四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示

全文

(1)27. 國立政治大學「教育與心理研究」 2013 年 12 月，36 卷 4 期，頁 27-56 DOI. 10.3966/102498852013123604002. 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示宋秋美*. 摘. 周啟葶**. 要. 本研究汲取教育心理學和語言學習的理論，納入自我效能、智力增長論、四向度目標導向、深度英語學習策略與英語學習成就等，隨教學可改進英語學習成就之因素，建立一個以高中生個人英語學習過程為背景的階層式四向度目標導向模式。資料取自臺北市17所高中1,261位高二學生，以結構方程模式統計分析。研究結果支持逃避精熟目標模式的存在，發現臺灣學生具有多重學習目標，且支持修正目標理論主張趨向表現目標的正面效果。研究結果並對英語教學提供建議。. 關鍵詞：四向度目標導向、智力增長論、自我效能. *. 宋秋美：德明財經科技大學通識教育中心助理教授周啟葶：經國管理暨健康學院通識教育中心助理教授電子郵件：[email protected]. **. 收件日期：2012.08.28；修改日期：2013.01.14；接受日期：2013.06.20.

(2) 28. Journal of Education & Psychology December, 2013, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 27-56. Four Kinds of Goal Orientations and Their Implications on English Learning and Teaching Chyou-Mi Sung*. Chi-Ting Chou**. Abstract. This study drew from theories of educational psychology and language learning to hypothesize a hierarchy model of foreign language learning that takes into account learners’ beliefs, motivation and strategy use in explaining foreign language learning achievement in the context of the high school students’ learning English in Taiwan. A set of questionnaires was used to collect data. The sample consisted of 1,261 sophomore students from 17 senior high schools in Taipei city. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM). The findings supported the hypothesized model, confirmed the existence of mastery-avoidance goals, and illuminated the relationships among latent variables under study. The results also imply the students have multiple goals and support the positive potential of performance-approach goals proposed by the revised goal theory. Implications for English instructions and future study were provided.. Keywords: four dimensional goal orientations, incremental intelligence belief, self-efficacy *. Chyou-Mi Sung: Assistant Professor, General Education Center, Takming University of Science and Technology ** Chi-Ting Chou: Assistant Professor, General Education Center, Ching Kuo Institute of Management and Health E-mail: [email protected] Manuscript received: 2012.08.28; Revised: 2013.01.14; Accepted: 2013.06.20.

(3) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 29. (Bandura & Dweck, 1985); between goal. Introduction. motivation and language achievement. As language learning is a complex. (Tercanlioglu, 2004); and between foreign. process in which numerous factors such. language. as age, sex, personal beliefs, motivation,. achievement (Bialystok, 1981; Gabriela,. interest, learning environment and peer. 2002). According to prior literature and. pressure etc. intertwined in determining. individual learning process to establish a. language. very. hypothesized models, the authors used 4-. important for teachers to know which. dimensional motivation goals as a core of. important factors that can be changeable. the model, and only chose important and. via. students’. changeable variables, i.e. self-efficacy,. learning. Among others, motivation goals,. implicit intelligence belief as anterior. i.e. achievement goals defined as the. variables and deep English learning. impetus to create and sustain intentions. strategies as a posterior variable to predict. and goal-setting acts (Ames & Ames,. English achievement, in order to have a. 1989), are the most important factors. comprehensive understanding of intricate. because they may determine the extent of. relationship among those factors.. achievement,. teaching. to. it. enhance. is. the learner’s active involvement and. learning. Motivation. strategy. goals. have. and. been. attitude toward learning (Karen, 1998). developed from dichotomy via trichotomy. and. learning. to four-oriented goals since the late. outcomes. Though there is already a great. 1970s. Since four-oriented achievement. deal. both. goal framework was established with its. of. theoretical and empirical research on. may of. thereby research. examining. and. consequences. antecedents endorsing. affect. achievement. goals,. past. achievement. motivation. (Elliot. &. the. McGregor, 2001; Elliot & Thrash, 2001),. interrelationship of two or three variables,. there has been no empirical research done. such. to investigate its grounds especially in. research as. usually among. focused. on. self-efficacy,. goal. orientation and performance (Anderman. English. &. dimensional goals can better explain the. Midgley,. Zeeberg,. 1992;. 2002);. Vrugt, between. Oort,. &. implicit. intelligence beliefs and goal motivation. complex. learning,. even. motivation. of. though. 4-. individual. learners. Furthermore, in Taiwan, due to.

(4) 30 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. facility limitation, listening and oral. only concerned about performance, doing. communication ability of English have. better than others, and trying to be. not been included in the Entrance. smarter than others, with little or no. Examination of University until recently,. concern for mastery and learning, are. which no doubt greatly impacts how high. likely to follow a fairly maladaptive. school students engaged in English. pathway. This dichotomous view of. learning. This study was to investigate. motivation was challenged by revised. what kinds of motivation goals Taiwanese. goal theory (Harackiewicz, Barron, &. high school students are holding in. Elliot, 1998; Pintrich, 2000a), which. learning English and to confirm whether. generalizes that there are no detrimental. the hypothesized model, originated from. effects if students with performance-. western countries, was applicable to. approach goals are also oriented to. Taiwan students for English learning.. mastery of their schoolwork. Also, this. Literature Review. theory claims that the influence of. Four Dimensional Goal Orientations In the past, normative goal theory. performance goals on the learning process and results is moderated by the learners’ performance-approach or performanceavoidance. approach.. Performance-. classified achievement goals into two. approach oriented learners desire to. contrasting categories: mastery goals and. outperform or surpass others, to obtain. performance goals. Learners who are. high. mastery-oriented define the purpose of. recognized by others, while learners who. learning as competence increase, as. are performance-avoidance oriented are. opposed. performance-goal. more concerned about not performing. oriented students who consider the aims. worse than others, avoiding looking dumb. of. demonstrating. or silly, and avoiding getting the worst. exceptional competence over others or. scores, in order to maintain self worth. those who lack competence (Ames, 1992;. (Elliot & Church, 1997; Urdan, 1997).. to. learning. those to. be. ability. judgments. and. to. be. Nicholls, 1984). Basically, normative goal. Elliot and McGregor (2001) initially. theory (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett,. constructed a 2 x 2 achievement goal. 1988) stipulates that students who are. framework. based. on. competence.

