進階搜尋


 
系統識別號 U0026-0812200910365882
論文名稱(中文) 國中生四向度目標導向之中介效果分析
論文名稱(英文) The analysis of mediating effect of 4-Dimensional Goal Orientation of Junior High School Students
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 教育研究所
系所名稱(英) Graduate Institute of Education
學年度 91
學期 2
出版年 92
研究生(中文) 謝岱陵
研究生(英文) Tai-Ling Hsieh
學號 u3690105
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 194頁
口試委員 口試委員-于富雲
指導教授-程炳林
口試委員-鄭明長
中文關鍵字 趨向氣質  逃避氣質  目標導向  逃避行為  知覺的課室目標結構  趨向行為 
英文關鍵字 perceptions of classroom goal structure  approach behavior  avoidance behavior  approach temperament  avoidance temperament  goal orientation 
學科別分類
中文摘要 本研究的目的為:(1)比較國中生所持四種目標導向的差異情形。(2)探討趨向/逃避氣質與國中生目標導向之關係。(3)考驗國中生目標導向與趨向、逃避行為之關係。(4)考驗趨向/逃避氣質與國中生趨向、逃避行為之關係。(5)分析目標導向在趨向/逃避氣質與趨向/逃避行為之間的中介效果。(6)分析知覺的課室目標結構與國中生目標導向之關係。(7)探討知覺的課室目標結構與趨向/逃避行為之關係。(8)考驗目標導向在知覺的課室目標結構與趨向/逃避行為之間的中介效果。為完成上述研究目的,本研究以785名國中生為研究對象。研究工具包括研究者自編的目標導向量表、趨向氣質量表、逃避氣質量表、知覺的課室目標結構量表、趨向行為量表與逃避行為量表。本研究以單因子重複量數變異數分析、多元迴歸分析及階層迴歸分析來考驗各項假設。
本研究之發現如下:
一、國中生在四種目標導向上有顯著差異。進一步分析顯示國中生的趨向精熟目標顯著高於趨向表現目標、逃避精熟目標與逃避表現目標;趨向表現目標顯著高於逃避精熟目標及逃避表現目標;逃避精熟目標也顯著高於逃避表現目標。
二、趨向氣質能有效預測國中生的趨向精熟目標、趨向表現目標與逃避精熟目標。逃避氣質能有效預測國中生的趨向表現目標、逃避精熟目標與逃避表現目標。
三、趨向精熟目標、趨向表現目標及逃避精熟目標能正向預測國中生的趨向行為,且負向預測其逃避行為。逃避表現目標能負向預測國中生的趨向行為,且正向預測其逃避行為。
四、趨向氣質多能正向預測受試者的趨向行為,而負向預測其逃避行為;逃避氣質多能負向預測受試者的趨向行為,而正向預測其逃避行為。
五、趨向精熟目標、趨向表現目標與逃避精熟目標為個人特質與趨向行為之中介變項;逃避精熟目標與逃避表現目標為個人特質與逃避行為之中介變項。
六、國中生所知覺的課室精熟目標結構能有效預測其所持的趨向精熟目標、趨向表現目標、逃避精熟目標與逃避表現目標。另一方面,國中生所知覺的課室表現目標結構能有效預測其所持的趨向表現目標、逃避精熟目標與逃避表現目標。
七、課室精熟目標結構能正向預測國中生的趨向行為,而負向預測其逃避行為。課室表現目標結構能正向預測國中生的後設認知策略與訊息處理策略、負向預測堅持及努力,而正向預測其逃避行為。
八、趨向精熟目標、趨向表現目標、逃避精熟目標與逃避表現目標均為課室目標結構與趨向/逃避行為的中介變項。

本研究根據研究結果進行討論並提出教學、學習輔導及未來研究上的建議。
英文摘要 The purpose of this study were to (a) compare the differences among junior high school students’goal orientation, (b) explore the relation between approach/avoidance temperament and goal orientation, (c) examine the relation between students’ goal orientation and approach/avoidance behavior, (d) examine the relation between approach/avoidance temperament and students’ approach/avoidance behavior, (e) analysis the effects of mediator on goal orientation between approach/avoidance temperament and approach/avoidance behavior, (f) analysis the relation between perceptions of classroom goal structure and goal orientation, (g) explore the relation between perceptions of classroom goal structure and approach/avoidance behavior, (h) examine the effects of mediator on goal orientation between perceptions of classroom goal structure and approach/avoidance behavior. The participants were 785 junior high school students. The instruments used in this study included:Goal Orientation Scale, Approach Temperament Scale, Avoidance Temperament Scale, Perceptions of Classroom Goal Structure Scale, Approach Behavior Scale and Avoidance Behavior Scale. The statistical methods used to analysis the data were one-way repeated measures ANOVA, multiple regression analysis and hierarchical regression analysis.

