“双减”背景下小学生学习投入的潜在类别转变

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00295

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用潜在转变分析考察“双减”背景下小学生学习投入的转变类别及其影响因素。研究以347名小学生为被试, 对其“双减”实施前后的学习投入水平、父母积极教养方式、师生关系和同伴关系进行了纵向追踪。结果表明: (1)小学生学习投入存在“低学习投入组”、“中等学习投入组”、“高专注低活力组”和“高学习投入组”四种不同类别; (2)“双减”政策实施后, “中等学习投入组”和“高学习投入组”稳定性较强, “低学习投入组”更易向“中等学习投入组”转变, 在政策实施半年后, “高专注低活力组”学生更易向“中等学习投入组”转变, 政策实施一年后, 该组学生保持在“高专注低活力组”的概率较高; (3)父母积极教养方式、师生关系及同伴关系对“双减”政策前后小学生学习投入类别转变的预测作用存在差异。本研究不仅有助于深入理解小学生学习投入的发展变化及影响因素, 还为“双减”政策的实施效果提供了实证证据。

关键词: “双减”政策, 潜在转变分析, 学习投入, 纵向研究, 小学生

Abstract:

Learning engagement, an important indicator of the learning process, has garnered extensive attention. Developmental contextualism and the integrative model of engagement posit that the interaction between individuals and environmental factors results in heterogeneous learning engagement development among individuals. Previous studies have demonstrated learning engagement heterogeneity among primary school students. However, in the context of the “double reduction” policy, the dynamic development of children’s learning engagement remains unclear. Moreover, positive parenting style, teacher-student relationships, and peer relationships, as important environmental factors, may predict children’s learning engagement transitions. Thus, this study adopts a people-centered research method to address these issues from a longitudinal perspective.

This study recruited participants from three ordinary public primary schools in Shandong Province, China. Participants at T1 (June 2021, before the implementation of the “double reduction” policy) were 378 children (164 boys; mean age: 9.97 ± 0.91 years old). Participants at T2 (December 2021, six months after the implementation of the policy) were 357 primary school students (155 boys; mean age: 10.50 ± 0.94 years old). Participants at T3 (June 2022, a year after the implementation of the policy) were 347 primary school students (147 boys; mean age: 10.97 ± 0.91 years old). Students completed the Children’s Learning Engagement Scale (at T1, T2, and T3), Short-form Egna Minnen av Barndoms Uppfostran (at T1 and T2), Student Teacher Relationship Scale (at T1 and T2) and Children’s Peer Relationship Scales (at T1 and T2) during the three measurements. Latent profile analysis and latent transition analysis were employed in this study to explore children’s potential learning engagement subtypes and examine transitions between different subtypes across the three waves. Multiple logistic regressions were also used to investigate the impact of various environmental factors (i.e., positive parenting style, student−teacher relationships, and peer relationships) on the latent transitions of different learning engagement subtypes.

All data were analyzed by SPSS 26.0 and Mplus 8.0. The results revealed four distinct subgroups of learning engagement among primary school students: the “Low Engaged”, “Moderately Engaged”, “High Absorption with Vigorous Disengagement”, and “Highly Engaged” groups. In addition, due to the “double reduction” policy, students in the “Moderately Engaged” and “Highly Engaged” groups displayed relative stability, while those in the “Highly Disengaged” group tended to transition toward the “Moderately Engaged” group. Regarding the “High Absorption with Vigorous Disengagement” group, the findings indicated a higher likelihood of transitioning to the “Moderately Engaged” group from T1 to T2; however, from T2 to T3, these students were more likely to remain in their original subgroup. Moreover, the study identified the varying roles of different environmental factors in children’s learning engagement subgroups. Specifically, under the “double reduction” policy, positive parenting style and teacher−student relationships exhibited robust effects on children’s learning engagement transitions. The predictive effects of teacher-student relationships varied across different learning engagement subtypes among primary school students. Additionally, the study found that peer relationships had a positive influence on the transition of children within the “Moderately Engaged” group following the implementation of the “double reduction” policy.