(5) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 31. definition and valence. Competence may. similar to perfectionists or seniors who. be defined by two different standards as. want to avoid performing worse than they. evaluation. The absolute standard is. did before (Pintrich, 2000b).. evaluated by the requirements of the task itself; the normative standard is evaluated by the performance of others. The other dimension. is. Self-Efficacy belief always plays an. valence, which represents the approach-. important role in goal motivation. For. avoidance distinction. An achievement. Pintrich and Schunk (1996), self-efficacy. goal may be focused on attaining a. refers to a person’s sense of his own. positive,. (an. capabilities, a belief of a confident level. approach goal) or it may be focused on. the person possesses about his own ability. avoiding. undesirable. to understand and acquire what he is. possibility (an avoidance goal). The. trying to learn. Students with a high sense. students who define competence as an. of self-efficacy for accomplishing an. absolute standard and positively valence. educational task will participate more. are mastery-approach oriented. Those. readily, work harder, and persist longer. who define competence as normative. (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Zimmerman,. standard. are. 1995). Meanwhile, Schunk’s research. performance-approach oriented. Those. (Schunk, 1990, 1994) indicated that when. who define competence as a normative. students attribute their success to their. standard but negatively valence are. own. performance-avoidance oriented. Those. increase, whereas when they are unable to. who define competence as an absolute. finish a certain task because they believe. standard but negatively valence are. they lack capability, they will not be. mastery-avoidance. willing to continue making efforts.. with. of. achievement. desirable a. goals. Self-Efficacy Belief and Implicit Belief. possibility. negative,. and positively valence. oriented.. mastery-avoidance. Learners. self-efficacy. will. are. During the same period, Dweck and. avoiding. Leggett (1988) wondered why learners in. misunderstanding of learning materials,. the same context pursue different goals,. and. which led them to explore the area of. concerned avoiding. goals. capabilities,. about not. learning. or. not. mastering the materials. Such learners are. intelligence. beliefs.. Their. findings.

(6) 32 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. showed that individuals who believe that. maintain. and. attributes are fixed and uncontrollable can. contents.. Sankaran. be referred to as “entity theorists”. Those. indicated. who believe that attributes are malleable. associated with the use of deep learning. and controllable and can be shaped,. strategy,. increased,. undirected. or. developed. through. memorize. that and. and. high. knowledge Bui. (2001). motivation. low. motivation. strategy.. Since. is with. Oxford’s. instrumental actions, can be referred to as. Strategy Inventory for Language Learning. “incremental theorists” (Dweck, Chiu, &. (SILL) appeared in 1990, it has been. Hong, 1993). Bandura and Dweck (1985). readily used in many countries to examine. pointed out that upper graders who held. the second language learning strategy of. incremental beliefs tended to pursue more. learners because of its high reliability and. mastery goals than those who held entity. validity across many cultural groups.. beliefs. In other words, either incremental. SILL includes. beliefs or entity beliefs may impact the. indirect strategies. The former includes. learners’ goal setting. However, Dweck,. memory strategies, cognitive strategies. Chiu and Hong (1995) suggested that it is. and compensation strategies. The latter. possible for an individual to hold both. includes. sets of beliefs, albeit to differing degrees.. affective strategies and social strategies.. While one set of beliefs would be. On the other hand,. dominant, the other may be also applied. psychology, learning strategies have been. under a circumstance.. classified as surface processing strategies. strategies. meta-cognitive. and. strategies,. in educational. and deep processing strategies. Surface. Deep English Learning Strategies. processing strategies in general refer to rote memorization, using mnemonics,. language. encoding verbatim, focusing on details or. Since. the. researchers. have. been. focusing. on. exact. strategies. by. studying. the. strategies refer to advanced inference. learning. 1990s,. direct. reproduction.. processes. internalizes. understanding of a main idea, topics and. targeted. language.. Appropriate English-Learning strategies. principles,. help. understanding,. learners. to. acquire,. integrate,. as. processing. process of how a language learner the. such. Deep. pursuing extensive. monitoring, the. best reading,.

(7) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 33. discussion and reflection (Anderman &. efficacy. Young, 1994; Biggs, 1993).. subsequent achievement tests (Cheng &. The Empirical Evidence for Establishing FourDimensional Goal Orientation Model. also. set. higher. goals. for. Chiou, 2010). Yang (1993) indicated that the ability belief of language learners would impact their goals and motivation patterns, and further impact their learning behaviors and strategy use. He (2004). the. showed self-efficacy was a significant. authors hypothesized a four-dimensional. predictor of language achievement. Hence. goal orientation model (see Figure 1) with. this study assumed self-efficacy was one. eight latent variables, including self-. of the important factors affecting the. efficacy belief and intelligent incremental. choice of goals; meanwhile, self-efficacy. belief as antecedent variables, four-. directly or through goals, and deep. dimensional goal orientations and deep. English. English learning strategies as mediating. affected English achievement test results.. Based. empirical. evidence,. learning. strategies. indirectly. variables, and the English Achievement. Past research proved that learners. Test as a final resultant variable. And. with incremental intelligence beliefs. based on four-dimensional goal theory. tended to adopt learning goals with a. and literature review, this is the only. desire to improve themselves and acquire. model that the authors hypothesized and. knowledge and skills, whereas students. built up. The evidence of studies to date is. with entity beliefs tended to choose. as follows:. performance goals (Dweck & Leggett,. There were close correlations among. 1988). Because the empirical research. and. (Leondari & Gialamas, 2002) showed that. would. both entity and incremental options were. contribute to the pursuit of goals and then. both included in the scale, children tended. these goals in turn would contribute to. to endorse incremental statements. Due to. course grades (Vrugt et al., 2002).. being more socially desirable for high. Students with higher perceived self-. school students, this study only selected. efficacy. the. incremental intelligence to be the second. proficiency tests. Those with higher self-. precedent for four-dimensional goal. self-efficacy, achievement.. goal. orientation. Self-efficacy. performed. better. on.

