Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/63241| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 尤雪瑛 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Yu, Hsueh ying | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | 張琬琪 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Chang, Wan Chi | en_US |
| dc.creator | 張琬琪 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator | Chang, Wan Chi | en_US |
| dc.date | 2013 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2014-01-02T06:49:57Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2014-01-02T06:49:57Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2014-01-02T06:49:57Z | - |
| dc.identifier | G0098951006 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/63241 | - |
| dc.description | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 英語教學碩士在職專班 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 98951006 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 102 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | 動機雖被認定為影響第二語言及外語學習的因素之一，然而如何在考試導向的學習環境下提升學生內在或自主性英語學習動機的相關研究並不多。本研究依據自我決定理論(the self-determination theory)來設計學習單，用以輔助學生學習學校的一般英語課程，來探討自我決定理論在現行教育環境下使用的效益。此外，學習單的使用是否能幫助學生的成就表現優於其他學生也一併研究。\n 參與本研究的對象為台灣北部一所公立國中八年級兩個班的六十位學生。這兩個班級有相似的社會背景及英語成就表現，並隨機被指定為實驗組與控制組。實驗組可在考試前預覽印在學習單上的試題，而控制組則直接參與考試。本實驗歷時七週，蒐集資料的工具包含問卷、學習單和該學校所舉辦的英語成就測驗(英語段考)。研究方法含量化及質性分析，主要探討學習單對學生的三個英語學\n習動機元素(autonomy, competence and relatedness)及英語成就表現的影響。\n 研究結果顯示高成就學生的主動性(autonomy)及中等成就學生的主動性(autonomy)、自我感知的英語能力(perceived competence)以及與同儕、老師間的相關性(relatedness)有提升。然而，低成就學生的三個英語學習動機元素則下降。另外，實驗組在該學校所舉辦的英語成就測驗的表現和對照組相比並無明顯差異。本研究最後對使用學習單提升學生內在或自主性學習動機在實際教學上的應用提供建議，以作為參考。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Although motivation has been viewed as an important factor that affects second and foreign language acquisition, there isn’t much research investigating how to promote students’ intrinsic or more self-regulated motivation to learn English in test-oriented classroom settings. This study explores this area by complementing students’ regular English classes at school with the worksheets designed based on the self-determination theory. Furthermore, it also investigates whether students with the aid of the worksheets would outperform those not using the worksheets academically. \n For this research purpose, two classes of 60 eighth-graders in a public junior high school in northern Taiwan took part in this study. The two classes with similar social background and English academic performances were randomly classified into an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group was given a chance to preview the test questions which were printed on the worksheets distributed to them as the complementary material before the tests. The control group, on the other hand, was given the tests directly without the chance to preview the test questions. The experiment lasted for seven weeks, and the data were collected through three instruments, a questionnaire, the worksheets, and a school administered-achievement test. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were adopted to probe into the influence of the worksheets upon the participants’ three motivational components, namely autonomy, competence, and relatedness as well as their academic performance on the achievement test.\n The study results indicate that the worksheets could help promote the high achievers’ autonomy and the middle achievers’ autonomy, competence perception and relatedness, but they did not exert positive effects on the low achievers. Furthermore, the experimental group didn’t outperform the control group on the school-administered achievement test. Some pedagogical implications were presented at the end of the thesis. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Acknowledgements iii\nTable of Contents iv\nList of Tables viii\nList of Figures x\nChinese Abstract xi\nEnglish Abstract xiii\nChapter One: Introduction 1\nBackground and Motivation 1\nPurpose of Study 3\nChapter Two: Literature Review 5\nMotivation 5\nThree Traditional Perspectives on Motivation 5\nThe Motivational Theories Based on Constructivist Perspective 8\nGoal Theory 8\nExpectancy-value Theory 11\nSelf-efficacy Theory 14\nAttribution Theory 17\nSelf-determination Theory 21\nThe Support for the Three Human Fundamental Needs in Education and Second/Foreign Language Learning 24\nAutonomy 24\nCompetence 27\nRelatedness 28\nLearning Motivation Research in Taiwan 31\nWorksheets Used in English Classes 33\nChapter Three: Methodology 35\nParticipants 35\nInstruments 36\nThe Principles for Designing the Test-question Preview Worksheets and the English Learning Motivation Questionnaire 36\nTest-question Preview Worksheets 38\nThe Test Section 38\nThe Advanced Exercise Section 41\nThe Student Self-evaluation Section 42\nThe Student/Teacher Feedback Section 45\nThe Two Stages of Completing the Worksheets Learning 46\nEnglish Learning Motivation Questionnaire 48\nA School-administered English Achievement Tests 50\nData Analysis Methods 50\nProcedure 53\nPilot Study 53\nThe Procedure of the Pilot Study 53\nThe Results of the Pilot Study and the Modifications 54\nThe Test-question Preview Worksheets 54\nThe English Learning Motivation Questionnaire 55\nFormal Study 57\nChapter Four: Results and Discussion 59\nThe Statistical Results of the English Learning Motivation Questionnaire 59\nThe Changes of the Experimental High Group’s Three Motivational Components 61\nThe Changes of the Experimental Middle Group’s Three Motivational Components 65\nThe Changes of the Experimental Low Group’s Three Motivational Components 69\nThe Analysis of the Open Questions on the Test-question Preview Worksheets 73\nDiscussion on the Findings of the Analysis on the English Learning Motivation questionnaire