This study provides the first evidence of heterogeneity and dynamic changes in learning engagement among Chinese primary school students, which indicates that following the implementation of the “double reduction” policy, family-school-collaborative education has made initial progress. These findings not only enhance our understanding of the dynamic development of learning engagement among primary school students but also provide empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of the “double reduction” policy implementation.

Key words: “double reduction” policy, latent transition analysis, learning engagement, longitudinal study, primary school students

中图分类号:

B849: G44

杨靖渊, 于晓, 张婧漪, 卢骊霏, 杨智辉. (2024). “双减”背景下小学生学习投入的潜在类别转变. 心理学报, 56(3), 295-310.

YANG Jingyuan, YU Xiao, ZHANG Jingyi, LU Lifei, YANG Zhihui. (2024). The transition of latent classes of children’s learning engagement in primary school against the background of the “double reduction” policy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(3), 295-310.

图/表 7

参考文献 63

[1]	Archambault, I., & Dupéré, V. (2017). Joint trajectories of behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in elementary school. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(2), 188-198. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2015.1060931 URL
[2]	Arrindell, W. A., Sanavio, E., Aguilar, G., Sica, C., Hatzichristou, C., Eisemann, M.,... van der Ende, J. (1999). The development of a short form of the EMBU: Its appraisal with students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary and Italy. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(4), 613-628. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00192-5 URL
[3]	Bae, C. L., Les DeBusk-Lane, M., & Lester, A. M. (2020). Engagement profiles of elementary students in urban schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101880
[4]	Bear, G. G., Yang, C., Chen, D., He, X., Xie, J. S., & Huang, X. (2018). Differences in school climate and student engagement in China and the United States. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 323-335. doi: 10.1037/spq0000247 pmid: 29878823
[5]	Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 141-170. doi: 10.1007/s10648-009-9104-0 URL
[6]	Bian, Y. F., & Zhang, X. Y. (2022). How to do well in family education guidance under the pattern of “Easing the burden of excessive homework and off-campus tutoring for students undergoing compulsory education”. China Educational Technology, (5), 8-12.
	[ 边玉芳, 张馨宇. (2022). “双减”背景下如何做好家庭教育指导. 中国电化教育, (5), 8-12.]
[7]	Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[8]	Cao, M., Zhu, X. Y., & Shen, S. S. (2022). A study on grade 7-12 students’ online learning performance with their parental involvement: Investigation and research report I on online teaching in primary and secondary schools in Jiangsu province. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), (4), 16-28.
	[ 曹梅, 朱晓悦, 沈书生. (2022). 父母教育卷入对中学生在线学习表现的影响——江苏省中小学在线教学调查研究报告之一. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), (4), 16-28.]
[9]	Chen, H. B., & Liu, J. (2018). The relations between family socioeconomic status and teenagers’ wisdom: The mediating roles of positive parenting style and openness personality. Psychological Development and Education, 34(5), 558-566.
	[ 陈浩彬, 刘洁. (2018). 家庭社会经济地位与青少年智慧的关系: 积极教养方式和开放性人格的中介作用. 心理发展与教育, 34(5), 558-566.]
[10]	Chen, J., Huebner, E. S., & Tian, L. (2020). Longitudinal relations between hope and academic achievement in elementary school students: Behavioral engagement as a mediator. Learning and Individual Differences, 78, Article101824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101824
[11]	Côté, S., Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D., Zoccolillo, M., & Vitaro, F. (2002). The development of impulsivity, fearfulness, and helpfulness during childhood: Patterns of consistency and change in the trajectories of boys and girls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 43(5), 609-618.
[12]	Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487 URL
[13]	Deng, J., Wang, M. C., Shou, Y., Lai, H., Zeng, H., & Gao, Y. (2020). Parenting behaviors and child psychopathy: A regression mixture analysis. Current Psychology, 41(6), 3585-3596. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-00810-4
[14]	Deng, J. Z., Yang, G. L., & Cai, Q. Y. (2022). Analysis of the value dimension, realistic barriers and paths of classroom teaching reform against the background of “double reduction”. Journal of Southwest University (Social Sciences Edition), 48(5), 159-168.
	[ 邓建中, 杨国良, 蔡其勇. (2022). “双减”背景下课堂教学变革的价值向度、现实藩篱与路径探析. 西南大学学报(社会科学版), 48(5), 159-168.]
[15]	Estévez, I., Rodríguez-Llorente, C., Piñeiro, I., González- Suárez, R., & Valle, A. (2021). School engagement, academic achievement, and self-regulated learning. Sustainability, 13(6), Article3011. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063011
[16]	Fredricks, J. A., Hofkens, T., Wang, M. T., Mortenson, E., & Scott, P. (2018). Supporting girls’ and boys’ engagement in math and science learning: A mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 271-298. doi: 10.1002/tea.v55.2 URL
[17]	Hickendorff, M., Edelsbrunner, P. A., McMullen, J., Schneider, M., & Trezise, K. (2018). Informative tools for characterizing individual differences in learning: Latent class, latent profile, and latent transition analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 66, 4-15. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.001 URL
[18]	Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310-331. doi: 10.1177/016146819509700202 URL
[19]	Huang, Y. F., & Zhou, F. S. (2022). The spatial turn of school education under the background of “double reduction”. Forum on Contemporary Education, (3), 116-124.
	[ 黄一帆, 周福盛. (2022). “双减”背景下学校育人的空间转向. 当代教育论坛, (3), 116-124.]