(8) 34 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. ε1. ε2. ε3. ε4. ε5. ε6. ε7. ε8. ε9. ε10. ε11. ε12. Y1. Y2. Y3. Y4. Y5. Y6. Y7. Y8. Y9. Y10. Y11. Y12. λ21. λ31. λ62. 1. λ83. 1. 1. λ52. λ11 4. λ93. λ12 4. 1 ζ 11. ζ2. η1. ζ3. η2. ζ4. η3. η4. β53 γ21. β54. Y13. ε13. Y14. ε14. Y15. ε15. β51 γ22. γ12. 1. β52. γ11. λ14 5. γ31. η5 λ15 5. β63 γ41. β64 ζ5. ξ1. β65 γ61. 1. λ21. λ31. η6. ξ2. λ41. ζ6 λ72 X1. X2. X3. X4. δ1. δ2. δ3. δ4. Figure 1. λ19 1. 1. λ62. X5. X6. X7. Y16. Y17. Y18. Y19. δ5. δ6. δ7. ε16. ε17. ε18. ε19. λ17 λ18. Path route for causal model. ξ1：Self-efficacy belief Χ1：Item 1 for self-efficacy Χ2：Item 2 for self-efficacy Χ3：Item 3 for self-efficacy Χ4：Item 4 for self-efficacy η1：Mastery-approach goals Y1：Item 1 for mastery-approach goals Y2：Item 2 for mastery-approach goals Y3：Item 3 for mastery-approach goals η3：Performance-approach goals Y7：Item 7 for performance-approach goals Y8：Item 8 for performance-approach goals Y9：Item 9 for performance-approach goals η5：Deep English learning strategies Y13：Functional practice strategies Y14：Cognitive strategies Y15：Metacognitive strategies. ξ2：Intelligence incremental belief Χ5：Item 1 for intelligence incremental belief Χ6：Item 2 for intelligence incremental belief Χ7：Item 2 for intelligence incremental belief η2：Mastery-avoidance goals Y4：Item 4 for mastery-avoidance goals Y5：Item 5 for mastery-avoidance goals Y6：Item 6 for mastery-avoidance goals η4：Performance-avoidance goals Y10：Item 10 for performance-avoidance goals Y11：Item 11 for performance-avoidance goals Y12：Item 12 for performance-avoidance goals η6：English achievement test Y16：Conversation test Y17：Vocabulary test Y18：Grammar and sentence pattern test Y19：Reading test.

(9) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 35. orientation and assumed this belief had an. influence. influence only on the learners with. strategies. As shown in Figure 1, the four-. mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance. dimensional goal orientations individually. goals, not on students with performance-. pointed. approach and -avoidance goals (Dweck &. strategies. The research of Bialystok. Leggett, 1988).. (1981) and Nyikos and Oxford (1993). As. to. the. correlation. between. on. to. deep. deep. English. learning. English. learning. proved that functional practice strategies. personal goals and deep English learning. affected. strategies, there were empirical studies. Park’s study showed that cognitive and. (Chang & Huang, 1999; Ehrman &. meta-cognitive. Oxford, 1995; Okada, Oxford, & Abo,. strategies. 1999). that. performance (Park, 1997). Therefore, the. metacognitive strategies and cognitive. authors assumed there was a direct effect. strategies have a significant relationship. of deep English learning strategies on the. with extrinsic motivation, but Liao (2000). English. and. According to prior research focusing on. which. Peng. confirmed. (2002). demonstrated. that. the. academic. performance.. strategies. all. and. affected. achievement. academic. test. their. strategies have a significant relationship. achievement, performance approach goals. with extrinsic and intrinsic motivations.. are consistently is positive (Church,. Mastery approach/avoidance goals of the. Elliot,. current. intrinsic. McGregor, 2001) Besides, the studies. performance. (Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz,. motivation. belong. to. and. &. with. results.. metacognitive strategies and cognitive. study. relationships. social. Gable,. 2001;. academic. Elliot. &. to. Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000). extrinsic motivation. Since the above-. have indicated that there is no direct. mentioned studies present inconsistent. effect of mastery goals on achievement. results and so far there has been no. performance and performance-approach. empirical. goals. approach/avoidance. relationship goal. study. goals. that. between. orientations. and. belong. presents. a. four-dimensional deep. English. led. to. positive. achievement. performance while performance-avoidance goals. led. to. negative. learning strategies, we assumed that four-. performance.. So. we. dimensional orientations had different. performance-approach. achievement assumed goals. that and.

(10) 36 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. performance-avoidance goals had a direct. Self-efficacy belief scale. effect on the English achievement test.. Students’ self-efficacy beliefs were measured by Self-Efficacy Belief Scale.. Method. The scale (11-item) was adapted under. Participants. academic. efficacy. from. Patterns. of. A total of 567 sophomore students. Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS scale). from four high schools were sampled for. (Midgley et al., 2000), and the modified. the pilot study and a total of 1,261. scale was made for students’ English. sophomore students (51% males) from. learning, and translated into Chinese. another 17 high schools for the formal. version using the double-back translation. study.. method.. In. order. to. achieve. normal. distribution in the sampling, the authors. Incremental intelligence belief. adopted. scale. a. stratified. and. intentional. sampling method, excluding the schools. Students’ incremental intelligence. for pilot study, and selected one to three. beliefs were measured by Incremental. senior public or private high schools from. Intelligence. each district of Taipei city 12 districts,. Adapted by Wu, Yu, Chen, and Lin’s. which approximately could represent. (1999). three. reworded in order to be used in the. levels. (low-middle-high). of. students’ ability in Taipei.. Instrument The questionnaire, made up of four. Belief. scale,. Scale. (6-item).. modifications. were. context of their learning experience.. Four dimensional goal orientation scale Students’. motivation. goal. scales, was to gauge the participants’ self-. orientations were measured by Four. efficacy, incremental intelligence belief,. Dimensional Goal Orientation Scale (24-. four-dimensional goals and deep English. item) adapted from Elliot and McGregor’s. learning strategies. All items were on a 4-. (2001) scales. There are four subscales in. point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1. this instrument; the mastery-approach. (not very true) to 4 (very true). See. goals (8-item), mastery-avoidance goals. Appendix A.. (8-item), performance-approach goals (8item), and performance-avoidance goals.