and the Test-question Preview Worksheets 87\nThe Influence of the worksheet learning upon the Participants’ Autonomy for Learning English 87\nHigh Group 87\nMiddle Group 90\nLow Group 93\nThe Influence of the worksheet learning upon the Participants’ Competence Perception 96\nHigh Group 96\nMiddle Group 98\nLow Group 100\nThe Influence of the worksheet learning upon the Participants’ Relatedness with Their Classmates and the Teacher 103\nHigh Group 103\nMiddle Group 104\nLow Group 106\nReport and Discussion of the Results of the School-administered English Achievement Test 108\nChapter Five: Conclusion 111\nSummary of Major Findings 111\nPedagogical Implications 114\nLimitations of the Study 116\nSuggestions for Future Research 117\nReferences 119\nAppendixes 131\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF TABLES\n\n\nTable 4.1 Independent-samples T-test of the Experimental and the Control Groups’ Competence Perception, Autonomy and Relatedness before the Treatment 60\nTable 4.2 Paired-samples T-test of the Experimental and the Control Groups’ Competence Perception, Autonomy and Relatedness 61\nTable 4.3 Paired-samples T-test of the Experimental High Groups’ Competence Perception, Autonomy and Relatedness 62\nTable 4.4 The Descriptive Statistical Results of the Experimental High Group’s Questionnaire Scores 63\nTable 4.5 Paired-samples T-test of the Experimental Middle Groups’ Competence Perception, Autonomy and Relatedness 66\nTable 4.6 The Descriptive Statistical Results of the Experimental Middle Group’s Questionnaire Scores 67\nTable 4.7 Paired-samples T-test of the Experimental Low Groups’ Competence Perception, Autonomy and Relatedness 69\nTable 4.8 The Descriptive Statistical Results of the Experimental Low Group’s Questionnaire Scores 71\nTable 4.9 Numbers of the Participants Setting Goals 74\nTable 4.10 Numbers of the Participants Using Learning Strategies for Preparing for the Test questions 76\nTable 4.11 Numbers of the Participants Feeling Satisfied or Dissatisfied with the Test Results 78\nTable 4.12 Numbers of the Participants Giving Reasons for Feeling Satisfied or Dissatisfied with the Test Results 79\nTable 4.13 Numbers of the Participants Stating Gains from the Worksheet Learning 81\nTable 4.14 Numbers of the Participants Giving Reasons for Feeling Thankful to Their Classmates and the Teacher 82\nTable 4.15 Numbers of the Participants Giving Feedback on the Worksheet Learning 84\nTable 4.16 Independent-samples T-test of the Experimental and Control Groups’/Subgroups’ Scores of the School-administered English Achievement Test 108\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF FIGURES\n\n\nFigure 3.1 The Procedure of the Formal Study 57 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 2047022 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.source.uri | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098951006 | en_US |
| dc.subject | 英語學習動機 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 英語學習成就 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 台灣 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | English learning motivation | en_US |
| dc.subject | English achievement | en_US |
| dc.subject | Taiwan | en_US |
| dc.title | 考試導向的學習情境下試題預覽學習單對提升國中生英語學習動機與學習成就之效益 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The effect of the test-question preview worksheets on promoting junior high school students` English learning motivation and English achievement in a test-oriented learning context | en_US |
| dc.type | thesis | en |
| dc.relation.reference | Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning \nstrategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, \n260-267.\nAmes, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of \nEducational Psychology, 84, 261-271.\nAssor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Directly controlling teacher \nbehaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The \nrole of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15, 397-413.\nAtkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior. Psychological \nReview, 64, 359-372. \nAusubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart \n& Winston.\nBandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. \nPsychological Review, 84, 191-215. \nBandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: Social cognitive theory. \nEnglewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. \nBandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. \nEducational Psychologist, 28, 117-148. \nBandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. \nBarker, G., & Graham, S. (1987). A developmental study of praise and blame as \nattributional cues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 62-66.\nBlackwell, L., Trzesniewski, & Dweck, C. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict \nachievement across adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. \nChild development, 78, 246-263.\n\nBrophy, J. (2010). Motivating Students to Learn (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.\nBrown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson \nEducation.\nButler, R. (1992). What young people want to know when; Effects of mastery and ability \ngoals on interest in different kinds of social comparisons. Journal of Personality and \nSocial Psychology, 62(6), 934-943. \nChang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion—group performance relationship. Small group Research, 32, 379-405.\nChang, Y. H. (2010). Group process and EFL learners’ motivation: A study of group dynamics in EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 129-154. \nChild, D. (1994). Psychology and the teacher (5th ed.). London: Cassell.