[20]	Jiang, J., Lu, Z. R., Jiang, B. J., & Xu, Y. (2010). Revision of the short-form Egna Minnen av Barndoms Uppfostran for Chinese. Psychological Development and Education, (1), 94-99.
	[ 蒋奖, 鲁峥嵘, 蒋苾菁, 许燕. (2010). 简式父母教养方式问卷中文版的初步修订. 心理发展与教育, (1), 94-99.]
[21]	Jung, T., & Wickrama, A. S. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302-317. doi: 10.1111/spco.2008.2.issue-1 URL
[22]	Juvonen, J., Espinoza, G., & Knifsend, C. (2012). The role of peer relationships in student academic and extracurricular engagement. In S. L.Christenson, A. L.Reschly & C.Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 387-401). New York: Springer.
[23]	Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P., Antoniou, P., Demetriou, D., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2015). The impact of school policy and stakeholders’ actions on student learning: A longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 36, 113-124. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.01.004 URL
[24]	Lam, S., Jimerson, S., Wong, B. P. H., Kikas, E., Shin, H., Veiga, F. H., … Zollneritsch, J. (2014). Understanding and measuring student engagement in school: The results of an international study from 12 countries. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2), 213-232. doi: 10.1037/spq0000057 URL
[25]	Lan, X. (2022). Perceived parental warmth, emotional awareness, and positive adjustment profiles in Chinese and Italian early adolescents: A person‐centered approach. Journal of Adolescence, 94(2), 206-223. doi: 10.1002/jad.v94.2 URL
[26]	Law, Y. K. (2014). The role of structured cooperative learning groups for enhancing Chinese primary students’ reading comprehension. Educational Psychology, 34(4), 470-494. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.860216 URL
[27]	Lee, M., & Ha, G. (2022). The role of peer relationships among elementary school students: Focusing on the mediation effects of grit depending on teacher-student relationships. Current Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03359-6
[28]	Lessard, L. M., & Puhl, R. M. (2021). Adolescent academic worries amid COVID-19 and perspectives on pandemic- related changes in teacher and peer relations. School Psychology, 36(5), 285-292. doi: 10.1037/spq0000443 URL
[29]	Li, G. H., & Li, H. L. (2022). The implementation block and relief of the “double reduction” policy from the perspective of game theory. Modern Education Management, (6), 10-19
	[ 李广海, 李海龙. (2022). 博弈论视角下“双减”政策执行的阻滞与疏解. 现代教育管理, (6), 10-19.] doi: 10.16697/j.1674-5485.2022.06.002
[30]	Li, J., Fung, H., Bakeman, R., Rae, K., & Wei, W. (2014). How European American and Taiwanese mothers talk to their children about learning. Child Development, 85(3), 1206-1221. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12172 pmid: 24116837
[31]	Longobardi, C., Prino, L. E., Marengo, D., & Settanni, M. (2016). Student-teacher relationships as a protective factor for school adjustment during the transition from middle to high school. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article1988. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01988
[32]	Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2007). Scaffolding emotions in classrooms. In P. A.Schutz & R.Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 243-258). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
[33]	Miller, C. J., Perera, H. N., & Maghsoudlou, A. (2021). Students’ multidimensional profiles of math engagement: Predictors and outcomes from a self-system motivational perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 261-285. doi: 10.1111/bjep.v91.1 URL
[34]	Moreira, P. A., & Lee, V. E. (2020). School social organization influences adolescents’ cognitive engagement with school: The role of school support for learning and of autonomy support. Learning and Individual Differences, 80, Article101885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101885
[35]	Ning, B. T., & Yang, L. (2022). Analysis of the effectiveness and coordination mechanism of the policy of “reducing the burden on homework” for elementary and middle school students—Based on a survey of 137 cities in 30 provinces. China Educational Technology, (1), 9-16.
	[ 宁本涛, 杨柳. (2022). 中小学生“作业减负”政策实施成效及协同机制分析——基于全国30个省(市、区)137个地级市的调查. 中国电化教育, (1), 9-16.]
[36]	Olivier, E., Morin, A. J., Langlois, J., Tardif-Grenier, K., & Archambault, I. (2020). Internalizing and externalizing behavior problems and student engagement in elementary and secondary school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(11), 2327-2346. doi: 10.1007/s10964-020-01295-x
[37]	Pianta, R. C. (2001). STRS: Student-teacher relationship scale: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
[38]	Plamondon, A., & Martinussen, R. (2019). Inattention symptoms are associated with academic achievement mostly through variance shared with intrinsic motivation and behavioral engagement. Journal of Attention Disorders, 23(14), 1816-1828. doi: 10.1177/1087054715587098 pmid: 26048880
[39]	Putwain, D. W., Nicholson, L. J., Pekrun, R., Becker, S., & Symes, W. (2019). Expectancy of success, attainment value, engagement, and achievement: A moderated mediation analysis. Learning and Instruction, 60, 117-125. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.11.005
[40]	Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. (2017). Affective teacher-student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239-261. doi: 10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3 URL
[41]	Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
[42]	Salmela-Aro, K., & Upadyaya, K. (2014). School burnout and engagement in the context of demands-resources model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 137-151. doi: 10.1111/bjep.2014.84.issue-1 URL
[43]	Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464-481.
