Chinese Education & Society, 48: 412–432, 2015

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1061-1932 print/1944-7116 online
DOI: 10.1080/10611932.2015.1119508

How Father’s Education and Economic Capital Impact

Academic Performance—An Analysis Based on the
Mediating Effect and Moderating Effect

Yang Baoyan and Wan Minggang

Abstract: This paper uses survey data from educational tracking upon graduation from middle
schools in Q County, Gansu Province, and explores the mechanism in which the level of
father’s education and economic capital affect academic performance. The study finds that
the academic performance of male students is significantly higher than that of female students,
and household registration, family capital, and school social capital adhere together to impact
academic performance. Low economic income affects academic performance, and high econ-
omic income does not necessarily facilitate academic performance. School education that pays
attention to academic performance has a direct positive impact, and parent-teacher relations,
objectified cultural capital, and economic capital have a direct negative impact on academic
performance. The level of the father’s education mainly plays a direct role in impacting aca-
demic performance. Economic capital indirectly facilitates academic performance through the
mediating effect of parents’ educational expectations, educational support, and attention to
school education, and objectified cultural capital has a moderating effect on the impact of
economic capital on academic performance.

FAMILY CAPITAL AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Families and schools are important sites that impact academic performance. Many studies have
found that family capital and school capital have an important impact on academic performance.
For example, J.S. Coleman has found that the cultural capital reflected by activities that actively
support education such as parents spending time and attention on their children helps facilitate
the academic performance of children (Coleman 1988). Parcel and Dufur (2001) found that both
family capital and school capital help improve academic performance, but school capital has a
weaker impact than family capital, and the impact of social strata structure on academic perfor-
mance changes due to the mediating role of family capital. Junying and Yizhi (2008) found
when exploring the mechanism impacting the academic performance of students in the Taiwan

English translation © 2016 Taylor & Francis, Inc., from the Chinese text “Fuqing shou jiaoyu Chengdu he jingji
ziben ruhe yingxiang xueye chengji—jiyu zhongjie xiaoying he tiaojie xiaoying de fenxi” by Yang Baoyan and
Wan Minggang. Translated by Jeff Keller. Originally published in Beijing daxue jiaoyu pinglun [Peking University
Education Review] 2015, vol. 13, no. 2.
Yang Baoyan is an associate professor at Northwest Normal University Northwest Minority Education Develop-
ment Research Center, Lanzhou. Wan Minggang is the vice president of Northwest Normal University and a professor
in the Northwest Normal University Northwest Minority Education Development Research Center, Lanzhou.
 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 413

region that socioeconomic status and family capital have a direct positive impact on academic
performance; socioeconomic status indirectly impacts academic performance through mediating
latent variables such as family capital and negative cultural capital and school social capital
serves as a mediating variable between family capital and academic performance as well as
between socioeconomic status and academic performance.
In the status attainment model of Blau and Duncan, family human capital and economic
capital are important variables impacting children’s educational achievement (Jiayou, 1986).
Many studies use the level of father’s education as a measured indicator for exploring the
impact of cultural capital on children’s academic achievement, and they generally found that
the level of parents’ education had a significant impact on academic performance, and students
whose parents had higher levels of education had academic performance higher than the
average (Wöβmann 2005). In recent years, studies have found that the level of parents education
and economic income have an indirect impact on the children’s academic performance through
the parents’ beliefs and actions, and this impact differs among different groups (Davis-Kean
2005). Other studies have found that economic capital or family property have a weak impact
on academic performance, and the impact of family economic capital or wealth on academic
performance differs with differences in level of economic development and cultural and socio-
political conditions (Yeung and Conley 2008).
From a social stratification perspective, explorations of the impact mechanism of socioeco-
nomic status, family capital, and school capital and their correlation on academic performance
are also explorations of the relationship between social stratification and social behavior.
Parents’ level of education and economic income are objective aspects of family background,
and to a certain extent they can reflect the actual possession of family cultural and economic
resources. They can serve as measured indices of socioeconomic status, but many studies
respectively use level of parents’ education and economic income as measured indices for
family cultural capital and economic capital. Actually, the impact mechanisms of family
inherent capital and actual investment on children’s academic achievement differ. In this regard,
some scholars believe we must pay enough attention to the difference between possessed capital
and activated capital. As Lareau (1987) pointed out, researchers must look at the environment
the capital is in, the efforts made by individuals for activated capital and techniques in using
capital, and the responses of public organizations to activated capital. Furthermore, even though
past studies have explored the impact of level of parents’ education and economic capital on
academic performance, very few have studied the relationship between the two as a systemic
process, and this has overlooked how the two interact to impact the causal mechanism of
academic performance.
On the whole, based on an analysis of the literature, and fully considering the two categories of
capital possession and capital investment and the impact of the capital transformation process
(capital activation) on academic performance, this paper takes level of father’s education (what
Bourdieu called systematized cultural capital) as a measurement indicator for socioeconomic
status, regards objectified cultural capital and embodied cultural capital as family cultural capital
investment, differentiates economic factors into economic income and economic capital, and
examines the economic capital possessed by families and invested by families. On this basis, start-
ing from China’s current cultural and social background, it explores the direct impact of family and
school factors on academic performance and mediating or moderating roles of family capital and
school social capital between socioeconomic status and academic performance. Of these, this paper
414 CHINESE EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

focuses on the impact model of level of father’s education and economic capital on academic
performance upon mediation and moderation from family capital and school social capital.

DATA AND RESEARCH METHODS

Data

The data for this paper comes from a survey conducted by the authors on family resources and
educational tracking of 2010 middle school graduates in Q County, Gansu Province. A total of
1,200 questionnaires were issued for the survey, and the number of people surveyed accounted
for 30.3% of the number of graduates that year; 1,142 questionnaires were returned, for a
95.2% rate of return. Of these, 469 questionnaires were returned from urban middle schools,
accounting for 58.3% of the total number of urban middle school graduates, and the rate of
return was 41.0%; 673 questionnaires were returned from rural middle schools, accounting
for 21.3%, and the rate of return was 59.0%. After the high school entrance exam grades were
obtained, 24 survey targets were lost, and the rate of loss was 2.1%. This paper involves three
sections of data: family background (socioeconomic status and family capital), school factors
(school type and school social capital), and high school entrance exam grades.