\nClement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K., (1994). Motivation, self-confidence , and group \ncohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44(3), 417-448.\nCovington, M. & Omelich, C. (1984). An empirical examination of Weiner’s critique of \nattribution research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1214-1225.\nDeci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human \nbehavior. New York: Plenum.\nDeci, E., Vallerand, R., Pelletier, L., & Ryan, R. (1991). Motivation and education: \nthe self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3/4), 325-346.\nDeci, E., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B., & Leone, D. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The \nself-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.\nDeci, E. & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and \nthe self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.\nDiener, C., & Dweck, C. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes \nin performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of \nPersonality and Social Psychology, 36, 451-462.\nDiener, C., & Dweck, C. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: II. The processing \nof success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 940-952.\nDoff, A. (1988). Teach English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nDornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. \nModern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284.\nDornyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualization motivation in foreign language learning. Language Learning, 40, 46-78.\nDornyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in second language motivation research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43-59. \nDweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, \n1040-1048.\nDweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and \npersonality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.\nDweck, C. & Molden. (2005). Self-theories: Their impact on competence motivation and \nacquisition. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Ed.), Handbook of competence and motivation \n(pp. 122-140). New York: Guilford.\nEarley, P., & Lituchy, T. (1991). Delineating goal and efficacy effects: A test of three \nmodels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 71-98.\nEccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ \nachievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social \nPsychology Bulletin, 21, 215-225.\nEhrman, M., & Dornyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics in second language \neducation: The visible and invisible classroom Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. \nEisenberger, R. (1992). Learned industriousness. Psychological Review, 99, 248-267.\nElliot, A., Faler, J., McGregor, H., Campbell, W., Sedikides, C., & Harackiewicz, J. \n(2000). Competence valuation as a strategic intrinsic motivation process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 780-794.\nElliot, A., & Church, M. (2003). A motivational analysis of defensive pessimism and \nself-handicapping. Journal of Personality, 71, 369-396.\nElliott, E., & Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. \nJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.\nEntwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and \npreferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19, 169-194.\nEvans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta analysis. \nSmall Group Research, 22, 175-186.\nFang, Y. (2010). Perceptions of the computer-assisted writing program among EFL college learners. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 246-256. \nForsterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 98, \n495-512. \nForsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.\nGardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of \nattitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.\nGood, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, N. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test \nperformance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of \nApplied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645-662. \nGood, T., & Brophy, J. (1994). Looking in Classrooms (4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.\nGraham, S. (1984). Communicating sympathy and anger to black and white children: The \ncognitive (attributional) antecedents of affective cues. Journal of Personality and \nSocial Psychology, 47, 40-54.\nGraham, S. (1990). Communicating low ability in the classroom: Bad things good \nteachers sometimes do. In S. Graham & V. Folkes (Ed.), Attribution theory: \nApplications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict (pp. 17-36). \nHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\nGrolnick, W. S. & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s \nself-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), \n143-154.\nGuay, F., Boggiano, A., & Vallerand, R. (2001). Autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, \nand perceived competence: conceptual and empirical linkages. Personality and \nSocial Psychology Bulletin, 27, 643-650.\nGuay, F., Ratelle, C., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: the role \nof self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology, 49, 233-240.\nHansen, D. (1989). Lesson evading and lesson dissembling: Ego strategies in the \nclassroom. American Journal of Education, 97, 184-208.\nHarackiewicz, J., Barron, K., Tauer, J., Carter, S., & Elliot, A. (2000). Short-term and \nlong-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance \nover time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316-330.