[44]	Skinner, E. A., Rickert, N. P., Vollet, J. W., & Kindermann, T. A. (2022). The complex social ecology of academic development: A bioecological framework and illustration examining the collective effects of parents, teachers, and peers on student engagement. Educational Psychologist, 57(2), 87-113. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2022.2038603 URL
[45]	Tao, J., & Xu, Y. (2022). Parental support for young learners’ online learning of English in a Chinese primary school. System, 105, Article102718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102718
[46]	Teuber, Z., Tang, X., Sielemann, L., Otterpohl, N., & Wild, E. (2022). Autonomy-related parenting profiles and their effects on adolescents’ academic and psychological development: A longitudinal person-oriented analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51, 1333-1353. doi: 10.1007/s10964-021-01538-5
[47]	Verschueren, K., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2012). Teacher-child relationships from an attachment perspective. Attachment and Human Development, 14(3), 205-211. doi: 10.1080/14616734.2012.672260 URL
[48]	Wang, B. Y., Zhang, M. Q., Zhang, J. T., & Hu, J. (2015). Describing the stage process of individual through transition matrix: Latent transition model. Psychological Research, 8(4), 36-43.
	[ 王碧瑶, 张敏强, 张洁婷, 胡俊. (2015). 基于转变矩阵描述的个体阶段性发展: 潜在转变模型. 心理研究, 8(4), 36-43.]
[49]	Wang, H. H. (2013). The relationship of parent rearing patterns, peer relationships and pathological internet use of left-behind secondary school students’ (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan, China.
	[ 王海花. (2013). 农村留守中学生网络成瘾及其与父母教养方式、同伴关系的相关研究 (硕士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.]
[50]	Wang, M., Deng, X., & Du, X. (2018). Harsh parenting and academic achievement in Chinese adolescents: Potential mediating roles of effortful control and classroom engagement. Journal of School Psychology, 67, 16-30. doi: S0022-4405(17)30095-X pmid: 29571531
[51]	Wang, M. T., Degol, J. L., & Henry, D. A. (2019). An integrative development-in-sociocultural-context model for children’s engagement in learning. American Psychologist, 74(9), 1086-1102. doi: 10.1037/amp0000522 URL
[52]	Yang, C., Bear, G. G., & May, H. (2018). Multilevel associations between school-wide social-emotional learning approach and student engagement across elementary, middle, and high schools. School Psychology Review, 47(1), 45-61. doi: 10.17105/SPR-2017-0003.V47-1 URL
[53]	Zhang, S., Zhang, P., Cao, R., Cheng, S., & Fang, D. (2020). Reducing learning burden accurately: The key to improve the effectiveness of the policy—Based on the classification and characteristic analysis of primary school students’ learning engagement and subjective schoolwork burden. China Educational Technology, (1), 114-121.
	[ 张生, 张平, 曹榕, 程姝, 方丹. (2020). 人工智能时代下的精准减负: 提升减负政策效能的关键——基于小学生学习投入与主观课业负担类型的划分及特征分析. 中国电化教育, (1), 114-121.]
[54]	Zhang, W., Wei, X., Ji, L., Chen, L., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2017). Reconsidering parenting in Chinese culture: Subtypes, stability, and change of maternal parenting style during early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1117-1136. doi: 10.1007/s10964-017-0664-x pmid: 28357678
[55]	Zhang, X. M., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Resolving the contradiction between large-scale education and personalized education: Logical framework and practical approach to data-driven large-scale personalized teaching. Chinese Journal of Distance Education, (8), 42-52.
	[ 杨现民, 张瑶. (2022). 教育规模化与个性化矛盾何以破解?——数据驱动规模化因材施教的逻辑框架与实践路径. 中国远程教育, (8), 42-52.]
[56]	Zhen, R., Liu, R. D., Ding, Y., Jiang, R., Jiang, S., & Hong, W. (2021). Gratitude and academic engagement among primary students: Examining a multiple mediating model. Current Psychology, 40(5), 2543-2551. doi: 10.1007/s12144-019-00202-3
[57]	Zhen, R., Liu, R. D., Wang, M. T., Ding, Y., Jiang, R., Fu, X., & Sun, Y. (2020). Trajectory patterns of academic engagement among elementary school students: The implicit theory of intelligence and academic self-efficacy matters. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 618-634. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12320 pmid: 31573072
[58]	Zhong, , L.(2021). Implement the “double reduction” work and deepen the comprehensive reform in the field of education. Retrieved February 9, 2022, from http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/moe_2082/2021/2021_zl49/202107/t20210724_546578.html
	[ 钟秉林. (2021). 落实“双减”工作深化教育领域综合改革. 2022-02-02取自 http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/moe_2082/2021/2021_zl49/202107/t20210724_546578.html ]
[59]	Zhou, H., & Long, L. R. (2004). Statistical remedies for common method biases. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(6), 942-950.
	[ 周浩, 龙立荣. (2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 12(6), 942-950.]
[60]	Zhou, L. H., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2019). Effects of perceived autonomy support from social agents on motivation and engagement of Chinese primary school students: Psychological need satisfaction as mediator. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 323-330. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.05.001 URL
[61]	Zhou, Z. K., Sun, X. J., Zhao, D. M., Tian, Y., & Fan, C. Y. (2015). The development of peer relationship in childhood. Psychological Development and Education, 31(1), 62-70.
	[ 周宗奎, 孙晓军, 赵冬梅, 田媛, 范翠英. (2015). 同伴关系的发展研究. 心理发展与教育, 31(1), 62-70.]
[62]	Zhu, X., Tian, L., Zhou, J., & Huebner, E. S. (2019). The developmental trajectory of behavioral school engagement and its reciprocal relations with subjective well-being in school among Chinese elementary school students. Children and Youth Services Review, 99, 286-295. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.024 URL
[63]	Zou, H., Qu, Z. Y., & Ye, Y. (2007). The characteristics of teacher-student relationships and its relationship with school adjustment of students. Psychological Development and Education, (4), 77-82.
	[ 邹泓, 屈智勇, 叶苑. (2007). 中小学生的师生关系与其学校适应. 心理发展与教育, (4), 77-82.]