(11) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 37. (8-item). The scale was adapted and. 57%.. For. Four. Dimensional. Goal. translated in the Chinese language in. Orientation Scale, the factor loading of. order to be used in Taiwan context.. each item was bigger than .60 with an. Deep English learning strategy. explained variance up to 54.63%. For. scale. Deep English Learning Strategy Scale, learning. the factor loading of each item was bigger. strategies use was measured by Deep. than .50 with an explained variance up to. English Learning Strategy Scale. The. 51.14%. Table 1 reveals the scales’ factor. scale was referred to Oxford (1990) and. loadings and alpha coefficients, indicating. adapted. learning. that the scales had good levels of validity. strategies scale (Chen, 2002). The original. and internal consistency. CFA was also. scale is one of valid and reliable and. performed for each scale on the formal. applicable scales especially for language. study (N=1261) (see Appendix B), as CFA. learning strategies for assessing the. was selected as the most appropriate. English performance of college students. statistical method to assess the reliability. in Taiwan. The scale included cognitive. and validity of the instrumentation due to. strategies (8-item), metacognitive strategies. its judgment made a priori.. Students’ deep. from. English. Chen’s. deep. (8-item), functional practice strategies (8-. English achievement test. item) and social strategies (8-item).. English achievement Test (30-item). To assure the scales’ validity and. used in the study was to test their abilities. reliability, the scales were examined by a. of conversation (6-item), vocabulary (6-. pilot study (N=567) with items analysis. item), grammar and sentence patterns (8-. and EFA (Exploratory Factor Analysis) by. item), and reading (10-item), based on the. deleting the inappropriate items with low. content of the local English textbooks. factor loadings and low coefficients. For. from Volume 1 to Volume 3, with. Self-Efficacy Belief Scale, the factor. reference to the intermediate level of the. loading of each item was bigger than .70. General English Proficient Tests (GEPTs). with an explained variance up to 64.49%.. and the learning discs made by the. For Incremental Intelligence Belief Scale,. Language Training and Testing Center. the factor loading of each item was bigger. (LTTC). After deleting inappropriate. than .60 with an explained variance up to. items with difficulty index over .80 and.

(12) 38 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. Table 1 Validity and reliability of the instrument Scale. No. of items. factor loadings. Cronbach Alpha. Self-efficacy belief. 4. .77～.87. .88. Incremental intelligence belief. 3. .68～.70. .79. Goal orientationsmastery-approach goals mastery-avoidance goals performance-approach goals performance-avoidance goals. 3 3 3 3. .61～.69 .64～.91 .66～.71 .68～.83. .69 .83 .73 .80. Deep English learning strategiesFunctional practice strategies Cognitive strategies Metacognitive strategies. 3 3 3. .56～.73 .59～.86 .69～.76. .72 .73 .79. discrimination index below .30, the. English. reliability. English. English achievement test were dependent. Achievement Test (25-item) indicated that. variables, marked by ε(i.e. η). X for. the test had a good reliability. Meanwhile,. measurement indicators of independent. by using the mid-term English scores of. variables,. all participants from the first term of 2006. indicators of dependent variables were. academic year as external validity, the. used by LISREL. There were seven X. correlation between their two scores was. indicators and nineteen Y indicators in the. significant (r=.723. p＜.01).. model (see Figure 1).. α=.88. of. the. Framework Basing on correlation matrices, the. learning. and. strategies,. Y. for. and. the. measurement. According to the empirical research, this study assumed there was a direct influence. of. self-efficacy. on. four-. model with eight latent variables was. dimensional goal orientations and on the. established. Self-Efficacy and intelligence. English achievement test (path coefficient. incremental belief were assumed as. γ11、γ21、γ31、γ41 and γ61), and indirect. independent variables, marked by ξ in the. influence of self-efficacy on the English. model; mastery-approach goals, mastery-. achievement. avoidance goals, performance-approach. dimensional goal orientations and deep. goals, performance-avoidance goals, deep. English learning strategies; incremental. test. through. four-.

(13) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 39. intelligence belief had direct effects on. that participants got on the functional. mastery-approach goals and mastery-. practice. strategy. subscale,. avoidance goals (path coefficient γ12 、. strategy. subscale. and. γ22) and also had an indirect effect on the. strategy subscale made up three observed. English achievement test results through. indicators individually. The scores that. goal. English. participants got on the conversation test,. learning strategies; the four dimensional. vocabulary test, grammar and sentence. goal orientations individually had direct. pattern test and reading test made up four. effects on deep English learning strategies. observed indicators individually.. orientations. and. deep. (path coefficient β51、β52、β53、β54) and indirect. effects. on. the. English. cognitive. metacognitive. Procedure. achievement test through deep English. On the basis of the framework, the. learning strategies; performance-approach. pilot study was conducted at the end of. goals and performance-avoidance goals. the first semester and the formal study. had. English. was conducted at the end of the second. achievement test (path coefficient β63 and. semester. The authors with one research. β64); deep English learning strategies had. assistant in each class assured of the. a direct effect on the English achievement. confidentiality of their questionnaires and. test (path coefficient β65).. the. direct. effects. on. the. A total of 26 measurement indicators. effectiveness. achievement. test. of and. the. English meanwhile. and 26 observed indicators for eight latent. encouraged the participants to respond to. variables were adopted in the model. The. the. scores that participants got on four items. accurately as possible to ensure quality. of self-efficacy scale made up four. responses.. observed indicators. Likewise, the scores that participants got on three items of. items. of. the. questionnaire. as. Data Analysis. intelligence incremental scale made up. SPSS 13.0, for Windows 11.0,. three observed indicators. The scores that. LISREL 8.54 and PRELIS 2.1 were used. participants got on three items of each of. to analyze the data, α＝.05 indicated as a. the four goal orientation subscales made. significant level. Because LISREL computer. up twelve observed indicators. The scores. statistic software sets the method of.