\nHardre, P., Chen, C., Huang, S., Chiang, C., Jen, F., & Warden, L. (2006). Factors \naffecting high school students’ academic motivation in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal \nof Education, 26, 198-207.\nHarter, S. (1978). Pleasure derived from challenge and the effects of receiving grades on \nchildren’s difficulty level choices. Child Development, 49, 788-799. \nHarter, S., & Connell, J. P. (1984). A comparison of alternative models of the \nrelationships between academic achievement and children’s perceptions of \ncompetence, control and motivational orientation. In J. Nicholls (Ed.), The \ndevelopment of achievement-related cognitions and behaviors (pp.219-250). Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.\nHeider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.\nHenson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189. \nHolec, H. (1981). Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. \nHorwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied \nLinguistics, 21, 112-126.\nHunt, J. McV. (1966). The epigenesis of intrinsic motivation and early cognitive learning. \nIn R. N. Haber (Ed.), Current research in motivation (pp.355-370). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.\nJane, H. (2008). Supporting students’ motivation, engagement, and learning during an \nuninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 798-811.\nJohnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone (4rd ed.). \nBoston: Allyn & Bacon. \nKaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation \ntheory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141-184.\nKazdin, A, & Bootzin, R. (1972). The token economy: An evaluative review. Journal of \nApplied Behavior Analysis, 5, 343-372. \nKazdin, A. (1975). Recent advances in token economy research. In M. Hersen, R. Eisler, \n& P. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification: Vol. 1. (pp. 233-274). New \nYork: Academic Press.\nKazdin, A. (1988). The token economy: A decade later. In G. Davey, & C. Cullen (Ed.), \nHuman operant conditioning and behavior modification (pp.119-137). New York: \nJohn Wiley & Sons. \nKohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, \npraise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. \nLee, S. Y. (2012). Storytelling supported by technology: An alternative for EFL children with learning difficulties. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 297-307.\nLicht, B. & Dweck, C. (1984). Determinants of academic achievement: The interaction of \nchildren’s achievement orientations with skill area. Developmental Psychology, 20, \n628-636.\nLinnenbrink, E., & Pintrich, P. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An \nasymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational Psychology, 37, 69-78.\nLosier, G., & Koestner, R. (1999). Intrinsic versus identified regulation in distinct political \ncampaigns: The consequences of following politics for pleasure versus personal \nmeaningfulness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 287-298.\nMaehr, M., & Meyer, H. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we’ve \nbeen, where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9, \n371-409.\nMaslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.\nMeece, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Hoyle, R. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive \nengagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, \n514-523. \nMidgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for \nwhat, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of \nEducational Psychology, 93, 77-86.\nMulton, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to \nacademic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling \nPsychology, 38, 30-38.\nNoels, K., Clement, R., & Pelletier, L. (1999). Perceptions of teachers’ communicative \nstyle and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern Language Journal, 83, \n23-34.\nO’Leary, K. & Drabman, R. (1971). Token reinforcement programs in the classroom: A \nreview. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 397-398.\nO’Leary, K. (1978). The operant and social psychology of token systems. In A. Catania, \n & T. Brigham (Ed.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis: Social and \n instructional processes (pp. 179-207). New York: Irvington.\nOtis, N. Grouzet, F., & Pelletier, L. (2005). Latent motivational change in an academic \nsetting: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, \n170-183.\nOxford, R. L., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28.\nPintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning \ncomponents of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational \nPsychology, 82(1), 33-40.\nReeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy \nduring a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209-218.\nRudolph, U., Roesch, S. C., Greitemeyer, T., & Weiner, B. (2004). A meta-analytic review \nof help giving and aggression from an attribution perspective. Cognition and \nEmotion, 18, 815-848.\nRyan, R. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of \ncognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), \n450-461.\nRyan, R. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative process. \n Journal of Personality, 63, 397-427.\nRyan, R., & Deci, E. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, \n 74, 1557-1585.\nSchloss, p., & Smith, M. (1994). Applied behavior analysis in the classroom. Boston: \nAllyn & Bacon.\nSchunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), \nSelf-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. \n281-303). New York: Plenum. \nSenior, R. (2002). A class-centered approach to language teaching. English Language \nTeachers Journal, 56(4), 397-403.