时间点	类别数目	AIC	BIC	aBIC	Entropy	LMRT(p)	BLRT(p)	所占比例(%)
T1	2	2590.16	2628.66	2596.93	0.86	0.005	< 0.001	28.24/71.76
	3	2461.31	2515.20	2470.79	0.77	0.40	< 0.001	17.00/50.72/32.28
	4	2382.08	2451.37	2394.27	0.84	0.11	< 0.001	10.95/23.92/50.14/14.99
	5	2328.37	2413.06	2343.26	0.88	0.02	< 0.001	1.73/13.54/21.61/48.13/14.99
	6	2309.44	2409.53	2327.05	0.87	0.26	< 0.001	1.73/11.52/14.70/9.22/47.84/14.99
T2	2	2506.44	2544.93	2513.21	0.86	< 0.001	< 0.001	46.97/53.03
	3	2379.70	2433.59	2389.18	0.90	0.001	< 0.001	7.20/44.67/48.13
	4	2307.34	2376.63	2319.53	0.85	0.02	< 0.001	6.63/38.90/26.23/28.24
	5	2271.64	2356.33	2286.54	0.81	0.14	< 0.001	6.63/27.67/14.12/26.51/25.07
	6	2269.82	2369.90	2287.42	0.85	0.60	0.67	2.59/10.66/24.21/18.73/8.07/35.74
T3	2	2560.65	2599.14	2567.42	0.83	< 0.001	< 0.001	59.37/40.63
	3	2389.94	2443.83	2399.41	0.87	< 0.001	< 0.001	17.00/51.30/31.70
	4	2349.65	2418.94	2361.84	0.80	0.41	< 0.001	9.22/38.62/25.36/26.80
	5	2331.04	2415.72	2345.93	0.82	0.04	< 0.001	1.44/14.12/38.62/19.60/26.22
	6	2318.30	2418.38	2335.90	0.82	0.24	< 0.001	3.46/14.41/31.70/18.44/18.73/13.26