(14) 40 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. parameter. estimation. as. maximum. approach. goals. and. performance-. likelihood (ML), this method imposes. approach goals, SPSS select case was. serious requirements on the hypothesis of. performed and the data showed there. normal distribution. Therefore, before the. were. test for goodness of fit, the hypothesis of. performance-approach goals and also. multivariate normal distribution with. tended to be mastery-approach oriented;. PRELIS 2.1 edition computer statistic. 324 students with high mastery-approach. software was examinated, showing collected. goals and 161 students with low mastery-. data not corresponding with the hypothesis. approach. of multivariate normal distribution (χ2(2)＝. students adopted multiple goals. Due to. 7758.913, p=.000). Hence, diagonally-. only taking mastery-approach goals and. weighted Least Square (DWLS) was used. performance-approach goals as SPSS. an asymptotic covariance matrix as the. select case, this result only represents a. method of parameter estimation to verify. specimen of multiple goal profile.. the goodness of fit of the model.. 485. students. goals.. who. This. adopted. indicates. the. The Effects of Latent Variables. Results Goodness of Fit for the Model. Besides the correlation of the eight latent variables (see Appendix C), the of. relationships among latent variables can. Joreskog and Sorbom’s (1993), all the. be determined by further comparing the. indices indicated that the goodness of fit. effects. for the global model is very good (See. including direct effects, indirect effects. Appendix. and total directs.. According. B).. to. The. the. standard. observed. model. confirmed to the hypothetic model, which means. the. hypothesized. model. can. explain the observed data very well.. A Glimpse of Multiple Goal Profile By using the means of mastery-. among. the. latent. variables,. The Direct Effects of Latent Independent Variables on Latent Dependent Variables The direct effects of self-efficacy on mastery-approach. goals,. mastery-. avoidance goals, performance-approach.

(15) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 41. goals, performance-avoidance goals, and. goals. The direct effect of self-efficacy on. the English achievement test were all. English Achievement Test is significantly. significant, γ11 ＝.42, γ21 ＝.24, γ31 ＝.67,. high γ61 ＝ .41. The direct effects of. γ41 ＝-.38 and γ61 ＝.41 (p＜.05), which. incremental. indicated the direct effect of self-efficacy. mastery-approach goals and mastery-. on the performance- approach goals was. avoidance goals were γ12 ＝.39 and γ22. greater than on the three other kinds of. ＝.31 respectively (See Figure 2).. intelligence. .52. .46. .58. .23. .25. .41. .85. .65. .42. .54. .50. .27. Y1. Y2. Y3. Y4. Y5. Y6. Y7. Y8. Y9. Y10. Y11. Y12. .70. .73. .87. .77. .39. .59. .76. .71. .85. .65. .87. masteryapproach goals. .82. masteryavoidance goals. .61. performanceapproach goals. .68. .56. performanceavoidance goals. belief. on. .86. -.15 .39. .24. .23. .31. .64. .42. deep English learning strategies. - .38 .67 .19. .82. X1. .86. X2. .82. .19. X3. .10 .41. X4. .68. .66 .76. .33. Figure 2. .27. .32. .26. English achievement test. intelligence incremental belief. .86. .81. .77. .81. .64. X5. X6. X7. Y16. Y17. Y18. Y19. .53. .42. .59. .56. .34. .41. .34. Path coefficients for the model. .69. .74. -.07. selfefficacy belief. Y13. .46. Y14. .52. Y15. .46. .74. .33.

(16) 42 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. The Direct Effects of Latent Dependent Variables on Latent Dependent Variables The. direct. effects. of. four-. Indirect Effects among Latent Variables As shown in Appendix D, the indirect effects of self-efficacy on deep. dimensional goal orientations on deep. English. English learning. were all. English achievement test were significant. significant, β51 ＝.33, β52 ＝.23, β53 ＝.64. (p ＜ .05). Taking the indirect effect of. and β54 ＝-.15 in order (See Figure 2),. self-efficacy on deep English learning. which indicated the direct effect of the. strategies as an example, there were four. performance-approach goals on deep. routes: The first was through mastery-. English learning strategies was greater. approach goals, and the standardized. than that of mastery-approach/avoidance. solution for this route was .14 (γ11×β51. goals.. ＝.42×.33＝.14). The second was through. The. strategies. direct. effect. of. the. learning. strategies. and. the. performance-avoidance goals on deep. mastery-avoidance. English learning strategies was negative.. standardized. Next, the observed data indicated that the. was .05 (γ21×β52＝.24×.23＝.05). The third. direct. performance-. was through the performance-approach. approach goals and the performance-. goals, and the standardized solution for. avoidance. English. this route was .43 (γ31×β53＝.67×.64＝.43).. achievement test were β63 ＝.19, p＞.05. The fourth was through performance-. and β64 ＝-.07, p＜.05 respectively. The. avoidance goals, and the standardized. positive effect means that the more. solution for this route was .06 (γ41×β54＝-. students adopted performance-approach. .38×-.15＝.06). Total indirect effect for. goals, the better they performed on the. these four routes was .67. Among all the. English achievement test. The negative. indirect effects, the highest one was .67,. effect meant the opposite; the more. the indirect effect of self-efficacy on deep. students adopted performance-avoidance. English learning strategies, and the lowest. goals, the worse they performed on the. one was -.03, the indirect effect of. test.. performance-avoidance. effects. of. goals. the on. the. goals,. solution. for. and this. goals. on. the route. the. English achievement test through deep.

(17) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 43. effect of self-efficacy on deep English. English learning strategies.. Total Effects of Latent Dependent Variables on Latent Dependent Variables. learning strategies. The smallest at .04 was the total effect of incremental intelligence. belief. and. performance-. avoidance. goals. on. the. As shown in Appendix D, no indirect. achievement test.. effects of the four-dimensional goal. Discussion. orientations on deep English learning strategies were assumed. Hence, total. English. Limitations of the Study. effects of those goal orientations on deep. As a static rather than dynamic and. English learning strategies were equal to. circulating model was established in this. direct effects. They were .33, .23, .64 and. study, and its design was based on. -.15, respectively as shown. Besides, no. individual. direct effects of mastery-approach goals. measures were selected at the same time. and mastery-avoidance goals on the. point, this is inconsistent with the genuine. English achievement test were assumed.. individual English learning. Actually,. So their total effects were .06 and .04. students can enhance self-efficacy by. respectively,. indirect. using learning strategies, and then adapt. effects. The total effects .31 and -.10.. their learning. Also, in turn, their English. respectively of the performance-approach. achievement may affect their self-efficacy. and -avoidance goals on the English. belief and change their goal orientations. achievement test were equal to their direct. and so on. Besides, four-dimensional goal. effects of .19 and -.07. respectively, plus. orientation is a very complicated theory. their indirect effects of .12 and -.03. No. but it better confirms to the motivation. indirect effect of deep English learning. patterns than two or three dimensional. strategies on the English achievement test. goal. Hence, how to establish a fit and. was assumed, so its total effect at .19 was. circulating. the same as its direct effect. Among all. challenging task for future research.. equal. to. their. total effects, the biggest total effect was .69 of self-efficacy on the English achievement test. Next was .67, the total. learning. model. process. may. Conclusions and Implications. and. provide. all. a.

