Adolescents’ reading literacy is affected by both ascribed and self-achieved characteristics，while the research on the heterogeneity effects of the ascribed and self-achieved factors is insufficient. Based on the data from Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in the four provinces/municipalities of Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang in 2018, this paper used the methods of Shapley value decomposition, quantile regression model, and structural equation model, aimed to examine the impact of ascribed and self-achieved factors on students’ reading literacy. The study finds that: (1) the effect of ascribed factors on the students’ reading literacy is significantly lower than the self-achieved factors. Using effective reading meta-cognitive strategies, keeping positive self-expectations and strong enjoyment of reading are the key elements of higher reading performance of students in the four provinces/municipalities of China. (2) The impact of family background on students’ reading literacy is heterogeneous at different stages of education, different types of schools, and different regions. (3) Self-achieved factors such as meta-cognitive strategies and reading enjoyment are more significant for students’ reading performance in upper secondary level, vocational schools, and rural areas. (4) The effects of family background on students’ reading literacy in different quantiles is lower at both ends and higher at the middle, especially for students in the 50th quantile who have the greatest influence on reading literacy. (5) Compared to understanding and remembering strategies and summarizing strategies, assess credibility strategies had a higher positive effect on students’ reading literacy in low quantiles. (6) Obsessed with digital reading or paranoid about printed reading is not the most effective reading habit. Read books equally often in paper format and on digital devices were more conducive to improving students’ reading literacy, and significantly reduced the effects of family background. These findings indicate that the key to improving adolescents’ reading literacy lies in cultivating adolescents to grasp diversified meta-cognitive strategies, strengthen the construction of communities with home-school cooperation, and promote the deep integration of digital reading and printed reading.
安德烈亚斯·施莱歇尔. (2018). 超越PISA: 如何建构21世纪学校体系( 徐瑾劼译). 上海: 上海教育出版社.
陈纯槿. (2017). 教育精准扶贫与代际流动. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
郭丛斌, 闵维方. (2009). 教育: 创设合理的代际流动机制—结构方程模型在教育与代际流动关系研究中的应用. 教育研究,30(10),5-12
胡咏梅, 唐一鹏. (2018). 学习策略与教学策略哪个更重要?. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),(3),41-56
黄雨恒, 史静寰. (2018). 教育、出身与政策: 少数民族大学生入学机会的分配机制研究. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),36(4),62-70
李春玲. (2003). 社会政治变迁与教育机会不平等——家庭背景及制度因素对教育获得的影响. 中国社会科学,(3),86-98
李春玲. (2014). “80后”的教育经历与机会不平等——兼评《无声的革命》. 中国社会科学,(4),66-77
李煜. (2006). 制度变迁与教育不平等的产生机制——中国城市子女的教育获得(1966—2003). 中国社会科学,(4),97-109
李忠路. (2016). 家庭背景、学业表现与研究生教育机会获得. 社会,36(3),86-109
李忠路, 邱泽奇. (2016). 家庭背景如何影响儿童学业成就?—义务教育阶段家庭社会经济地位影响差异分析. 社会学研究,31(4),121-144
刘精明. (2014). 能力与出身: 高等教育入学机会分配的机制分析. 中国社会科学,(8),109-128
陆璟. (2012). 阅读参与度和学习策略对阅读成绩的影响—基于上海PISA 2009数据的实证研究.教育发展研究, 32(18), 17-24.
吴愈晓. (2013). 中国城乡居民的教育机会不平等及其演变(1978—2008). 中国社会科学,(3),4-21
薛海平. (2017). 家庭资本与教育获得: 影子教育的视角. 教育科学研究,(2),31-41
岳昌君, 周丽萍. (2017). 家庭背景对我国重点高中入学机会的影响——基于2014年高等教育改革学生调查的实证分析. 华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),56(3),146-153
Areepattamannil, S., & Caleon, I. S. (2013). Relationships of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies to mathematics achievement in four high-performing East Asian education systems. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 174(6), 696-702
Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley.
Blossfeld, H. P., & Shavit, Y. (1993). Persistent inequality: Changing educational attainment in thirteen countries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction in knowledge, education and cultural change. London: Tavistock.
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371-399
Bucker, S. et al (2018). Subjective well-being and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 74, 83-94
Cheng, Q., & Hsu, H.Y. (2016). Low SES and high mathematics achievement: A two-level analysis of the paradox in six Asian education systems. Journal of Education and Human Development, 5(1), 77-85
Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(31), 8664-8668
Coleman, J. S. et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. US Government Printing Office.
Davis-Kean, P. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 294-304
Downey, D., & Condron, D. (2016). Fifty Years since the Coleman Report: Rethinking the Relationship between Schools and Inequality. Sociology of Education, 89(3), 207-220
Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. (2017). The origins of children’s growth and fixed mindsets: New research and a new proposal. Child Development, 88(6), 1849-1859
Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). The Organizational Climate of Schools. Chicago: Midwest Administrative Center of the University of Chicago.
Harwell, M., Maeda, Y., Bishop, K., & Xie, A. (2017). The surprisingly modest relationship between SES and educational achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 85(2), 197-214
Hertz, T., Jayasundera, T., Piraino, P., Selcuk, S., Smith, N., & Verashchagina, A. (2008). The inheritance of educational inequality: International comparisons and fifty-year trends. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 7(2), 1-48
Heyneman, S., & Loxley, W. (1983). The effect of primary-school quality on academic achievement across twenty-nine high- and low-income countries. The American Journal of Sociology, 88(6), 1162-1194
Huettner, F., & Sunder, M. (2012). Axiomatic arguments for decomposing goodness of fit according to Shapley and Owen values. Electronic Journal of Statistics, (6), 1239-1250
Kim, S.W. (2019). Is socioeconomic status less predictive of achievement in East Asian countries? A systematic and meta-analytic review. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 29-42
Marks, G. N. (2008). Are father’s or mother’s socioeconomic characteristics more important influences on student performance? Recent international evidence. Social Indicators Research, 85(2), 293-309
Norton, M. S. (1984). What’s So Important about School Climate?. Contemporary Education, 56(1), 43-45
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Learning to learn: Student engagement, strategies and practices (Volume III). Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Petscher, Y. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between student attitudes towards reading and achievement in reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(4), 335-355
Pronzato, C. (2012). An Examination of Paternal and Maternal Intergenerational Transmission of Schooling. Journal of Population Economics, 25(2), 591-608
Shorrocks, A. F. (2012). Decomposition procedures for distributional analysis: A unified framework based on the Shapley value. Journal of Economic Inequality, (11), 99-126
Sirin, S. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453
Thomson, S. (2018). Achievement at school and socioeconomic background: An educational perspective. npj Science of Learning, (3), 1-2
White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 461-481
Yeager, D., & Dweck, C. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302-314
中国人文社会科学核心期刊