The conclusions of this study were summarized as follow:
1.Junior high school students had significant differences on goal orientation, and furthermore their approach-mastery goal was higher than approach-performance goal, avoidance-mastery goal and avoidance-performance goal; approach-performance goal was higher than avoidance-mastery goal and avoidance-performance goal; avoidance-mastery goal was higher than avoidance-performance goal.
2.Approach temperament could be used to predict junior high school students’approach-mastery goal, approach-performance goal and avoidance-mastery goal; moreover, avoidance temperament could be used to predict junior high school students’ approach-performance goal, avoidance-mastery goal and avoidance-performance goal.
3.Junior high school students’approach-mastery goal, approach-performance goal and avoidance-mastery goal could be used to positively predict approach behavior and negatively predict avoidance behavior, and at the same time their avoidance-performance goal could be used to negatively predict approach behavior and positively predict avoidance behavior.
4.Most of approach temperaments could be used to positively predict approach behavior and negatively predict avoidance behavior, but most of avoidance temperaments could be used to negatively predict approach behavior and positively predict avoidance behavior.
5.Junior high school students’approach-mastery goal, approach-performance goal and avoidance-mastery goal were the mediator between personal temperament and approach behavior; in addition avoidance-mastery goal and avoidance-performance goal were the mediator between personal temperament and avoidance behavior.
6.The perceptions of students’classroom mastery goal structure could be used to predict their approach-mastery goal, approach-performance goal, avoidance-mastery goal and avoidance-performance goal; besides, the perceptions of students’classroom performance goal structure could be used to predict their approach-performance goal, avoidance-mastery goal and avoidance-performance goal.
7.Classroom mastery goal structure could be used to positively predict junior high school students’approach behavior and negatively predict avoidance behavior. However, classroom performance goal structure could be used to positively predict junior high school students’metacognitive strategy and information-processing strategy, negatively predict persistence and effort, besides positively predict avoidance.
8.Junior high school students’approach-mastery goal, approach-performance goal, avoidance-mastery goal and avoidance-performance goal were the mediator between classroom goal structure and approach/avoidance behavior.

Suggestions for teaching, educational guidance and further studies were proposed based on this research finding.
論文目次 中文摘要…………………………………………………Ⅰ
英文摘要…………………………………………………Ⅱ
目次………………………………………………………Ⅳ
表目次……………………………………………………Ⅵ
圖目次……………………………………………………Ⅷ

第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機與目的……………………………1
第二節 研究問題……………………………………6
第三節 名詞釋義……………………………………8

第二章 文獻探討
第一節 目標導向理論之起源與發展………………17
第二節 四向度的目標導向理論……………………27
第三節 個人特質、目標導向與行為結果之關係…33
第四節 知覺的課室目標結構、目標導向與行為結果之關係…43

第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究架構……………………………………46
第二節 研究假設……………………………………48
第三節 研究對象……………………………………49
第四節 研究工具……………………………………50
第五節 實施程序……………………………………66
第六節 資料分析……………………………………67

第四章 研究結果
第一節 基本統計分析………………………………70
第二節 個人特質、目標導向與行為結果之關係…82
第三節 知覺的課室目標結構、目標導向與行為結果之關係…112

第五章 討論、結論與建議
第一節 討論…………………………………………135
第二節 結論…………………………………………148
第三節 建議…………………………………………156
參考書目
中文部分………………………………………………161
英文部分………………………………………………162