时间点	类别数目	AIC	BIC	aBIC	Entropy	LMRT(p)	BLRT(p)	所占比例(%)
T1	2	2590.16	2628.66	2596.93	0.86	0.005	< 0.001	28.24/71.76
	3	2461.31	2515.20	2470.79	0.77	0.40	< 0.001	17.00/50.72/32.28
	4	2382.08	2451.37	2394.27	0.84	0.11	< 0.001	10.95/23.92/50.14/14.99
	5	2328.37	2413.06	2343.26	0.88	0.02	< 0.001	1.73/13.54/21.61/48.13/14.99
	6	2309.44	2409.53	2327.05	0.87	0.26	< 0.001	1.73/11.52/14.70/9.22/47.84/14.99
T2	2	2506.44	2544.93	2513.21	0.86	< 0.001	< 0.001	46.97/53.03
	3	2379.70	2433.59	2389.18	0.90	0.001	< 0.001	7.20/44.67/48.13
	4	2307.34	2376.63	2319.53	0.85	0.02	< 0.001	6.63/38.90/26.23/28.24
	5	2271.64	2356.33	2286.54	0.81	0.14	< 0.001	6.63/27.67/14.12/26.51/25.07
	6	2269.82	2369.90	2287.42	0.85	0.60	0.67	2.59/10.66/24.21/18.73/8.07/35.74
T3	2	2560.65	2599.14	2567.42	0.83	< 0.001	< 0.001	59.37/40.63
	3	2389.94	2443.83	2399.41	0.87	< 0.001	< 0.001	17.00/51.30/31.70
	4	2349.65	2418.94	2361.84	0.80	0.41	< 0.001	9.22/38.62/25.36/26.80
	5	2331.04	2415.72	2345.93	0.82	0.04	< 0.001	1.44/14.12/38.62/19.60/26.22
	6	2318.30	2418.38	2335.90	0.82	0.24	< 0.001	3.46/14.41/31.70/18.44/18.73/13.26

