中华医学教育探索杂志
中華醫學教育探索雜誌
중화의학교육탐색잡지
Chinese Journal of Medical Education Research
2012年
8期
862-865
,共4页
张凤云%田振%王胤奎%杨超%王维民
張鳳雲%田振%王胤奎%楊超%王維民
장봉운%전진%왕윤규%양초%왕유민
认定指标体系%家庭经济困难学生%参考因素%城乡差异%高校
認定指標體繫%傢庭經濟睏難學生%參攷因素%城鄉差異%高校
인정지표체계%가정경제곤난학생%삼고인소%성향차이%고교
Identifying index system%Students from poor families%Reference factors%Urbanrural differences%University
目的 了解家庭经济困难学生认定参考因素的城乡差异,为构建认定指标体系提供参考.方法 对708名家庭经济困难学生进行问卷调查.结果 78.9%城市和89.1%农村学生家庭人均月收入低于410元;58.8%城市和75.4%农村学生家庭人口数为4~6人;77.0%(86.3%)城市和97.3%(97.9%)农村学生父亲(母亲)具有高中及以下文化程度;18.6%(23.1%)城市和82.3%(85.1%)农村学生父亲(母亲)是农民;87.2%城市和71.9%农村学生拥有电脑;54.9%城市和63.9%农村学生认为“存在日常生活不节俭现象”;85.2%城市和79.1%农村学生认为“不应该抽查校园卡消费情况”.结论 认定参考因素城乡差异显著,家庭居住地应作为关键指标且应赋予该指标较高的权重.
目的 瞭解傢庭經濟睏難學生認定參攷因素的城鄉差異,為構建認定指標體繫提供參攷.方法 對708名傢庭經濟睏難學生進行問捲調查.結果 78.9%城市和89.1%農村學生傢庭人均月收入低于410元;58.8%城市和75.4%農村學生傢庭人口數為4~6人;77.0%(86.3%)城市和97.3%(97.9%)農村學生父親(母親)具有高中及以下文化程度;18.6%(23.1%)城市和82.3%(85.1%)農村學生父親(母親)是農民;87.2%城市和71.9%農村學生擁有電腦;54.9%城市和63.9%農村學生認為“存在日常生活不節儉現象”;85.2%城市和79.1%農村學生認為“不應該抽查校園卡消費情況”.結論 認定參攷因素城鄉差異顯著,傢庭居住地應作為關鍵指標且應賦予該指標較高的權重.
목적 료해가정경제곤난학생인정삼고인소적성향차이,위구건인정지표체계제공삼고.방법 대708명가정경제곤난학생진행문권조사.결과 78.9%성시화89.1%농촌학생가정인균월수입저우410원;58.8%성시화75.4%농촌학생가정인구수위4~6인;77.0%(86.3%)성시화97.3%(97.9%)농촌학생부친(모친)구유고중급이하문화정도;18.6%(23.1%)성시화82.3%(85.1%)농촌학생부친(모친)시농민;87.2%성시화71.9%농촌학생옹유전뇌;54.9%성시화63.9%농촌학생인위“존재일상생활불절검현상”;85.2%성시화79.1%농촌학생인위“불응해추사교완잡소비정황”.결론 인정삼고인소성향차이현저,가정거주지응작위관건지표차응부여해지표교고적권중.
Objective To know urban-rural differences of reference factors for the identification of students from poor families in order to provide references for identifying index system.Methods Questionnaires were used among 708 students from poor families.Results There were 78.9% urban and 89.1% rural families whose average earnings were lower than 410 RMB per month.The number of majority urban and rural family (58.8%,75.4% ) was 4 - 6 ; 77.0% ( 86.3% ) urban and 97.3% (97.9%) rural fathers' ( mothers' ) education levels were high school or below; 8.6% ( 23.1% ) urban and 82.3 % ( 85.1% ) rural fathers ( mothers ) were farmers.The proportion of students having computers was 87.2% (urban) and 7 1.9 % (rural) ; 54.9% urban and 63.9% rural students' life was not frugal; 85.2% urban and 79.1% rural students thought campus cards shouldn't be monitored.Conclusions There are significant urban-rural differences of reference factors for the idenffication and family residence is the key indicator which should have higher weights.