Research Tools

In this paper socioeconomic status includes household registration, level of father’s education,
monthly family income, type of father’s occupation, and main family income source. Level of
father’s education is divided into illiterate or semiliterate, elementary school, middle school,
high school (including occupational school, technical school, or trade school), associate’s
degree, and bachelor’s degree and above. Father’s occupation includes ordinary peasant, ordi-
nary worker, sole proprietor or private operator or businessman, technical or management or
business worker, and other. Monthly family income is ranked from high to low, with 500 yuan
and below forming the low-income group, 501–1,400 yuan forming the middle-income group,
and 1,400 yuan and above forming the high-income group. Main family income source is
divided into agricultural production income, parents work or sell goods or work temporary jobs,
parents have salaried jobs, parents run a store or enterprise, and other.

Measurement of family capital is based on three scales

1. Investment in children’s educational and living expenses is used to measure
economic capital, and there are a total of four items involving expenses for study
materials (yuan/semester; M ¼ 122.88, SD ¼ 110.60), spending money (yuan/month;
M ¼ 46.50, SD ¼ 40.21), food expenses (yuan/week; M ¼ 27.16, SD ¼ 19.25), and
tutor and after-school lesson expenses (yuan/year). The first three were measured
from answers given, and after the data was collected, the mean was used as the
center point, and standard deviation was used as the grouping unit. The data was div-
ided into five groups and given values of 1–5. The interval method was used for
 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 415

tutor and after-school lesson expenses, and five intervals were created (1 ¼ 0 yuan to
5 ¼ 1,501 yuan and above). Higher numbers represent more economic capital.
2. The cultural capital scale is based on a revised version of the cultural capital and
academic achievement questionnaire of Qingda and Shengyao (2008). The revision
did not change the theoretical foundation or structure of the original questionnaire,
and mainly adjusted the wording in an attempt to get closer to the living situation
and local cultural features of the subjects. In this measurement, embodied cultural
capital includes eight items that involve learning talents and skills, interests, and
good living and study habits, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.74; objectified
cultural capital includes four items that involve study rooms, desks, reference books,
study equipment, and books, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.68. Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient for the overall questionnaire was 0.75, explaining 57.32% of the
total variance, which shows that the questionnaire had good reliability. The ques-
tionnaire used a five-point score, where higher scores indicated higher cultural
capital.
3. The social capital scale is revised from the scale created by Yimin (2008). There are
four factors in the revised scale. Factor 1 involves parents’ expectations of their
children’s academics and future educational achievements, and is called “parents’
educational expectations,” with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.70, and a
total of five items. Factor 2 involves parents participating in their children’s study
activities or providing study opportunities, and is called “parents’ educational partici-
pation,” with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.75, and a total of five items. Factor
3 involves parents’ understanding and valuing of their children’s school educational
activities, and is called “attention to school education,” with a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of 0.70 and a total of five items. Factor 4 involves parents’ concern,
support, and encouragement of their children’s education, and is called “parents’
educational support, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.72, and a total of six
items. The total scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.87, explaining 48.27%
of the variance, showing that the scale had good reliability. The scale was based
on four points, where “never” to “always” were represented by 1–4 points.

School factors involve school type and school social capital

This paper uses the school social capital questionnaire created by Xinfu and Caiyin (2006) to
measure school social capital. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for “school norms” was 0.70,
and it included four items; Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for “teacher-student relations” was
0.71, and it included five items; Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for “school trust” was 0.83,
and it included five items; Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for “peer relations” was 0.77, and it
included six items; and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for “parent-teacher relations” was 0.83,
and it included four items. The overall scale included 24 items, and Cronbach’s alpha coef-
ficient was 0.84, explaining 54.78% of the overall variance, showing that the questionnaire
had good reliability. The questionnaire used five points, with 1 representing “does not
correspond at all” and 5 representing “completely corresponds.” School type was divided into
rural middle schools and urban middle schools.
416 CHINESE EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

ANALYSIS STRATEGY

The data analysis used in this paper comprises three parts: part 1 uses hierarchical regression
analysis to estimate the direct impact of structural variables such as sex and socioeconomic
status and family capital and school social capital on academic performance; part 2 relies on
the analytical route of the mediating effect, and uses hierarchical regression analysis to explore
the path model of how the level of father’s education impacts academic performance through
the mediating role of family capital and school social capital; part 3 is based on the analytical
route of the mediating and moderating effect, and uses hierarchical regression analysis to
examine the mediating and moderating effects of family social capital and cultural capital in
the impact of economic capital on academic performance. The data from this paper’s survey
results was processed using SPSS (version 15.0) software.

Data Analysis Results

Independent impact of family and school factors on academic performance

First, a hierarchical regression model was applied, and on the basis of controlling objective
structural variables such as sex, household registration, school type, socioeconomic status, the
impact of family capital, and school social capital independent in the objective structure on aca-
demic performance was observed (Models 1–4, the table does not list the data from the first step,
only from the second step). Next, structural variables such as sex and household registration,
family capital, and school social capital were introduced in order to examine the independent
role of each variable while the other variables were controlled (Models 5–7). The reference
value for sex was “female,” the reference value for household registration was “rural house-
hold,” the reference value for monthly income was “500 yuan and below,” the reference value
for father’s occupation was “ordinary peasant,” the reference value for income source was “agri-
cultural production income,” the reference value for level of father’s education was “low level of
education,” and the reference value for school type was “rural middle school.”
As shown in Table 1, among the structural variables (Model 5), there was a positive corre-
lation between sex and level of father’s education and academic performance, and boys had sig-
nificantly higher academic performance than girls; the academic performance of students whose
fathers’ level of education was high school and college was significantly higher than students
whose fathers’ level of education was illiterate or low literacy; there was a negative correlation
between household registration and income source, showing that the academic performance of
rural students was significantly higher than that of urban students, and the academic perfor-
mance of students whose parents “worked, sold goods, or worked temporary jobs” or “ran a
store or enterprise” was significantly lower than students in families with “agricultural pro-
duction income.” The negative role of household registration was still significant after incorpor-
ating family social capital (see Model 3) or school social capital (see Model 4), but after
incorporating economic capital and cultural capital, or simultaneously incorporating all types
of family capital and school social capital, the impact was not significant. Furthermore, while
all other types of variables were controlled, the academic performance of students with monthly
family income between 501 and 1,400 yuan was significantly higher than that of students with
monthly family income of 500 yuan and below (see Model 7).
 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 417

TABLE 1
Independent Roles of Family and School Factors in Academic Performance

Academic performance

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Sex 0.07** 0.08** 0.07* 0.10** 0.07* 0.07* 0.10**