(18) 44 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. One of the primary purposes of this. This result supports the views of Pintrich. study was to verify whether the model of. and De Groot (1990) that self-efficacy. four-dimensional goal orientation can. can. apply to Taiwan. Even though considering. cognitive involvement, use of learning. the participants from a different cultural. strategies and performance, and also. background, the goodness of fit of the. supports Yang’s (1993, 1999) view that. global. the. language learners’ own ability perceptions. established theoretical model can explain. influence their goals and motivation. the observed data in the EFL context in. patterns, learning behaviors and strategy. Taiwan and it also means the western. use, and further impact their performance. model are suitable for explaining high. (Vrugt et al., 2002). In other words, the. school students’ English learning in. higher self-efficacy students have, the. Taiwan. Furthermore, the fit data results. more likely they adopt mastery and/or. support the embedded theories within the. performance-approach goals, which leads. model, which signifies that self-efficacy. to more use of deep English learning. and/or incremental intelligence belief. strategies and indirectly contributes to. directly. better. model. affect. indicates. the. that. choice. of. four-. significantly. predict. performance. on. students’. English. dimensional goal orientations, and then. achievement test. Such findings also. the choice of four-dimensional goal. support He’s (2004) view that self-. orientations further affects the use of deep. efficacy is an effective predictor during. English learning strategies, which finally. the foreign language learning process. In. affects the performance on the English. other words, self-efficacy has a high. achievement test.. direct effect on English performance. In. From the effects among eight latent. Taiwan, normative evaluation and grading. variables, some important findings and. systems at schools readily allow social. teaching suggestions are discussed as. comparisons for senior high. follows.. students to assess their own abilities.. First, the direct, indirect and total. However,. if. teaching. can. school provide. effects of self-efficacy on deep English. meaningful interaction and cooperation. learning. English. tasks which are challenging and slightly. achievement test were the highest of all.. exceed students’ ability, they will focus. strategies. and. the.

(19) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 45. less on ability cues in the classroom and. performance-avoidance goals. However,. instead transfer their concerns about. the direct effect .39 of self-efficacy on. ability difference into the content and. mastery-avoidance goals indicates that. enjoyment of learning. That way, teaching. mastery-avoidance oriented students in. can enhance an individual’s self-efficacy.. this. Further, teachers can encourage students. perfectionists as Pintrich (2000b) has. to set attainable goals (such as learning 25. indicated, but rather learners who lack. new words per week) and integrate them. self-confidence, fear failure, or worry. into their own learning plan to carry out. about. their own expectations within a certain. materials.. time.. encouragement and more opportunities. study. may. not. incomplete. be. purely. understanding. Greater. emphasis. of on. Second, the direct effect of self-. for self-comparison in English classrooms. efficacy on performance-approach goals. in Taiwan could reduce tension for these. was the highest .67 among all path. students and help them to increase their. coefficients, indicating that the higher. self-efficacy.. self-efficacy students have, the more. Next,. the. direct. effects. of. incremental. beliefs. on. likely they hold performance-approach. intelligence. goals. The direct effect .42 of self-. mastery-approach goals and mastery-. efficacy. avoidance. on. mastery-approach. goals. goals were. .39. and. .31. means that they are also likely to hold. respectively. This indicates that to some. mastery-approach goals. Such finding. degree. indicates that under pressure of college. incremental beliefs tend to have master-. entrance. have. approach/avoidance goals and tend to. multiple goals as claimed by the past. believe in a way that intelligence can be. research. &. changed through learning (Dweck et al.,. Assor, 2007; Smith & Sinclair, 2005), in. 1993). Thus teachers could increase the. English classroom in Taiwan. However,. chances of students’ success in language. the direct effect -.38 of self-efficacy on. learning by arranging activities and. performance-avoidance goals indicates. grading by self-improvement to help. that the lower self-efficacy the students. students cultivate an incremental view of. have,. their own ability–the belief that their. examination,. students. (Levy-Tossman,. the. more. likely. Kaplan,. they. hold. students. with. intelligence.

(20) 46 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. learning. ability. can. be. changed,. strategies was positive, supporting the view that students who perceive they have. controlled and improved. Third, the direct effects of mastery-. mastery patterns of reaction, and who are. approach goals, mastery-avoidance goals,. concerned about grades, are likely to be. performance-approach. engaged. goals. and. in. cognitive. involvement. performance-avoidance goals on deep. (Harackiewicz et al., 1998; Pintrich &. English. strategies. Garcia, 1991). However, Kaplan and. were .33, .23, .64 and -.15 respectively,. Middleton (2002) proposed that the. indicating. positive. learning that. different. goals. have. effect. of. approach. deep. by. applicable for students with high ability.. language learners. This also indirectly. Similar to the findings of this study, the. verifies. highest direct effect of the performance-. the. learning existence. strategies of. mastery. was. performance-. different levels of influence on the use of English. goal. the the. only. one. 4-. approach goal on deep English learning. dimensional goal theory (Yperen, Elliot.,. strategies might be only applicable for. & Anseel, 2009). From the view of the. students with high ability who usually are. two higher effects, it also indicates that. high. the students may adopt performance-. oriented.. avoidance. goals. and. supports. mastery/performanceNext,. approach goals and mastery-approach. the. total. approach. effects. goals at the same time. Due to the. performance-approach. additive and interactive effects, it brings. performance-avoidance goals on English. high effects on deep English learning. achievement tests were .31 and -.10. strategies.. respectively,. From. the. multiple-goal. goal. of. including. the. and. direct. perspective, students who pursued master. effects .19 and -.07 plus the indirect. and. goals. effects .12 and -.03. This result supports. demonstrated more optimal patterns of. the finding that competence perceptions. learning (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001;. are a moderating variable for performance. Céline, Benoît, Ophélie, & Fabrizio,. goals (Elliot & Church, 1997; Skaalvik,. 2010).. 1997). Performance goals can positively. performance-approach. The. effect. approach/avoidance. and. of. mastery-. performance-. approach goals on deep English learning. or. negatively. competence. affect. students.. perceptions. may. Low have.

