在教育系統中，每個學校都會設定一個時間表，引導各種教學活動的進行，教師與學生通常需要參照時間表行動。學校透過時間框架規範每個師生的作息，雖讓學校穩定有序，也可能限制學生的作為，促使學生運用策略跨越既定的時間框架。本研究以大台北地區某個特定學校為研究場域，研究者希望能深入理解不同類型學生是否都會被學校時間框架所框限而試圖想跨越，試圖理解該校的時間框架如何？學生如何詮釋此時間框架？學生是否試圖跨越時間框架？以何種策略跨越？為何跨越？這樣的跨越與學生之社會文化背景有何關聯？其研究目的如下：
一、該校的時間框架如何？學生如何詮釋此時間框架？
二、幾位選定的學生，其時間觀點(time perspective)為何？是否試圖跨越時間
框架？以何種策略跨越？
三、這樣的跨越與這幾位學生之社會文化背景有何關聯？
為能厚實描述學生對於學校時間的詮釋，本研究採取質性研究取徑，選定台北市某所中學描述其時間框架與脈絡，並以該校某個八年級班級學生作為研究對象，在八年級上學期隨即進入現場進行實徵資料的蒐集，直至九年級上學期結束，透過參與觀察、深度訪談、文件分析等研究方式，藉此理解學生時間運用的觀念與行動。
本研究透過相關資料的分析與整理之後獲致下列結論：赤子中學基本時間框架是反覆循環的時間迴圈；身處學校時間框架下學生的學校生活是被框限的，若不遵從可能會遭受懲罰；師生互動下教師對學生的好惡也影響了時間框架的鬆緊。再者，學生選擇是否跨越學校時間框架也與其階級文化、學業成績有關，且學生回應策略與其時間取向亦相互影響。故在「官方」定義的時間，學生對於學校時間的意義實則上有自己的詮釋，引導著學生展現出各種不同的行為模式。

In the education system, each school will set a timetable to guide the progress of various teaching activities. Teachers and students usually need to act according to the timetable. The school regulates the work and rest of each teacher and student through the time frame. Although the school is stable and orderly, it may also restrict students' actions and encourage students to use strategies to cross the established time frame. This study takes a specific school in the Greater Taipei area as the research field. The researchers hope to gain a deeper understanding of whether different types of students are limited by the school's time frame and try to cross it, trying to understand how the school's time frame is? How do students interpret this time frame? Are students trying to cross time frames? What strategy to cross? Why cross? How does such a leap relate to the sociocultural background of the students? Its research aims are as follows:
1. What is the time frame of the school? How do students interpret this time frame?
2. What is the time perspective of the selected students? whether to try to span time
frame? What strategy to cross?
3. How is this leap related to the social and cultural background of these students?
In order to describe the students' interpretation of school time, this study adopts a qualitative research approach, selects a junior high school in Taipei to describe its time frame and context, and takes a certain eighth-grade class of the school as the research object. Immediately enter the field to collect empirical data until the end of the first semester of the ninth grade. Through participation in observation, in-depth interviews, document analysis and other research methods, to understand the concepts and actions of students' time use.
Through the analysis and arrangement of relevant data, this research has reached the following conclusions: The basic time frame of Chizi junior high school is a time loop that repeats itself; the school life of students in the school time frame is limited, and if they do not comply, they may be punished. Under the interaction of teachers and students, teachers' likes and dislikes to students also affect the tightness of the time frame. Furthermore, whether students choose to cross the school time frame is also related to their class culture and academic performance, and students' response strategies and their time orientation also affect each other. Therefore, in the time defined by "official", students actually have their own interpretation of the meaning of school time, which guides students to show various behavior patterns.

壹、中文部分
王文科（2000）。教育研究法。台北市：五南。
李昆翰（2014）。跟著家庭作業去旅行：階級、時間資源與教育機會均等的分析。國立臺灣師範大學博士論文。未出版，台北市。
周新富（1999）。國中生家庭背景、家庭文化資源、學校經驗與學習結果關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
吳育南（1993）。韋伯論理性官僚制的弔詭。東海大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中市。
林倩如（1999）。論紀律--以韋伯和傅柯為例。國立政治大學碩士論文。未出版，台北市。
林郡雯（2008）。結構與行動之間：從國中生的文憑意象看階級的教育作用。國立臺灣師範大學博士論文。未出版，台北市。
馬歇爾（Marshall, C.）與羅絲曼（G. B. Rossman）著（2006）。質性研究： 設計與計畫撰寫（李政賢譯）。五南。
畢恆達（2005）。教授為什麼沒告訴我：論文寫作的枕邊書。學富。
陳向明（2000）。質的研究法與社會科學研究。教育科學出版社。
張建成（1988）。學生疏離及其在班級團體中的關聯因素。國立臺灣師範大學博士論文。未出版，台北市。
歐用生（1989）。質的研究。師大書苑。
黃瑞琴（1994）。質的教育研究方法。心理。
黃瑞琴 ( 2003 ) 。質的教育研究法。心理。
黃應貴主編（1999）。時間、歷史與記憶。中央研究院民族學研究所。
黃鴻文（1992）。學校文化的迷思。國教世紀，275（5），33-36。
黃鴻文（1993）。學校文化的設計。中等教育，44（1），55-58。
黃鴻文（2001）。國中學生的時間概念。社會教育學刊，30，261-289。
黃鴻文（2003）。國民中學學生文化之民族誌研究。學富。
黃鴻文（2011）。抗拒乎？拒絕乎？偏差乎？學生文化研究中抗拒概念之誤用與澄清。教育研究集刊，57，123-154。
黃鴻文、鄭英傑、王俐蘋（2016）。為何不傾聽學生的聲音? 學生課程觀及其對課程研究的啟示。臺灣教育社會學研究，16，127-152。
傅柯（Foucault Michel）著（1992）。規訓與懲罰-監獄的誕生（劉北成等譯）。桂冠。
楊瑩（1988）。台灣地區教育擴張過程中不同家庭背景子女受教機會差異之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，台北市。
鄭作彧（2009）。時間即生活：Norbert Elias的時間社會學簡介。文化研究月報，88。
鄭英傑（2006）。揭露下課十分鐘之秘密-小六學生遊戲及其階級因素之探討。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文。未出版，台北市。
鄭英傑（2017）。學做工還是怕做工？臺灣社會高學業成就勞動階級學生及其家長的反再製心態之分析。教育研究集刊，63（4），65 – 100。
甄曉蘭（1996）。從典範轉移的再思論質的研究崛起的意義。嘉義師院學報，1 0 ，119-146。
潘慧玲（主編）（2003）。教育研究的取徑：概念與應用。高等教育。
蔡敏玲 ( 1996 ) 。教育質性研究者請在文本中現身：兩項重要思慮。國民教育，37（2），21-30。
蔡文輝（2006）。社會學理論。三民。
劉國兆（2013）。升學主義、學校生活與課後補習： 一群七年級國中生的課程觀。教育研究學報，47（2），73-98。
貳、英文部分
Anderson, K. T., & McClard, A. P. (1993). Study time: Temporal orientations of freshmen students and computing. Anthropology and Education, 24(2), 159-177.
Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school Knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 3-42.
Birksted, I (1976). School performance seen from boys. Sociological Review, 24(1), 63-77.
Becker, H. S. (1993). How I learned what a crocke was? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 28-35.
Bruno, J. E. (1995). Doing time--killing time at school: An examination of the perceptions and allocations of time among teacher-defined at-risk students. Urban Review, 27, 101-20.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist schooling in America: Educational reform and the contradictions of life. Basic.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1970). Reproduction in education, society and culture. (Trans. By N. Richard). Sage.
Burkam, D. T., Ready, D. D., Lee, V. E., & Logerfo, L. F. (2004). Social-class differences in summer learning between kindergarten and first grade: Model specification and estimation. Sociology of Education, 77, 1-31.
Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. The Free.
Chin, T., & Philips, M. (2004). Social reproduction and child-rearing practices: Social class, children’s agency, and the summer activity gap. Sociology of Education,77, 185-210.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and gender politics. Stanford University Press.
Downey, D. B., von Hippel, P. T., & Broh, B. A. (2004). Are schools the great equalizer? Cognitive inequality during the summer months and the school year. American Sociological Review, 69, 613-635.
Durkheim, E. (1995). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.The Free.
Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L.S. (1997). Children, schools and inequality. Westview.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (Translated by Alan Sheridan). Vintage.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1.): An introduction. (Translated by R. Hurley). Pantheon.
Fordham, S. & Ogbu, J. U., (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the “burden of ‘acting White’” . The Urban Review, 18(3), 177-206.
Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step. Sage.
Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36, 217- 223.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Hutchinson.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Consititution of Society: Outline of the theory of structration. Polity.
Giddens, A. (1989). A Reply to My Critics. In D. Held & J. B. Thompson (Eds.), Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and His Critics. University Press.
Goffman, E. (1961a) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1968) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Penguin.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1967). Social relations in a secondary school. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Heyns, B. (1978). Summer learning and the effects of schooling. Academic.
Hardt, M. (1997). Prison Time. Yale French Studies Number, 91, 64-79.
Holland, D. C., & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. University of Chicago Press.
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families. American Sociological Review, 67(5), 747-776.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Free.
Mills, C. W. (1959). Sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.
Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing. Harvard University Press.
Schutz, A. (1945). On Multiple Realities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 5(4), p533-576.
Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey Bass.
Ogbu, J. (1974). The next generation. Academic.
Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., & Cao, H. T. (1991). Students’ Multiple Worlds: Negotiating the Boundaries of Family, Peer, and School Cultures. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 22(3), 224-250.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Free Press.
Weber, M. (2001). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. Columbia University Press.
Woods, P. (1983). Sociology and the school: An interactionist viewpoint. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Young, M. F. D. (1971). Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education. Collier MacMillan.