Household registration — — −0.09* −0.09* −0.07* −0.05 −0.04
501–1,400 yuan — — — — — — 0.07*
Working, selling goods, and −0.12** −0.11** −0.10** −0.11** −0.12** −0.11** −0.11**
temporary work
Running a store or enterprise −0.10** −0.11** −0.12** −0.11** −0.12** −0.10** −0.10**
High school 0.13* 0.14* 0.11* 0.11* 0.12* 0.14*** 0.14*
College 0.19*** 0.22*** 0.11*** 0.19*** 0.18*** 0.20*** 0.20***
Economic capital −0.12*** −0.13 0.12**
Embodied cultural capital 0.07* 0.05 0.05
Objectified cultural capital −0.10* −0.09* −0.10*
Parents’ educational expectations 0.09** 0.09* 0.06
Parents’ educational participation 0.08* −0.07 −0.07
Parents’ educational support 0.02 0.04 0.04
Attention to school education 0.08* 0.08* 0.09*
School trust 0.05 0.05
School norms 0.04 0.03
Teacher-student relations 0.07* 0.04
Parent-teacher relations −0.14*** −0.14***
Peer relations 0.12*** 0.10**
R2 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.11
Adjust R2 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.09
R2 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.02
F 4.26*** 3.96*** 4.17*** 4.82*** 3.60*** 4.40*** 4.66***
F 14.17*** 4.01* 4.86** 7.28*** 3.60*** 5.98*** 5.46***

Notes: 1. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

2. The regression coefficients were all normalized, and the independent variables such as family capital and
school social capital were all centralized.
3. Only statistically significant control variables are listed in the table.
4. The enter method was used for the independent variable screening method.

After controlling structural variables such as sex and household registration, economic capital
(see Model 1), objectified cultural capital (see Model 2), parents’ educational participation
(see Model 3), and parent-teacher relations (see Model 4) all had a significantly negative impact
on academic performance. After incorporating other types of variables, the negative impact of
economic capital, objectified cultural capital, and parent-teacher relations was still significant
(see Model 7).
While controlling structural variables such as sex and household registration, embodied
cultural capital (see Model 2), parents’ educational expectations (see Model 3), and teacher-
student relations (see Model 4) had a significantly positive impact on academic performance,
but this impact disappeared as other types of variables were incorporated. After controlling
the structural variables, attention to school education (see Model 3) and peer relations (see
Model 4) had significantly positive impacts on academic performance, and when other types
of variables were incorporated, the positive impact was still significant (see Model 7).
418 CHINESE EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

Level of Father’s Education and Academic Performance: Mediating Role

Processing the data on level of father’s education
Given that it has been found that there is a difference in academic performance between
children whose fathers’ level of education is high school or above and less than high school,
this paper divides the subjects into groups of high and low levels of father’s education based
on the high school delineation. The high level of father’s education group refers to high school
and above, and contains a total of 258 students, and the low level of father’s education group
refers to middle school and below, and contains a total of 860 students.

Correlation analysis on level of father’s education, family capital, school social

capital, and academic performance

Correlation analysis showed a significant positive correlation between level of father’s education
and each dimension of academic performance and economic, cultural, and social capital in the fam-
ily. It showed a significant negative correlation with school trust and school norms for school social
capital, and the correlation was not significant with teacher-student relations, parent-teacher rela-
tions, and peer relations. The was a significant positive correlation between academic performance
and parents’ educational expectations, parents’ educational support, attention to school education,
teacher-student relations, and peer relations, but there was a significant negative correlation to
economic capital, and the correlation was not significant with both types of cultural capital, parents’
educational participation, school trust, school norms, and parent-teacher relations (see Table 2).

Independent role of level of father’s education on academic performance

A regression analysis showed that after controlling household registration, sex, monthly family
income, father’s occupation, and family income source (dummy variable transformation was per-
formed for each), level of father’s education still significantly impacted academic performance
(b ¼ .14, p < 0.001; due to space limitations, the coefficient table for the impact of level of
father’s education on academic performance is omitted here, and interested readers can request
the relevant information from the authors).

Mediation of family capital and school social capital on role of level of father’s
education

Given that the level of father’s education has a significant impact on academic performance,
we referred to the program of Baron and Kenny (1986), and built a mediating path (see Figure 1)
and used a regression analysis and Sobel test (Z ¼ ab/√b2S2a þ a2S2b ) to respectively examine the
mediating effect of school social capital and family capital. Based on the recommendation of
Aiken.
Table 3 indicates father’s educational expectation, father’s educational support, and attention
to school education play a significant mediating role in the impact of level of father’s education
on academic performance, the mediating effect of parents’ educational expectations is 0.01,
accounting for 7% of the total effect; the mediating effect of parents’ educational support is
0.01, accounting for 7% of the total effect; and the mediating effect of attention to school
 TABLE 2
Relationship Coefficient Matrix for Father’s Level of Education, Family Capital, School Social Capital, and Academic Performance

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Level of father’s education 1

2. Economic capital 0.24** 1
3. Embodied cultural capital 0.09** 0.11** 1
4. Objective cultural capital 0.41** 0.38** 0.38** 1
5. Parents’ educational expectations 0.11** 0.08** 0.16** 0.17** 1
6. Parents’ educational participation 0.31** 0.15** 0.34** 0.33** 0.38** 1
7. Parents’ educational support 0.15** 0.13** 0.30** 0.25** 0.55** 0.54** 1
8. Attention to school education 0.15** 0.12** 0.33** 0.24** 0.44** 0.10** 0.12** 1
9. School trust −0.12** −0.14** 0.18** −0.02 −0.02 0.09** 0.10** 0.12** 1
10. School norms −0.08** −0.10 0.20** 0.03 0.05 0.09** 0.13** 0.12** 0.45** 1
11. Teacher-student relations −0.02 −0.07 0.20** 0.05 0.23** 0.27** 0.28** 0.31** 0.18** 0.23** 1
12. Parent-teacher relations 0.01 0.03 0.28** 0.10** 0.12** 0.29** 0.25** 0.37** 0.24** 0.24** 0.43** 1
13. Peer relations 0.04 0.06* 0.27** 0.14** 0.29** 0.27** 0.27** 0.31** 0.07* 0.10** 0.39** 0.27** 1
14. Academic performance 0.11** −0.11** 0.05 −0.03 0.12** 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.11

1Notes: 1. For father’s level of education, 1 represents a high level, and 0 represents a low level;
2. 1*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Note: a and c are the respective unstandardized regression coefficients when level of father’s education individually impacts family capital/school social capital
and academic performance, b and c’ are the unstandardized regression coefficients when level of father’s education and family capital / school social capital jointly
impact academic performance, and Sa, Sb, Sc, and Sc’ respectively are the corresponding standard errors (all paths controlled the impact of the sex, household
registration, and socioeconomic status variables).