(21) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 47. harmful effects on learners, while high. Finally, the direct effect .19 of deep. competence perceptions may enhance. English learning strategies on the English. learners’ motivation and performance.. achievement test (β65) was not significant.. That is to say, competence perceptions. But the correlation coefficient between. (i.e. the sense of self-efficacy) indirectly. two variables was .627, the highest of all. affect achievements through the choice of. the correlations. This indicates that the. goals. So, for most normal students or. influence. students with. low. strategies on English achievement tests. competence, an atmosphere supporting. cannot be ignored and the training of. the mastery approach in the English-. using deep English strategies should be. teaching. emphasized.. a. perception of. classroom. can. help. them. of. deep. Among. English. the. learning. correlation. understand that learning is self-growth,. coefficients of three kinds of deep English. and building language skills can be a. learning. fruitful and enjoyable process. Further,. achievement test, the highest was the. for. functional. students. who. are. performance-. strategies. and. practice. the. strategy. English (r=.523),. avoidance oriented, the direct effects of. while the mean of this strategy (m=2.15). their goals on the deep English strategies. of all participants was the lowest. This. they. indicates. used. and. on. their. English. that. functional. practice. achievement test results were β54=-.15. strategies have the most influence on. and β64=-.07 respectively. Those students. English achievement tests; however, they. usually have low expectations of their. are not frequently used by students. Such. own ability. The frequently unstable. findings may be caused by the fact that. relations between learning behavior and. under. achievement can cause them to lose. environment, cognitive strategies. confidence. In order to prevent avoidance. more useful in passing the examinations.. behaviors among students, teachers can. Functional practice strategies such as. design interactive activities or make. listening. learning scaffolds for those and make. programs, reading English newspapers or. them set achievable learning goals in. talking with foreigners, even though with. order to enhance their sense of self-. more indirect influence on grades, are. efficacy.. often ignored or avoided with the excuse. an. to. examination-oriented. English. are. broadcasting.

(22) 48 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. of no time or no opportunity, as those activities are seen to have less influence on one’s grades in the short term. For students,. especially. in. an. EFL. environment, English is not commonly used in daily life in Taiwan. There is no urgent. requirement. for. students. to. develop good English learning habits, such as trying to communicate with friends in English, writing letters, keeping a journal or reading English newspapers. Thus it is necessary for teachers to emphasize the importance of functional practice strategies that will foster allaround English ability, and to demonstrate that the purpose of learning English is to develop. communication. ability. and. appreciate western culture in order to cultivate an international perspective, not just. to. enhance. English. academic. achievement on school exams.. Reference Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271. Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1989). Research in motivation in education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1992). Student self-efficacy as a function of a classroom goal orientation. Retrieved. from ERIC database. (ED375367) Anderman, E. M., & Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 811-832. Bandura, M., & Dweck, C. S. (1985). The relationship of concepts of intelligence and achievement goals to achievement related cognition, affect and behavior. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Barron, K. E., & Harackiewcz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goals models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 706-722. Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 62(7), 327-336. Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students; learning-process really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3-19. Céline, D., Benoît D., Ophélie, G., & Fabrizio, B. (2010). The interplay of mastery and performance goals in social comparison: A multiple-goal perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 212222. Chang, S. F., & Huang, S. C. (1999). Taiwanese English learners’ learning motivation and language learning strategies. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 111-128). Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane..

(23) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 49. Chen, Y. L. (2002). A language learning strategies scale for college students in Taiwan. Journal of the English Language Center. Ming Chuan University. Cheng, P. Y., & Chiou, W. B. (2010). Achievement, attributions, self-efficacy, and goal setting by accounting undergraduates. Psychological Reports, 106(1), 1-11. Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 43-54. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1993). Implicit theories: Individual differences in the likelihood and meaning of dispositional inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(5), 644656. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories: Elaboration and extension of the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 323-333. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273. Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1995). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 1-13. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218-232.. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Psysonality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 139-156. Gabriela, O. C. (2002). Learning strategies and achievement in the Spanish writing classroom: A case study. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5), 561-570. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33, 1-21. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Education Psychology, 92(2), 316-330. He, T. H. (2004). The relations among trichotomous achievement goals, selfefficacy, and self-regulation in EFL sixth-grade classes in Taiwan. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, 17(1), 111-134. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2002). Should childhood be a journey or a race? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 646-648. Karen, Y. H. (1998). Motivation and Transfer.

(24) 50 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. in Language Learning. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED427318). Leondari, A., & Gialamas, V. (2002). Implicit theories, goal orientations, and perceived competence: Impact on students’ achievement behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 279-291. Levy-Tossman, I., Kaplan, A., & Assor, A. (2007). Academic goal orientations, multiple goal profiles, and friendship intimacy among early adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 231-252. Liao, Y. F. (2000). A study of Taiwanese junior high school students’ EFL learning motivation and learning strategies (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Freeman, K. E., Gheen, M., … Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346. Nyikos, M., & Oxford, R. (1993). A factor analytic study of language-learning strategy use: Interpretations from information-processing theory and social psychology. The modern Language Journal, 77, 11-22. Okada, M., Oxford, R. L., & Abo, S. (1999). Not all alike: Motivation and learning. strategies among students of Japanese and Spanish in an exploratory study. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (2nd ed., pp. 105-120). Hilo, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Park, G. P. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 211-221. Peng, I. N. (2002). EFL motivation and strategy use among Taiwanese senior high school learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University of English, Taipei, Taiwan. Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Education Psychology, 25, 95-104. Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40. Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In C. Ames & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advance in motivation and achievement: Motivation enhancing.