附錄
附錄一 四向度目標導向的驗證性因素分析…………168
附錄二 目標導向量表…………………………………180
附錄三 趨向氣質量表…………………………………182
附錄四 逃避氣質量表…………………………………184
附錄五 知覺的課室目標結構量表……………………185
附錄六 趨向行為量表…………………………………186
附錄七 逃避行為量表…………………………………188
附錄八 目標導向訪問大綱……………………………190
參考文獻 中文部分
向天屏(民89)。國中小學生成就目標導向、學習策略、自我跛足策略與學業成就關係之研究。國立彰化師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。

吳靜吉、程炳林(民81)。激勵的學習策略量表之修訂。測驗年刊,39輯,59-78。

林清山譯(民90)。教育心裡學-認知取向。台北:遠流。

林麗華(民91)。目標導向、社會比較、自我效能與課業壓力關係之研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商學系碩士論文。

張春興(民88)。教育心理學:三化取向的理論與實踐。台北:東華。

陳嘉成(民90)。中學生之成就目標導向、動機氣候知覺與學習行為組型之關係。教育與心理研究,24期,167-190。

陳正昌、程炳林(民91)。SPSS、SAS、BMDP統計軟體在多變量統計上的應用。台北:五南。

程炳林(民87)。認知/意動成分與學習表現之關係暨二階驗證性因素分析模式之適配性研究。國科會專案研究報告。NSC87-2413-H-035-002-。

程炳林(民91)。多重目標導向、動機問題與調整策略之交互作用。師大學報:教育類,47卷,1期,39-58。

程炳林(民92)。四向度目標導向模式之研究。師大學報:教育類,48卷,1期,15-40。

程炳林、林清山(民89)。中學生自我調整學習之研究(1/2)。國科會專案研究報告。NSC 89-2413-H-035-001。

鄭芬蘭、林清山(民86)。目標導向因果模式之驗證。教育心裡學報,29期,215-232。

英文部分
Ames, C. (1992). Classroom: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’learning strategies and motivation process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267.
Anderman, E., & Maehr, M. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-310.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Butler, R. (1998). Determinants of help seeking: Relations between perceived reasons for classroom help-avoidance and help-seeking behaviors in an experimental context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 630-643.

Butler, R., & Neuman, O. (1995). Effects of task and ego achievement goals on help-seeking behaviors and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 261-271.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319-333.

Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 43-54.

Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade:A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Covington, M. V., & Müeller, K. J. (2001). Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation: An approach/avoidance reformulation. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 156-176.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. New York: Academic Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the “classic”and “contemporary”approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol.10, pp.143-179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461-475.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2×2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519.

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 804-818.

Geen, R. G., Beatty, W. E., & Arkin, R. M. (1984). Human motivation: Physiological, behavioral, and social approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1284-1295.

Hagtvet, K. A., & Benson, J. (1997). The motive to avoid failure and test anxiety responses: Empirical support for integration of two research traditions. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 10, 35-57.

Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002). Classroom goal structure and student disruptive behavior. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 191-211.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 69-78.

Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 87-102.

Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). “If I don’t do well tomorrow, there’s a reason”: Predictors of adolescents’use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 423-434.

Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students:A goal theory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90-115.

Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Pschology, 89(4), 710-718.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and achievement goals: A further examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 61-75.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328-346.

Newman, R, S., & Schwager, M, T. (1993). Students’perceptions of the teacher and classmates in relation to reported help seeking in math class. Elementary School Journal, 94(1), 3-15.

Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college. In M. L. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advanced in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (Vol.7, pp.371-402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459-470.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.

Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., & Tebb, S. S. (2001). Using structural equation modeling to test for multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(4), 613-626.

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 408-422.

Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). “Should I ask for help?” The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math calss. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 329-341.

Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the lnterplay among students’ academic efficacy, teachers’social-emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 528-535.

Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 71-81.

Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Anderman, E. M., Midgley, C., Gheen, M., Kang, Y., & Patrick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and students’ reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 88-106.

Urdan, T. C. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol.10, pp.99-141). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Urdan, T., Midgley, C & Anderman, E.(1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students’use of self-handicapping. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 101-122.

Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what more there is to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 115-138.

Vermetten, Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). The role of personality traits and goal orientations in strategy use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 149-170.

Volet, S. E. (1997). Cognitive and affective variables in academic learning: The significance of direction and effort in students’goals. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 235-254.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2003-06-26起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2003-06-26起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw