学生的学业优势和幸福感优势是指相较于他人其具有更高的学业表现水平和幸福感水平。培养兼备学业和幸福感优势的学生，不仅是相关利益主体对于“学得好又学得开心”的殷切期待，也符合国家拔尖创新人才早期培养的战略要求。研究采用结构——能动性视角，分析国家（地区）、学校和学生层面的结构因素和能动性因素对学生学业与幸福感优势的作用，试图厘清其中的关键因素，为“双优”学生的甄别与培养提供参考。

基于PISA2018测试中59个国家（地区）的数据，研究对各国（地区）学业与幸福感优势学生的分布进行了分析，采用分析视角遴选了反映制度、文化、经济性结构、学校结构因素和家庭结构的相关结构变量，反映学生成就目标与对教育和学习态度相关能动性变量，构建学生学业优势、幸福感优势与“双优”学生多水平线性模型。

研究发现：（1）多数国家和地区的学生难以兼顾学业优势与幸福感优势，“双优”学生占比排名情况与学业优势学生占比排名更为接近。（2）存在制度、文化与经济结构的影响。区隔制度对学生学业优势的作用不显著，而低能力区隔影响学生的幸福感优势；个人主义文化能够显著预测学生的学业优势、幸福感优势以及兼备“双优”；人均GDP显著预测学生学业优势与兼备“双优”。（3）学校结构的作用较复杂。学校教学资源短缺负向预测学生学业优势与兼备“双优”；竞争氛围正向影响学生学业优势与兼备“双优”，但对幸福感优势有消极作用；合作氛围正向预测学生学业优势、幸福感优势以及兼备“双优”。（4）ESCS、家庭情绪支持等家庭结构的作用始终存在。ESCS和父母情绪支持均正向预测学生学业优势、幸福感优势以及兼备“双优”。（5）学生能动性因素中，成就目标的影响较为复杂。工作掌控正向预测了学生学业优势、幸福感优势以及兼备“双优”，竞争意向有助于取得学业优势和兼备“双优”而对幸福感优势无影响，失败恐惧则会对幸福感优势和兼备“双优”造成消极影响；而学生对于学习和生活的态度中，学习目标定向和毅力正向预测了三者，重视教育态度正向预测了学业优势和兼备“双优”但对幸福感优势无影响，而生命意义感负向预测了学生的学业优势和兼备“双优”但对幸福感优势有积极影响。（6）结构因素与能动性因素存在交互作用。教学资源短缺与学校合作氛围等结构因素会调节能动性因素的影响。

研究发现证实了结构和能动性视角的假设，但是也呈现了影响的复杂性，甄别出了其中的关键因素。研究建议：（1）树立正确的教育评价导向、关注个体价值的实现、加大对教育的投入；（2）学校和教师要加强学校的氛围建设、重视对学生非认知能力的培养；（3）父母要提供更多的情感支持，让孩子充满爱地成长。

Students' academic advantages and well-being advantages refer to their higher levels of academic performance and levels of happiness compared to others. Cultivating students with both academic and well-being advantages not only aligns with the vested interests of stakeholders in “achieving good learning outcomes and happiness” but also meets the strategic needs of the nation for the early training of top-notch innovative talents. This research adopts a structure-agency perspective to analyze the effects of structure and agency factors at the national (regional), school, and student levels on students' academic and well-being advantages, attempting to identify key factors and provide references for the selection and cultivation of "double excellent" students.

Based on data from 59 countries (regions) in the PISA 2018 assessment, this research analyzes the distribution of students with advantages in academics and well-being across different nations (regions). The study selects analytical perspectives to reflect institutional, cultural, economic structural factors, school structural factors, and family structural factors, as well as agency variables related to students' achievement goals and attitudes towards education and learning, constructing a multi-level linear model for students' academic advantages, well-being advantages, and "double excellent" students.

The findings reveal that: (1) Most countries and regions struggle to balance academic advantages with well-being advantages, and the proportion of "double excellent" students closely mirrors the ranking of academically advantaged students. (2) Institutional, cultural, and economic structures have an impact. Institutional differentiation has no significant effect on students' academic advantages, whereas low-ability differentiation affects students' well-being advantages; individualistic cultures can significantly predict students' academic advantages, well-being advantages, and being "double excellent"; GDP per capita significantly predicts students' academic advantages and being "double excellent." (3) The role of school structures is complex. The scarcity of school teaching resources negatively predicts students' academic advantages and being "double excellent"; a competitive atmosphere positively affects students' academic advantages and being "double excellent," but has a negative impact on well-being advantages; a cooperative atmosphere positively predicts students' academic advantages, well-being advantages, and being "double excellent." (4) The role of family structures such as ESCS and emotional support from parents is constant. ESCS and parental emotional support both positively predict students' academic advantages, well-being advantages, and being "double excellent." (5) Among student agency factors, the impact of achievement goals is complex. Job control positively predicts students' academic advantages, well-being advantages, and being "double excellent"; competitive intentions aid in achieving academic advantages and being "double excellent" but have no impact on well-being advantages; fear of failure negatively impacts well-being advantages and being "double excellent"; whereas students' attitudes towards learning and life, such as goal orientation and perseverance, positively predict all three aspects, valuing education attitude positively predicts academic advantages and being "double excellent" but has no effect on well-being advantages, while a sense of life meaning negatively predicts students' academic advantages and being "double excellent" but has a positive impact on well-being advantages. (6) There is an interaction between structural factors and agency factors. Structural factors such as the scarcity of teaching resources and school cooperative atmosphere modulate the impact of agency factors.

The findings confirm the hypotheses of structural and agency perspectives but also reveal the complexity of impacts, identifying key factors. Research recommendations include: (1) Establishing correct educational evaluation guidance, focusing on the realization of individual values, and increasing investment in education; (2) Schools and teachers should strengthen the construction of school atmospheres and focus on nurturing students' non-cognitive abilities; (3) Parents should provide more emotional support to help children grow up with love.