(25) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 51. environments (Vol.7, pp. 371-402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill Pretice-Hall. Sankaran, S. R., & Bui, T. (2001). Impact of learning strategies and motivation on performance: A study in web-based instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28(3), 191-198. Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and selfefficacy during self-regulated learning, Educational Psychologist, 25,71-86. Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of selfefficacy and attributions in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 75-99). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Education Psychology, 89(1), 71-81. Smith, L., & Sinclair, K. E. (2005). Empirical evidence for multiple goals: A genderbased, senior high school student perspective. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 5, 55-70. Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Achievement goal theory: A perspective on foreignlanguage-learners’ motivation. TESL. Canada Journal, 21(2), 34-49. 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: JAE Press. Vrugt, A., Oort, F. J., & Zeeberg, C. (2002). Goal orientations, perceived self-efficacy and study results amongst beginners and advanced students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(3), 385-397. Wu, J. J., Yu, M. N., Chen, J. C., & Lin, W. W. (1999). The establishment and revision of implicit intelligence theories. Unpublished manuscript. Yang, N. D. (1993, May). Beliefs about language learning and learning strategy use: A study of college students of English in Taiwan. Paper presented at the Tenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei, Taiwan. Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27(5), 515-535. Yperen, V., Elliot, A. J., & Anseel, F. (2009). The influence of mastery-avoidance goals on performance improvement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 932-943 Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in change societies (pp. 202-231). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press..

(26) 52 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. Appendix A. Key to Variables. X1. I am very confident of my English capability.. X2. I’m certain I can figure out how to do the most complex material presented by the instructor in my English class.. X3. In comparison with other students, my English ability is better.. X4. I’m sure that my English assignment and test are good.. X5. I think people’s intelligence is based on experience.. X6. I think people can change their intelligence level by learning and making efforts.. X7. I think one’s intelligence can be improved by having a good teacher or studying.. Y1. My purpose in learning English is to improve my English ability, not to show off to others.. Y2. For me, it’s important to have English skills in listening, speaking, reading and writing.. Y3. Apart from competing or and comparing with others, I think it’s important to learn some English.. Y4. In English class, I worry about that I haven’t learned everything what I should have learned.. Y5. In English class, I worry about that I cannot understand what I have been taught in listening, speaking, reading and writing.. Y6. Regardless of my scores on English tests, I will worry about not completely understanding what the English teacher teaches me.. Y7. My purpose in taking English classes is to show off to others... Y8. For me, it’s important to perform better than other students in English class.. Y9. I would take notice of my ranking according to grade in my English class.. Y10 I just want to avoid doing poorly in my English class. Y11 My goal in my English class is to avoid performing poorly..

(27) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 53. Y12 My fear of performing poorly in my English class is often what motivates me. Y13 Functional strategies including 1. I listen to English programs such as ICRT and Studio Classroom. 2. I read English newspapers and magazines. 3. I can write English letters, journal entries, notes or papers. Y14 Cognitive strategies including 1. I can break a word into components such as prefix or suffix in order to understand the meaning of the word. 2. When I cannot remember a word to express my meaning, I will replace it with other words that have similar meanings. 3. When I encounter unfamiliar words, I will guess their meaning in context. Y15 Metacognitive strategies including 1. I take notice of my English improvement. 2. In order to improve my English, I set specific goals. 3. I am aware of my English learning style, and I will change the method if necessary. Y16 Conversation test Y17 Vocabulary test Y18 Grammar and sentence pattern test Y19 reading test.

(28) 54 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. Appendix B. Fit Indexes. Structural Model of Self-efficacy Belief Scale χ2 8.43. model. p > 0.05. RMSEA .051. GFI 1.00. AGFI 1.00. CFI 1.00. IFI 1.00. NNFI 1.00. 2. Note: χ ＝chi square statistic; RMSEA＝root mean square error approximation; GFI＝goodness-of fit index; AGFI＝ adjusted goodness-of-fit index; CFI＝comparative fit index; IFI＝incremental fix index; NFI＝normed fit index; NNFI＝ non-normed fit index.. Structural Model of Four Dimensional Goal Orientation Scale model. χ2 72.95. p ＜.05. RMSEA .040. GFI 1.00. AGFI .99. CFI 1.00. IFI 1.00. NNFI 1.00. AGFI .96. CFI .98. IFI .98. NNFI .97. Structural Model of Deep English Strategy Scale model. χ2 1280.25. p =.00. RMSEA .062. GFI .98. Structural Model of Fit of the Global Model Global model. χ2 1682.27. p .00. RMSEA .057. GFI .97. AGFI .96. CFI .98. IFI .98. NFI .97. NNFI .97. RFI .96. PNFI .85. Note: RFI=relative fit index; PNFI= Parsimony Normed Fit Index; PGFI= Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index. PGFI .78.

(29) 四種目標導向對英語學習與教學的啟示 55. Appendix C. Correlation Matrices. Correlation Matrix for latent variables of the model ξ1 ξ2 η1 η2 η3 η4 η5 η6 ＊＊. ξ1 1.000 .184＊＊＊＊ .384 .191＊＊＊＊ .417 -.365＊＊＊＊ .641 .619＊＊. ξ2. η2. η3. η4. 1.000 -.024. 1.000. η5. η6. 1.000 .285＊＊ .233＊＊ .172＊＊ -.082＊＊ .225＊＊ .104＊＊. Significant at .01 level.. ξ1 Self-efficacy ξ2 Intelligence incremental belief η1 Mastery-approach goal η2 Mastery-avoidance goal η3 Performance-approach goal η4 Performance-avoidance goal η5 Deep English learning strategies η6 English achievement test. η1. 1.000 .398＊＊ .170＊＊ -.203＊＊ .489＊＊ .286＊＊. 1.000 .319＊＊ .023 .383＊＊ .235＊＊. .447＊＊ .367＊＊. -.291＊＊ -.279＊＊. 1.000 .627＊＊. 1.000.

(30) 56 教育與心理研究 36 卷 4 期. Appendix D. The Direct, Indirect and Total Effects for Variables of the Causal Model. Mastery D. effect approach goals Ind. effect Total effect Mastery D. effect avoidance Ind. effect goals Total effect Performance- D. effect approach goals Ind. effect Total effect Performance - D. effect avoidance Ind. effect goals Total effect Deep English D. effect learning Ind. effect strategies Total effect English D. effect achievement Ind. effect test Total effect. Selfefficacy .42 .42 .24 .24 .67 .67 -.38 --.38 -.67 .67 .41 .28 .69. Intelligence Incre.belief .39 .39 .31 .31 .20 .20 .04 .04. m-ap. m-av. p-ap. p-av.. .33 .33 .06 .06. .23 .23 .04 .04. .64 .64 .19 .12 .31. -.15 -.15 -.07 -.03 -.10. Deep English Learning str. .19 .19.

(31)