维度	低学习投入组	中等学习投入组	高专注低活力组	高学习投入组	F	η_p²
T1
活力	−1.48 (0.18)_a	−0.65 (0.15)_b	0.24 (0.07)_c	1.27 (0.09)_d	197.79^***	0.63
动机	−1.69 (0.33)_a	−0.78 (0.14)_b	0.32 (0.06)_c	1.36 (0.06)_d	570.96^***	0.83
专注	−1.94 (0.27)_a	−0.48 (0.28)_b	0.34 (0.05)_c	1.01 (0.06)_d	264.39^***	0.70
T2
活力	−1.65 (0.15)_a	−0.65 (0.06)_b	0.13 (0.11)_c	1.16 (0.13)_d	307.57^***	0.73
动机	−2.03 (0.15)_a	−0.72 (0.05)_b	0.37 (0.16)_c	1.12 (0.05)_d	818.71^***	0.88
专注	−1.72 (0.16)_a	−0.59 (0.12)_b	0.42 (0.10)_c	0.81 (0.05)_d	159.71^***	0.58
T3
活力	−1.44 (0.42)_a	−0.51 (0.16)_b	0.08 (0.16)_c	1.17 (0.11)_d	270.81^***	0.70
动机	−1.59 (0.31)_a	−0.59 (0.17)_b	0.17 (0.26)_c	1.26 (0.08)_d	619.30^***	0.84
专注	−1.65 (0.23)_a	−0.51 (0.28)_b	0.46 (0.25)_c	0.91 (0.05)_d	227.34^***	0.67

维度	低学习投入组	中等学习投入组	高专注低活力组	高学习投入组	F	η_p²
T1
活力	−1.48 (0.18)_a	−0.65 (0.15)_b	0.24 (0.07)_c	1.27 (0.09)_d	197.79^***	0.63
动机	−1.69 (0.33)_a	−0.78 (0.14)_b	0.32 (0.06)_c	1.36 (0.06)_d	570.96^***	0.83
专注	−1.94 (0.27)_a	−0.48 (0.28)_b	0.34 (0.05)_c	1.01 (0.06)_d	264.39^***	0.70
T2
活力	−1.65 (0.15)_a	−0.65 (0.06)_b	0.13 (0.11)_c	1.16 (0.13)_d	307.57^***	0.73
动机	−2.03 (0.15)_a	−0.72 (0.05)_b	0.37 (0.16)_c	1.12 (0.05)_d	818.71^***	0.88
专注	−1.72 (0.16)_a	−0.59 (0.12)_b	0.42 (0.10)_c	0.81 (0.05)_d	159.71^***	0.58
T3
活力	−1.44 (0.42)_a	−0.51 (0.16)_b	0.08 (0.16)_c	1.17 (0.11)_d	270.81^***	0.70
动机	−1.59 (0.31)_a	−0.59 (0.17)_b	0.17 (0.26)_c	1.26 (0.08)_d	619.30^***	0.84
专注	−1.65 (0.23)_a	−0.51 (0.28)_b	0.46 (0.25)_c	0.91 (0.05)_d	227.34^***	0.67

时间点	低学习投入组	中等学习投入组	高专注低活力组	高学习投入组
潜在状态概率
T1	0.11	0.25	0.46	0.18
T2	0.08	0.37	0.30	0.25
T3	0.08	0.39	0.30	0.23
T1到T2的转变概率
低学习投入组	0.16	0.55	0.16	0.13
中等学习投入组	0.10	0.43	0.31	0.16
高专注低活力组	0.05	0.39	0.35	0.21
高学习投入组	0.09	0.11	0.26	0.54
T2到T3的转变概率
低学习投入组	0.32	0.44	0.18	0.06
中等学习投入组	0.08	0.61	0.25	0.06
高专注低活力组	0.05	0.30	0.49	0.16
高学习投入组	0.01	0.17	0.17	0.65