital. Theory and Research in Education, 4(1), 69-84.
Robeyns, I. (2016a). The Capability Approach. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/capability-approach/.
Robeyns, I. (2016b). Capabilitarianism. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 17(3), 397-414.
Robeyns, I. (2017). Wellbeing, freedom and social justice: The capability approach re-examined. Retrieved from https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/682
Ruswa, A., Chikobvu, D., & Walker, M. (2014). The Capabilities approach and measurement: The influence of human capabilities on student academic achievement - A case study in South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23), 1139-1150.
Saito, M. (2003). Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education: A critical exploration. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(1), 17-33
Scott. W. R. (2014). Institution and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage.
Sen, A. (1970). Collective choice and social welfare. Holden-Day.
Sen, A. (1974). Rawls versus Bentham: An axiomatic examination of the pure distribution problem. Theory and Decision, 4, 301-309.
Sen, A. (1979). Utilitarianism and welfarism. The journal of philosophy, 76(9), 463-489.
Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In S. M. McMurrin (Ed.), The Tanner lectures on human values: Vol. 1 (pp. 195-220). Cambridge University Press.
Sen, A. (1983). Poor, relatively speaking. Oxford Economic Papers, 35(2), 153-169.
Sen, A. (1984). Resources, values and development. Blackwell.
Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169-221.
Sen, A. (1986). The stander of living. In S. M. McMurrin (Ed.), The Tanner lectures on human values: Vol. 7 (pp. 5-51). University of Utah Press.
Sen, A. (1987). The standard of living. Cambridge University Press.
Sen, A. (1989). Development as capability expansion. Journal of Development Planning, 19, 41-58.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of live (pp. 30-53). Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (1994). Well-being, capability and public policy. Giornale degli Economisti e Annali de Economia, 53(7/9), 333-347.
Sen, A. (1999a). Commodities and capabilities. North-Holland.
Sen, A. (1999b). Development as freedom. Anchor Books.
Sen, A. (2000a). Merit and justice. In K. Arrow, S. Bowles, & S. Durlauf (Eds.). Meritocracy and Economic Inequality (pp.5-16). Princeton University Press
Sen, A. (2000b). Social exclusion: Concept, application, and scrutiny. Asian Development Bank.
Sen, A. (2004). Capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77-80.
Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151-166.
Sen, A. (2006). Reason, freedom and well-being. Utilitas, 18(1), 80-96.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press
Sen, A., & Williams, B. (1982). Introduction: Utilitarianism and beyond. In A. Sen & B. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism and beyond (pp.1-22). Cambridge University Press.
Shields, L., Newman, A., & Satz, D. (2017). Equality of educational opportunity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/equal-ed-opportunity/
Smith, A. (2007). An inquiry into the nature and cause of the wealth of nations. https://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf
Terzi, L. (2005). Beyond the dilemma of difference: The capability approach to disability and special educational needs. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(3), 443-459.
Terzi, L. (2008). Justice and equality in education: A capability perspective on disability and special education needs. Continuum.
Tilak, J. B. G. (2002). Education and poverty. Journal of Human Development, 3(2), 191-207.
Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. Carnegie Commission on higher education.
Tsai, S.-L., Shavit, Y. (2007). Taiwan: Higher education- Expansion and equality of educational opportunity. In Y. Shavit, R. Arum & A. Gamoran (Eds.). Stratification in higher education: A comparative study (pp.104-164). Stanford University Press.
UNESCO (2009). 2009 World Conference on Higher Education: the New Dynamics of Higher Education and Research for Societal Change and Development, Communique. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNESCO (2018). Handbook on measuring equity in education. http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/handbook-measuring-equity-education-2018-en.pdf
Unterhalter, E. (2009). Education. In S. Deneulin & L. Shahani (Eds.), An introduction to the human development and capability approach: Freedom and agency (pp.207-227). Earthscan.
Unterhalter, E., & Walker, M. (2007). Conclusion: Capabilities, social justice, and education. In M. Walker & E. Unterhalter (Eds.), Amartya Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education (pp. 239-253). Palgrave Macmillan.
Vaughan, R. (2007). Measuring capabilities: An example from girls’ schooling. In M. Walker & E. Unterhalter (Eds.), Amartya Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education (pp. 109-130). Palgrave Macmillan.
Vizard, P., & Fukuda-Parr, S., & Elson, D. (2011). Introduction: The capability approach and human rights. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 12(1), 1-22.
Walker, M. (2006). Higher education pedagogies. Open University Press.
Walker, M., & Mkwanazi, F. (2015). Challenges in accessing higher education: A case study of marginalized young people in one South African informal settlement. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 40-49.
Walker, M., & Unterhalter, E. (2007). The capability approach: Its potential for work in education. In M. Walker & E. Unterhalter (Eds.), Amartya Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education (pp. 1-18). Palgrave Macmillan.
Walker, M., & Wilson-Strydom, M. (Eds.). (2017). Socially just pedagogies, capabilities and quality in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Walker, M., McLean, M., Dison, A., & Peppin-Vaughan, R. (2009). South Africa universities and human development: Towards a theorization and operationalization of professional capabilities for poverty reduction. International Journal of Educational Development, 29, 565-572.
Walton, E., Bowman, B., & Osman, R. (2015). Promoting access to higher education in an unequal society. South African Journal of Higher Education, 29(1), 262-269.
Watts, M., & Bridges, D. (2006). Enhancing students’ capabilities? UK higher education and the widening participation agenda. In S. Deneulin, M. Nebel, & N. Sagovsky (Eds.)., Transforming unjust structure: The capability approach (pp.143-160). Springer.
Wikström, C., & Wikström, M. (2020). Merit-based admissions in higher education. In M. E. Oliveri & C. Wendler (Eds.), Higher education admissions practices (pp.34-50). Cambridge University Press.
Wilson-Strydom, M. (2011). University access for social justice: a capabilities perspective. South Africa Journal of Education, 31, 407-418.
Wilson-Strydom, M. (2012). A framework for facilitating the transition from school to university in south Africa: A capabilities approach. University of the Free State.
Wilson-Strydom, M. (2015). University access and success: Capabilities, diversity and social justice. Routledge.
Wilson-Strydom, M. (2017a). Widening access with success: Using the capabilities approach to confront injustice. In A. Mountford-Zimdars & N. Harrison (Eds.), Access to higher education: Theoretical perspectives and contemporary challenges (pp. 113-127). Routledge.
Wilson-Strydom, M. (2017b). Disrupting structural inequalities of higher education opportunity: “Grit”, resilience and capability at a South African university. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18(3), 384-398.
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