\nSenko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. (2005). Regulation of achievement goals: The role of \ncompetence feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 320-326.\nSenko, C., & Miles, K. (2008). Pursuing their own learning agenda: How \nmastery-oriented students jeopardize their class performance. Contemporary \nEducational Psychology, 33, 561-583.\nSexton, T., & Tuckman, B. (1991). Self-beliefs and behavior: The role of self-efficacy and \noutcome expectation over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 725-736.\nSheldon, K., & Krieger, L. (2007). Understanding the negative effects of legal education \non law students: A longitudinal test of self-determination theory. Personality and \nSocial Psychology Bulletin, 33, 883-897.\nShim, S., Ryan, A., & Anderson, C. (2008). Achievement goals and achievement during \nearly adolescence: Examining time-varying predictor and outcome variables in \ngrowth-curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 655-671.\nSkinner, (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.\nSkinner, E., & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of \nteacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of \nEducational Psychology, 85, 571-581.\nSmiley, P., & Dweck, C. (1994). Individual differences in achievement goals among \nyoung children. Child Development, 65, 1723-1743. \nSoenens, B., & Vansteenskiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes of \nself-determination in three life domains: The role of parents’ and teachers’ autonomy \nsupport. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 589-604.\nSu, S. W. (2010). Motivating and justifiable: Teaching western literature to EFL students \n at a university of science and technology. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 14(1), 1-35. \nThorndike, E. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative \nprocesses in animals. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 2(4), i-109.\nThrash, T., & Elliot, A. (2001). Delimiting and integrating achievement motive and goal \nconstructs. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. Sorrentino (Ed.), Trends and prospects in \nmotivation research (pp. 3-21). Boston: Kluwer.\nTsai, C. H. (2012). Students’ perceptions of using a novel as main material in the EFL reading course. English Language Teaching, 5(8), 103-112.\nValle, A., Cabanach, R., Nunez, J., Gonzalez-Pienda, J., Rodriguez, S., & Pineiro, I. \n(2003). Multiple goals, motivation and academic learning. British Journal of \nEducational Psychology, 73, 71-87.\nVallerand, R. J. & Reid, G. (1988). On the relative effects of positive and negative verbal \nfeedback on males and females’ intrinsic motivation. Canadian Journal of \nBehavioral Sciences, 20(3), 239-250.\nVansteenkiste, M. Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B, & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the \nimpact of extrinsic versus intrinsic goal framing and internally controlling versus \nautonomy-supportive communication style upon early adolescents’ academic \nachievement. Child Development, 76, 483-501.\nWang, M. C. & Peverly, S. T. (1986). The self-instructive process in classroom learning \ncontexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 370-404.\nWarden, C. A., & Lin, H. J. (2000). Existence of integrative motivation in an Asian EFL setting. Foreign Language Annals, 33(5), 535-547.\nWeiner, B. (1985). “Spontaneous” causal thinking. Psychology Bulletin, 97, 74-84.\nWeiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: \nSpringer. \nWeiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories and research. Beverly Hills: \nSage Publications.\nWeiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving. \nReview of Educational Research, 64, 557-573.\nWhitley, B., & Frieze, I. (1985). Children’s causal attributions for success and failure in \nachievement settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, \n608-616.\nWigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A \ntheoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.\nWilliams, B., Williams, R., & McLaughlin, T. (1991). Classroom procedures for \nremediating behavior disorders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 210-216. \nWilliams, G., & Deci, E. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical \nstudents: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767-779. \nWilliams, M., & Burden, B. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. \nWolters, C. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236-250.\nWu, M. L. (2009). SPPS operation and application: The practice of quantitative analysis of questionnaire data (2nd ed.). Taipei: Wunan.\nWu, W. C., Yen, L. L., & Marek, M. (2011). Using online EFL interaction to increase \nconfidence, motivation, and ability. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, \n14(3), 118-129.\nYang, Y. C., Gamble, J., & Tang, S. S. (2012). Voice over instant messaging as a tool for enhancing the oral proficiency and motivation of English-as-a-foreign-language learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 448-464. \nZimmerman, B. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), \nSelf-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). New York: Cambridge University \nPress. | zh_TW |
| item.openairecristype | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec | - |
| item.cerifentitytype | Publications | - |
| item.openairetype | thesis | - |
| item.grantfulltext | open | - |
| item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
| item.languageiso639-1 | en_US | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100601.pdf | 2 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.