419
420 CHINESE EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

FIGURE 1 Mediating effect of family capital/school social capital impact on academic performance.

education is 0.02, accounting for 13% of the total effect. The correlation between all dimensions
of family social capital is between 0.38–0.55, with p all less than 0.001, therefore the mediation
effect of these four dimensions were tested respectively and not simultaneously.
Table 4 indicates the mediating effect of economic capital, embodied cultural capital, and
objectified cultural capital between level of father’s education and academic performance is
not significant. Because the correlation between the two dimensions of family cultural capital
is relatively high with r þ 0.38, p < 0.001, the mediating effects of these two dimensions were
respectively tested, and they were not simultaneously tested.

TABLE 3
Mediating Effect of Family Social Capital

Mediating effect of father's level of education impact on academic performance

Parents’ educational Parents’ educational Parents’ educational Attention to school

expectations participation support education

Path B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b

c (Sc) 39.4 (−9.64) .14*** 39.4 (−9.64) .14*** 39.4 (−9.64) .14*** 39.4 (−9.64) .14***
a (Sa) 0.08 (−0.03) .08* 0.42 (−0.06) .25*** 0.13 (−0.04) .12** 0.2 (−0.05) .16***
b (Sb) 31.6 (−8.43) .11*** 2.65 (−5.04) .02 18.91 (−7.03) .08** 18.98 (−6.43) .09**
C (Sc ) 36.94 (−9.61) .14*** 38.28 (−9.88) .14** 36.88 (−9.66) .13*** 35.6 (−9.7) .13***
Sobel (Z) 2.17* 0.52 2.07* 2.37*

Note:*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

TABLE 4
Mediating Effect of Family Economic and Cultural Capital

Mediating variables of father's level of education affecting academic performance

Economic capital Embodied cultural capital Objectified cultural capital

Path B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b

c (Sc) 39.40 (9.64) .14*** 39.40 (9.64) .14*** 39.40 (9.64) .14***
a (Sa) 0.09 (0.07) .05 0.13 (0.05) .09** 0.32 (0.07) .15***
b (Sb) −16.4 (4.49) −.12*** 6.57 (5.63) .04 −6.53 (4.29) −.05
C (Sc ) 37.84 (9.65) .14*** 38.51 (9.67) .14*** 41.50 (9.74) .15***
Sobel (Z) –1.21 1.06 –1.44

Note: *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 421

Table 5 indicates peer relations play a significant mediating role between level of father’s
education and academic performance, the mediating effect is 0.01, and this accounts for
10% of the total effect. Because the correlation between all dimensions of school social capital
was between 0.12 and 0.45, and p was always less than 0.001, the mediating effects for these
four dimensions were only tested respectively, and not simultaneously.

Economic Capital and Academic Performance: Mediating Effect and Moderating Effect

Family social capital mediation of economic capital

We made reference to the study of Baron and Kenny (1986), and used a regression analysis and
Sobel test to examine the mediating effect of family social capital on academic performance
estimated by economic capital. As indicated in Table 6, parents’ educational expectations,
parents’ educational support, and attention to school education plays a significant mediating role
when academic performance is forecasted by economic capital: the mediating effect of parents’
educational expectations is 0.01, accounting for 8.3% of the total effect; the mediating effect of
parents’ education support is 0.01, accounting for 7.7% of the total effect; and the mediating
effect of attention to school education is 0.02, accounting for 10.2% of the total effect.

Moderating effect of family cultural capital on economic capital

We also made reference to the study of Baron and Kenny (1986), and applied a hierarchical
regression model, and on the basis of controlling sex, household registration, monthly family
income, and income source, examined the moderating role of family cultural capital in the impact
of economic capital on academic performance. First, the control variables (sex, household regis-
tration, level of father’s education, monthly income, and income source) were incorporated into
the regression equation; second, the independent variable (economic capital) and moderating vari-
ables (embodied cultural capital and objectified cultural capital) were incorporated into the
regression equation; and third, the independent variable and moderation items (economic capital
by embodied cultural capital, economic capital by objectified cultural capital) generated by the
moderating variables were incorporated into the regression equation. If the moderation items
had a significant impact on student academic performance, then the moderation effect of cultural
capital was regarded to be significant, and to reduce the impact of multicollinearity, apart from the
moderation items, the independent variable and moderating variables were already centralized,
and the classified variables within the control variables were converted into dummy variables.
As indicated in Table 7, after controlling the variables of sex, household registration, and
socioeconomic status, the main effect of economic capital, objectified cultural capital, and
embodied cultural capital was significant, economic capital and objectified cultural capital
had negative impacts on academic performance, and embodied cultural capital has a positive
impact on academic performance; the impact of the interactive role of embodied cultural
capital and economic capital on academic performance was not significant, and the impact of
the interactive role of objectified cultural capital and economic capital on academic performance
was significant. This shows that objectified cultural capital can moderate the relationship
between economic capital and academic performance Zhonglin et al. . According to the views
of Zhonglin et al., the standard resolution of the moderation items should be the B value
422
TABLE 5
Mediating Effect of School Social Capital

Mediating variables of father's level of education impacting academic performance

School trust School norms Teacher-student relations Parent-teacher relations Peer relations

Path B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b

c (Sc) 39.4 (−9.64) .14*** 39.4 (−9.64) .14*** 39.4 (−9.64) .14*** 39.4 (−9.64) .14*** 39.4 (−9.64) .14***
a (Sa) −0.08 (−0.07) .04 −0.06 (−0.07) −.03 0.10 (−0.07) .05 0.17 (−0.08) .08* 0.17 (−0.05) .12**
b (Sb) 7.41 (−4.12) .06 7.51 (−4.33) .05 11.14 (−4.42) .08* −6.62 (−3.76) −.05 21.96 (−5.47) .12***
C (Sc ) 40.02 (−9.64) .15*** 39.86 (−9.64) .15** 38.29 (−9.63) .14** 40.52 (−9.66) .15** 35.63 (−9.62) .13***
Sobel (Z) –0.96 –0.77 1.24 –1.36 2.59*

Note: *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 423

TABLE 6
Mediating Effect of Family Social Capital

Mediating variables of economic capital investment impact on academic performance

Parents’ educational Parents’ educational Parents’ educational Attention to school

expectations participation support education

Path B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b B (SE) b

c (Sc) −16.90 (4.49) −.13*** −16.90 (4.49) −.13*** −16.90 (4.49) −.13*** −16.90 (4.49) −.13***
a (Sa) 0.03 (0.02) .07* 0.07 (0.03) .09** 0.07 (0.02) .12*** 0.09 (0.02) .13***
b (Sb) 31.89 (8.43) .11*** 3.59 (5.09) .02 21.52 (7.06) .09** 20.91 (6.46) .10**
C (Sc ) −17.94 (4.47) −.13*** −17.16 (4.51) .13*** −18.36 (4.50) −.14*** −18.67 (4.50) −.14***
Sobel (Z) 1.39* 0.68 2.29* 2.65*

Note: *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

corresponding to “economic capital investment by embodied/objectified cultural capital,” and

not the b value.
We used a simple slope test to analyze the moderating role of objectified cultural capital, and
the results showed: for students with lower objectified cultural capital, economic capital had a
significant negative impact on academic performance, but for students with higher objectified cul-
tural capital, economic capital cannot significantly impact academic performance (see Figure 2).

TABLE 7
Moderating Effect of Family Capital in the Impact of Father's Level of Education on Academic Performance

Academic performance

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variables B b B b B b

Step 1 Control variables (enter)

Sex 15.62 .07* 16.95 .07* 17.96 .08
Parents work, sell goods, and work temporary jobs −28.95 −.12** −28.98 −.12** −28.91 −.12**
Parents run a store or enterprise −38.99 −.12** −30.64 .09* −30.31 −.09*
High school 36.17 .12* 43.39 .14* 45.74 .15**
College 86.46 .18*** 98.21 .20*** 98.40 .20***
Step 2 Main effect (enter)
Economic capital −15.88 −12** −45.73 −.34*
Embodied cultural capital 13.78 .07 13.81 .07
Objectified cultural capital −9.71 −.08* −32.44 −.26**
Step 3 Two dimensional interaction (enter)
Economic capital x embodied cultural capital 0.17 .01
Economic capital × objectified cultural capital 9.84 .34*
R2 .05 .07 .07
Adjust R2 .04 .05 .05
R2 .05 .02 .01
F 3.60*** 4.16*** 4.00***
F 3.60*** 6.85*** 2.38*

Note: 1. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

2. Insignificant control variables are not listed in the table.
424 CHINESE EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

FIGURE 2 Moderating role of objectified cultural capital between economic capital and academic performance.

Moderation of the mediating role of family cultural capital on parents’ educational

expectations

Given that in the impact of economic capital on academic performance, parents’ educational
expectations, parents’ educational support, and attention to school education play a mediating
role, objectified cultural capital plays a moderating role, this paper used the steps of Muller
et al. (2005), for testing the “moderated mediator,” where the first step examines whether the med-
iating role of parents’ educational expectations, parents’ educational support, and attention to
school education is moderated by objectified cultural capital. The results show that the mediating
role of parents’ educational expectations is moderated by objectified cultural capital (b ¼ −.84,
p < 0.05). The mediating role of parents’ educational support and attention to school education
was not moderated by objectified cultural capital, and the corresponding results were not
listed in Figure 3 and Table 8. Due to space limitations, the regression coefficient table is omitted
here, and interested readers may request it from the authors.
The simple slope test in the first step shows that in families with lower objectified cultural capi-
tal, parents’ educational expectations had a significant positive impact on academic performance
(b ¼ .16, p < 0.05), and in families with higher objectified cultural capital, parents’ educational
expectations cannot significantly impact academic performance (b ¼ .05, ns) (see Figure 4).

FIGURE 3 Mediating role of objectified cultural capital in moderating parents’ educational expectations.
 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 425

TABLE 8
Impact of Father's Educational Expectations and Objectified Cultural Capital on Academic Performance

Variables and steps b DR2

Step one (enter)

Sex .07*
Household registration −.09*
Parents work, sell goods, or work temporary jobs −.11**
Parents run a store or enterprise −.12**
High school .12**
College .20*** .05
Step two (enter)
Objectified cultural capital −.10**
Parents’ educational expectations .09** .02
Step three (enter)
Parents’ educational expectations x objectified cultural capital −.84* .01
Total (R2) .08***

Note: 1. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

2. Insignificant control variables are not listed in the table.

FIGURE 4 Moderating effect of objectified cultural capital in the impact of parents’ educational expectations on
academic performance.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Direct Impact of Family and School Factors on Academic Performance

Through data analysis, this paper found that sex and level of father’s education had a positive
impact on academic performance, where the academic performance of boys was significantly
higher than that of girls, and students whose fathers had high levels of education had especially
426 CHINESE EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

good academic performance, and this is relatively consistent with the results of past studies. The
household registration system is a basic systemic arrangement of Chinese society and serves as
an important basis for resource allocation and interest distribution, and it has a large impact on
social stratification. This paper found that while controlling family capital and school social
capital, the negative impact of household registration on academic performance disappeared,
showing that the direct effect of household registration on academic performance is limited. This
seems to make one believe that household registration has a small effect on academic per-
formance, or is even beneficial to rural students. But the descriptive statistics show that even
though the average grades of rural students (487.32 points) is greater than those of urban students
(478.42 points), the ratio of rural students with high scores is significantly lower than that of
urban students (Ruralbelow ordinary ¼ 49.5%, Ruralordinary-key ¼ 28.7%, Ruralkey and above ¼ 21.8
%; Urbanbelow ordinary ¼ 52.4%; Urbanordinary-key ¼ 19.0%; Urbankey and above ¼ 28.6%;
v2 ¼ 8.03, p < 0.05; based on the acceptance score line for ordinary high schools in Q County,
“below ordinary” refers to points below the ordinary high school acceptance line; “ordinary-
key” refers to points above the ordinary high school acceptance line but below the key high
school points line; “key and above” refers to points above the key high school acceptance line).
This shows that rural students are more likely to enter lower-level high schools, and in the end
impacts their pursuit of high quality higher education opportunities. Yilong (2008) believed that
the household registration system has high adhesion, and is a generation mechanism of social
differences. This paper found that in the impact of household registration on academic perfor-
mance, family capital and school social capital played some roles, and to a certain extent reflects
the characteristics of social stratification caused by the household registration system.
In the research of Blau and Duncan, children’s academic achievement was directly impacted
by parents’ occupation and economic income (Jiayou, 1986). This paper did not find that father’s
occupation had an independent significant impact on academic performance, but it found that
after controlling factors such as structure, family capital, and school social capital, the academic
performance for students with monthly family income between 501 and 1,400 yuan is signifi-
cantly higher than students with monthly family income of 500 yuan and below, and there is
no difference with the academic performance of students with monthly family income of
1,400 yuan and above. Furthermore, the study found that regardless of whether structural vari-
ables, family capital, and school social capital are controlled, the academic performance of stu-
dents with family income sources as parents “work, sell goods, and work temporary jobs” and
“run a store or enterprise” is significantly lower than students whose family income source is
“agricultural production income.” Generally speaking, the economic income of families with
these two types of income sources is higher than families that rely on agricultural production
for income. The family investment model holds that compared to wealthy families, low-income
families can provide extremely limited material and social resources, and these resources are pre-
cisely the factors that further youth academic achievement. But based on the results of this paper,
low economic income impacts the elevation of academic performance, and high economic
income does not necessarily help academic performance. Economic capital has a direct negative
effect on academic performance, but economic capital helps children’s academic performance
through parents’ educational expectations, educational support, and attention to school edu-
cation, and part of the reason for this result may be that improper investment of family economic
income lowers academic achievement. For example, even though working away from home or
running a business increases economic income, it distances parents from caring for their children,
 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 427

and economic investment in their children actually has an opposite effect on academic perfor-
mance. Parents who engage in agricultural production at home are right there with their children,
and this helps elevate their children’s academic performance.
This paper found that after controlling structure and all types of family capital and school
social capital, such as economic capital, objectified cultural capital had a negative impact on
academic performance. In Bourdieu’s view, the existence of cultural commodities and materi-
alization is manifested as the objectified cultural capital of cultural durable goods and books,
which are the easiest to be converted from economic capital. Therefore, the impact model of
objectified cultural capital on academic performance may be similar to that of economic capital,
and the positive role of objectified cultural capital on academic performance is related to the
effective application of family resources. Embodied cultural capital must be acted on by social
actors and consciously studied—it is not a commodity that can be bought by simply relying on
economic capital. In Qingda and Shengyao’s (2008) research, embodied cultural capital has the
best predictability of academic achievement. This paper found that while controlling structural
variables, embodied cultural capital has a positive impact on academic performance, but after
incorporating family economic capital and social capital, its impact on academic performance
is no longer significant. This supports and improves former research conclusions in that embo-
died cultural capital is independent of structural variables in its positive impact on academic
performance, and there is no significant impact on academic performance that is independent
of other types of capital.
Goyette and Xie (1999) found that Asian Americans have greater educational expectations
than whites, and parents’ educational expectations can explain most of children’s educational
expectations. Based on this point, parents’ educational expectations can advance their children’s
educational expectations, thereby improving their children’s academic performance, and the
results of this paper match this, in that the study found that while controlling structural variables
and other types of family capital, parents’ educational expectations has a significant positive
influence on academic performance. But under the condition of incorporating school social
capital, the impact of parents’ educational expectations disappears, which shows that parents’
educational expectations may impact children’s academic performance through school social
capital. The positive impact of parents’ attention to school education on academic performance
is the same as in the conclusions of past studies, such as Lareau’s discovery that parents’ under-
standing and valuing of their children’s school education activities helps to advance their chil-
dren’s academic performance. What is puzzling is that parents’ educational participation has a
significant negative impact on academic performance that is independent of structural variables,
but when buffered by other types of family capital and school social capital, it is no longer sig-
nificant. A study by Hill et al. (2004) found that parents’ educational participation differs due to
differences in parents’ level of education and race, and in groups in which parents have higher
levels of education, parents’ educational participation is correlated to academic achievement and
expectations and there is low correlation with problem behavior. In groups in which parents have
lower levels of education, parents’ educational participation is correlated to educational expecta-
tions, but there is no correlation with problem behavior and academic achievement. Based on
this, in the cultural context of the subjects of this study, the impact model of parents’ educational
participation on academic performance may be similar to the manifestation of economic capital
and objective cultural capital, and they only help facilitate academic performance when
combined with other types of capital. In recent years, some studies have revealed that parents’
428 CHINESE EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

educational support has a lasting, positive effect on academic performance (Chohan and Khan
2010). This paper did not find a direct effect of parents’ educational support on academic per-
formance. But past studies have all viewed parents’ educational support as multidimensional,
and even included dimensions such as economic investment, while in this paper parents’ edu-
cational support only involves the care, support, and encouragement of parents on their chil-
dren’s education, and this may be a reason for the different results Fan and Chen (2001).
Regarding school factors, school type does not have a significant impact on academic
achievement, and to a certain degree this shows that the differences in the quality and teachers
between schools is not the main cause of urban-rural differences in academic performance.
School trust and school norms do not have a significant impact on academic performance,
and this is consistent with the study conclusions of Stewart (2008) in which compared to factors
such as individual levels of parent-child interaction and peer relations, the impact of school
structural factors such as school trust and school participation on academic performance is
low. It is worth noting that some studies have found that kind, respectful mutual interactions
between teachers and parents helps improve student academic performance (Hughes and Kwok
2007), while this paper found that when structural and various capital variables are controlled,
parent-teacher relations have a significantly negative impact on academic performance. Accord-
ing to a field survey, parent-school relations are prevalently not close enough, and parent-tea-
cher relations mostly arise from negative student performance at school, and this may cause the
negative impact of parent-teacher relations on academic performance. Some studies have found
that teacher-student relations and peer relations have a positive impact on academic perfor-
mance (Hughes et al. 2008), and this paper makes a similar conclusion in that as long as other
types of variables are incorporated, the impact of teacher-student relations is no longer
significant.

Level of Father’s Education and Academic Achievement: A Mediating Role

According to Bourdieu, the level of father’s education is a type of systematized cultural capital.
This paper found that the level of father’s education not only has a direct positive effect on
academic performance, it also impacts academic performance through the mediating roles of
parents’ educational expectations, parents’ educational support, and attention to school edu-
cation, but the mediating effect is weaker than the direct effect. The mediating role of parents’
educational participation between level of father’s education and academic performance is not
significant. Some scholars have pointed out that the level of parents’ education is an important
factor affecting parents’ behavior. Parents with higher levels of education focus more on com-
municating and interacting with their children and support and guidance of youths, and not pure
raising or protection Wenxin (1999). That is, parents with higher levels of education have
greater capabilities and effectiveness in educating their children than parents with lower levels
of education, and they directly and effectively increase their children’s academic performance,
which makes the direct and mediating effect of family capital that embodies parents’ trust and
behavior weaker in comparison.
The data analysis shows that the mediating role of economic capital between level of father’s
education and academic performance is not significant. A cross analysis also found that of fam-
ilies in which the father’s education is associate’s degree or above, 4.5% have monthly incomes
 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 429

of 500 yuan and below, and 85% have incomes of 1,400 and above; of families in which the
father has a high school education, the corresponding family incomes are 16.8% and 44.0%.
This means that the lower the level of father’s education, the lower the economic income, reflect-
ing the “double poverty” phenomenon, in which cultural poverty and economic poverty simul-
taneously appear in one family. Also, according to the descriptive statistics, the higher the level
of father’s education, the greater the economic capital. Therefore, due to “double poverty,” the
indirect impact of level of parents’ education on academic performance through economic capital
is mostly directly caused by level of parents’ education, and this paper did not find the result that
appeared in many studies—families with high levels of parents’ education or that possess more
cultural capital have children who can obtain good academic achievement even though they are
economically impoverished or have little economic capital (Bradley and Corwyn 2002). Further-
more, this paper found that the mediating effect of embodied cultural capital and objectified cul-
tural capital between level of father’s education and academic achievement is not significant.
Because objectified cultural capital must be obtained using economic capital, it may appear in
a form similar to economic capital. According to the theory of cultural capital, families in which
the father has a high level of education emphasize cultivating the manner of speaking and com-
portment of their children, and families in which the father has less education do not emphasize
cultivating the embodied cultural capital of their children, and this difference in embodied cul-
tural capital causes differences in the academic performance of children from families in which
the fathers have different levels of education. Therefore, the direct effect of level of father’s edu-
cation causes embodied cultural capital to not have a significant mediating effect between level
of father’s education and academic performance.
Many studies have found that socioeconomic status and family capital can promote student
academic achievement through school capital, in particular it impacts academic achievement
through teacher-student relations and peer relations (Sirin 2005). This paper demonstrates the
mediating role of peer relations between level of father’s education and academic performance,
but it does not support a mediating role of teacher-student relations between them. According to
the theory of cultural capital, since families in which the parents have high levels of education
possess more cultural capital, it is easier for students from such families to establish relation-
ships with their teachers, thereby helping improve their grades. However, in China’s cultural
background, traditional teacher-student relations are established on the basis of the role ethics
of teachers lecturing, teaching, and explaining and students modestly learning and respectfully
following. But under the background of social modernization, the traditional model of teacher-
student relations is quietly changing, and the pace of psychological modernization between
urban and rural areas and between strata is different, which necessarily impacts the relationship
between students from urban/rural areas and different strata and teachers. As the Taiwan scholar
Lu Luo found, the accordance of the traditional and modern nature of teacher and student psy-
chologies has an important impact on the quality of teacher-student relations (Luo and Kecheng
2007). Students from families in which the father has a high level of education may possess
more modern cultural capital, but this is not necessarily beneficial to facilitating teacher-student
relations and improving academic performance. Furthermore, this paper did not find a moder-
ating role of parent-teacher relations between level of father’s education and academic perfor-
mance, and as mentioned previously, insufficiently close parent-teacher relations may be an
important reason for this. School trust and school norms are mostly independent of family back-
ground, and it is unlikely for parents to impact school trust and school norms through social
430 CHINESE EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

relationships. Therefore, it is reasonable that school trust and school norms did not play a
mediating role between level of father’s education and academic performance.

Economic Capital and Academic Achievement: Mediating and Moderating Effects

This paper found that economic capital has a direct negative role on academic performance, and
this is inconsistent with some past findings. Part of the reason may be that past studies mostly
took family income or property as a measurement indicator for economic capital, and did not
examine the actual application of economic resources on children’s education. After all, stu-
dents seldom have the chance to allocate family income, therefore there is a certain difference
between economic income and economic capital (Gershoff and Aber 2007). That is to say, past
studies have examined the relationship between economic resources and academic achievement
from the perspective of family investment and not family process, and this overlooks examining
the mediating and moderating roles of parent factors in the impact of family income on aca-
demic performance. Studies have found that economic capital can facilitate children’s academic
performance by impacting parents’ educational expectations, educational support, and attention
to school education. Some researchers have pointed out that there are two mechanisms for fam-
ily economic status generating an impact on children: one is resource environment limitations
(e.g., whether the children can be provided with nourishment, good health, social, and cultural
resources); another is the psychological expectations, perception, and reaction of important
others such as parents toward the children (Adler and Ostrove 1999). To sum up the previous
research results, the impact of economic income and economic capital on academic perfor-
mance is not unidirectional, and it cannot be denied that economic income limits the economic
and social resources families provide to their children, thereby impacting their academic perfor-
mance. But if economic investment (i.e., abundant economic capital) cannot unite with parents’
educational expectations, support, and attention toward their children, it is not beneficial to
improving their children’s academic performance.
Furthermore, studies have shown that the mediating role of parents’ educational expectations
between educational capital and academic performance is moderated by objectified cultural capi-
tal, in that in families with lower objectified cultural capital the positive mediating role of parents’
educational expectations is stronger. Some studies have pointed out that in Chinese society, par-
ents emphasize the importance of education in changing one’s inferior status (material deficiency,
low status) and demand that their children work hard in their studies, and their children also tend
to accept their parents’ expectations and strengthen their investment in their studies (Sue and
Okazaki 1990). Therefore, the reason that objectified cultural capital moderates the mediating role
of the father’s educational expectations may be: contrasting and example effects are easily formed
when a family environment that lacks objectified cultural capital impacts students’ own studies
and lives, and the children tend to accept their parents’ educational expectations, thereby increa-
sing academic achievement; in family environments rich in objectified cultural capital, the
contrasting and example effects are weak, and children do not easily accept their parents’
educational expectations, therefore, the impact of parents’ educational expectations on their
children’s academic performance is relatively weak.
It is very interesting that while this paper found that objectified cultural capital and economic
capital both have direct negative impacts on academic performance, it also found that objectified
 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 431

cultural capital plays a moderating role in the impact of economic capital on academic perfor-
mance. That is, in families with lower objectified cultural capital, economic capital negatively
impacts academic performance, while in families with higher objectified cultural capital, econ-
omic capital does not have a clear negative effect on academic performance. This shows that
families lacking in objectified cultural capital will further worsen the negative role generated
by economic capital on academic performance, and families rich in objectified cultural capital
reduce the negative influence generated by economic capital on academic performance. Accord-
ing to Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital, objectified cultural capital is transformed from econ-
omic capital. In this light, the key to resolving the negative impact of these two types of capital on
academic performance is effectively transforming economic capital into objectified cultural capi-
tal. The reason this paper found that economic capital has a negative impact on academic perfor-
mance may be because for the samples in this paper, economic capital cannot effectively be
transformed into objectified cultural capital, thereby causing it to generate a negative impact
on students’ academic performance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the constructive opinions of an anonymous reviewer,
and any remaining errors are our own. Chinese library classification: G40-054
Document code: A Article number: 1671-9468 (2015) 02-0127-19.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Sciences
Research Youth Fund Project (12YJC880133).

REFERENCES

Adler, N. E., and J. M. Ostrove. 1999. Socioeconomic status and health: What we know and what we don't. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences 896:3–15.
Aiken, L. S., and S. G. West. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York: Sage.
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:1173–82.
Bradley, R. H., and R. F. Corwyn. 2002. Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology
53:371–99.
Chohan, B. I., and R. M. Khan. 2010. Impact of parental support on the academic performance and self concept of the
student. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education 4:14–26.
Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94:S95–S210.
Davis-Kean, P. E. 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.
Fan, X., and M. Chen. 2001. Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Education
Psychology Review 13:1–22.
Gershoff, E. T., J. L. Aber, C. C. Raver, and M. C. Lennon. 2007. Income is not enough: Incorporating material
hardship into models of income associations with parenting and child development. Child Development 78:70–95.
432 CHINESE EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

Goyette, K., and Y. Xie. 1999. Educational expectations of Asian American youths: Determinants and ethnic
differences. Sociology of Education 72:22–36.
Hill, N. E., D. R. Castellino, J. E. Lansford, P. Nowlin, K. A. Dodge, J. E. Bates, and G. S. Pettit. 2004. Parental
academic investment as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations across
adolescence. Child Development 75:1491–509.
Hughes, H., and O.-M. Kwok. 2007. Influence of student-teacher and parent-teacher relationships on lower achieving
readers’ engagement and achievement in the primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology 99:39–51.
Hughes, J. H., W. Luo, O. Kwok, and L. K. Loyd. 2008. Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and achieve-
ment: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology 100:1–14.
Jiayou, X. 1986. Shehui jiecenghua yu shehui liudong (Social stratification and social mobility). Taipei: Sanmin shuju:
199.
Junying, L., and H. Yizhi. 2008. Yingxiang Taiwan diqu xuesheng xueye chengjiu de keneng jizhi: Jiegou fangcheng
moshi de tanjiu (Possible mechanisms affecting academic achievement in the Taiwan region: An exploration of
structural equation models). Taiwan Jiaoyu Shehuixue Yanjiu (Sociological Research on Taiwan Education)
8 (1):45–88.
Lareau, A. 1987. Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of
Education 60:73–85.
Luo, L., and W. Kecheng. 2007. Shisheng de xinli chuantongxing yu xiandaixing, guanxi qihexing dui shisheng hudong
pinzhi ji xuesheng xinli fuzhi de yingxiang (The impact of the traditional and modern psychological nature and
relationship accordance of students and teachers on the interactive quality of students and teachers and student
psychological well-being). Bentu Xinlixue Yanjiu (Local Psychological Studies) 2007 (27):81–118.
Muller, D., C. M. Judd, and Y. V. Yzerbyt. 2005. When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 89:852–63.
Parcel, T. L., and M. Dufur. 2001. Capital at home and at school: Effect on student achievemnet. Social Forces 79:
881–912.
Qingda, C., and Z. Shengyao. 2008. Wenhua ziben yu xuexi chengjiu zhijian de guanxi yanjiu: yi Yunlin Xian Guomin
Xiaoxue liunianji xuesheng weili (A study of the relationship between cultural capital and academic achievement:
Using the example of sixth grade students at guomin elementary in Yunlin county). Xinzhu Jiaoyu Daxue Xuebao
(Journal of Hsinchu University of Education) 25 (1):79–98.
Sirin, S. 2005. Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of
Educational Research 75:417–53.
Stewart, E. D. 2008. School structural characteristics, student effort, peer associations, and parental involvement:
The influence of school-and individual-level factors on academic achievement. Education and Urban Society
40:179–204.
Sue, S., and S. Okazaki. 1990. Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an explanation.
American Psychologist 45:913.
Wenxin, Z. 1999. Ertong shehuixing fazhan (Children’s social development). Beijing: Beijing Shifan Daxue
Chubanshe.
Wöβmann, L. 2005. Educational production in East Asia: The impact of family background and schooling policies on
student performance. German Economic Review 6:331–53.
Xinfu, Z., and W. Caiyin. 2006. Shehui ziben zai jiating daiji renli ziben chuandi zuoyong zhi tantao” (An exploration
of the role of social capital in family intergenerational human capital transfer). Taibei Jiaoyu Daxue Xuebao
(Journal of Taipei University of Education) 19 (2):281–306.
Yeung, W. J., and D. Conley. 2008. Black-White achievement gap and family wealth. Child Development
79:303–24.
Yilong, H. 2008. Hukou hai qizuoyong ma?—huji zhidu yu shehui fencing he liudong (Does household registration still
have a role?—The household registration system and social stratification and mobility). Zhongguo Shehui Kexue
(Social Sciences in China) 29 (1):149–62.
Yimin, J. 2008. Jiaoyu jihui yu jiating ziben (Educational opportunities and family capital). Beijing: Shehui Kexue
Wenxian Chubanshe.
Zhonglin, W., H. Jietai, and H. W. Marsh. 2008. Jiegou fangcheng moxing zhong tiaojie xiaoying de biaozhunhua guji”
(Standardized estimates of the moderating effect in structural equation models). Xinli xuebao (Acta Psychologica
Sinica) 40:729–36.
Copyright of Chinese Education & Society is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.