华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)

华东师范大学学报(教育科学版) ›› 2023, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (1): 40-49.doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2023.01.004

• 专题：潜在类别模型在教育研究中的应用 • 上一篇    下一篇

农村小学生同伴攻击受侵害类型及其学校适应：基于潜在剖面分析

吴旻1, 宋文琦1, 梁丽婵2   

  1. 1. 赣南师范大学教育科学学院，江西赣州 341000
    2. 北京师范大学中国基础教育质量监测协同创新中心，北京 100875
  • 接受日期:2022-09-02 出版日期:2023-01-01 发布日期:2022-12-29
  • 基金资助:
    教育部人文社会科学研究项目“乡村振兴下农村寄宿儿童心理资本与社会适应”（19YJC880094）；江西省高校人文社会科学课题“习近平新时代中国特色社会主义青年责任观教育有效机制研究”（JD18113）

Types of Aggressive Victims of Rural Pupils and Their School Adaptation: Based on Latent Profile Analysis

Min Wu1, Wenqi Song1, Lichan Liang2   

  1. 1. School of Education, Gannan Normal University, Ganzhou 341000, China
    2. Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment toward Basic Education Quality, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100871, China
  • Accepted:2022-09-02 Online:2023-01-01 Published:2022-12-29

RichHTML

119

PDF

1092

摘要：

以1489名4—6年级农村小学生为研究对象，采用潜在剖面分析方法探索其攻击与受侵害类型，并进一步探究不同类型与其学校适应的关系。结果表明：（1） 农村小学生攻击受侵害可以分为4类：“高攻击–高受侵害型”“低攻击–高受侵害型”“中攻击–中受侵害型”及“低卷入型”；（2） 不同类型具有一定的“共发性”，除“高攻击–高受侵害型”外，各类型均表现出间接攻击高于直接攻击，间接受侵害高于直接受侵害；（3） 不同类型的个体在性别、年级、是否寄宿上均差异显著，男生、低年级、寄宿生更容易卷入校园欺负；（4） 不同类型的个体在学校适应上的表现有别：在积极情绪及消极情绪上，“高攻击–高受侵害型”个体得分均显著高于其他各类型，在人际关系和学业表现上，“低卷入型”个体得分显著优于其他各类型。因此，应重视农村小学生的校园欺负行为，建议根据不同类型学生的特点及适应状况，有针对性地进行干预及预防，尤其是“高攻击–高受侵害”者。

关键词: 同伴攻击, 同伴受侵害, 农村小学生, 潜在剖面分析

Abstract:

The current study investigated whether there were distinct subgroups of rural children who experienced different forms of aggression and victimization using Latent Profile Analysis (LPA), and whether these subgroups differed from one another in their different levels of school adaptation. Participants were children in grades 4-6 from rural central primary schools. It showed that, first, four subgroups were identified, including “high aggression-victimization subgroup” “high victimization subgroup” “medium aggression-victimization subgroup” and “low involvement subgroup”. Second, there was high degree of co-occurrence among four subgroups of aggression and victimization. Except the “high aggression-victimization subgroup”, all subgroups showed that indirect aggression was higher than direct aggression, and indirect victimization was higher than direct victimization. Third, there were significant differences in gender, grade and boarding status among different subgroups. Boys, lower grade and boarding students were more likely to be involved in school victimization. Fourth, in terms of school adaption, the scores of positive and negative emotions in “high aggression-victimization subgroup” were significantly higher than those in other subgroups. However, the scores of interpersonal relationship and academic achievement of “low involvement subgroup” were significantly better than those of other subgroups. Therefore, we should pay more attention to rural schools, pay attention to rural primary school students who are in “high aggression-victimization subgroup”, and carry out targeted intervention and prevention according to the characteristics of different subgroups and students' adaptation.

Key words: peer aggression, peer victimization, rural primary school students, Latent Profile Analysis