近來自我調整學習的研究已經發現學習者會使用各種不同的調整策略來增進自己的學習表現，但很少有研究探討情境與調整策略之間的交互關係。因此，本研究的研究目的為：（1）瞭解國內高中生調整策略的使用是否為多面向及哪種調整策略使用的最多。（2）探討高中生面對學習材料是不重要、困難及枯燥無聊三個動機問題時，哪一種動機問題會使受試者使用最多調整策略。（3）比較高中生在英文科正式與非正式的學習情境中，調整策略使用上的差異。（4）探討動機問題與策略型態之交互作用是否受學習情境所調節。（5）瞭解行動或狀態導向的高中生自我調整策略的使用情形。（6）探討行動或狀態導向、動機問題及策略型態三者之間是否有交互作用。（7）探討學習情境及動機問題是否會影響自我設限策略的使用。為完成研究目的，本研究以台灣地區的高中生為研究對象，抽取五所高中8個班級共265人為研究樣本。研究工具為研究者自編的「高中生英文科行動導向量表」及「高中生英文科調整策略開放式量表」，蒐集所得資料以二因子及三因子變異數分析考驗各項假設。
研究結果顯示：（1）高中生自我調整策略的使用是多面向的，他們使用最多的是行動控制策略，使用最少的則是內在動機調整策略。整體而言，高中生外在動機調整、內在動機調整、訊息處理、後設認知及行動控制五種調整策略的使用上有差異，他們傾向使用較多的行動控制策略；使用最少的是內在動機調整策略。（2）高中生面對學習材料是不重要的、困難的、枯燥無聊的三種動機問題時使用的自我調整策略有差異，面對困難的教材時明顯使用更多的調整策略。（3）高中生在非正式的學習情境比在正式的學習情境會使用較多的調整策略。（4）學習情境、動機問題與策略型態三者之間有交互作用。在課堂聽課時，當高中生面對不重要及枯燥無聊的教材時，他們傾向使用較多的行動控制策略；面對困難的教材時，則使用大量的訊息處理策略。在家準備考試的情境中，面對的學習材料是不重要的、困難的及枯燥無聊時候，他們在行動控制策略的使用上明顯地比外在動機調整、內在動機調整、訊息處理及後設認知四類策略來的多。（5）行動導向的高中生比狀態導向的高中生使用更多的自我調整策略。（6）行動或狀態導向、動機問題及策略型態三者之間有交互作用。在面對不重要的教材時，行動導向的高中生比狀態導向的高中生使用較多的行動控制策略及內在動機調整策略；面對困難的教材時，狀態導向的高中生比行動導向的高中生使用較多的行動控制策略，而行動導向的高中生則比狀態導向的高中生使用較多的訊息處理策略；面對枯燥無聊的教材時，行動導向與狀態導向的高中生皆傾向使用大量的行動控制策略。（7）高中生在非正式的學習情境比正式的學習情境使用更多的自我設限策略。（8）高中生面對不重要的學習材料時會傾向使用更多的自我設限策略；面對困難的學習材料時，他們則使用較少的自我設限策略。（9）學習情境及動機問題在自我設限策略上有交互作用。在課堂聽課及在家準備考試兩種情境中，當高中生面對不重要的學習材料，他們傾向使用大量的自我設限策略，而面對困難的教材時則使用的最少。面對不重要的教材時，在家準備考試會比在課堂聽課明顯使用更多的自我設限策略；而面對困難的教材時，在家準備考試則比在課堂聽課明顯使用較少的自我設限策略。本研究根據研究結果進行理論上的探討，並提出高中教學及未來研究上的建議。

Recent research on self-regulated learning has showed students improve their learning performance by using a variety of regulated strategies. Much of this research has explored these strategies without consideration of the interaction between context and regulated strategies.
The purposes of this study were to: (1) explore what regulated strategies senior high school students use more and whether theses strategies are involved information process, motivation, metacognition and action control. (2) investigate what regulated strategies senior high school students use more when face with different motivational problems which are unimportant, difficult and boring course material. (3) compare regulated strategies senior high school students use when face with formal and informal learning context. (4) verify the interaction among learning context, motivational problems and regulated strategy types. (5) explore what regulated strategies action vs. state orientation senior high school students use. (6) verify the interaction among action vs. state orientation, motivational problems and regulated strategy types. (7) examine learning context and motivational problems effect the use of self-handicapping. The participants were 265 students from five senior high schools in Taiwan. The instruments employed in this study were English Regulated Strategies Opened-ended Questionnaire and Action Orientation Scale made by the author. The collected data was analyzed with repeated measures three-way analysis of variance, mixed design three-way analysis of variance and repeated measures two-way analysis of variance.
Results showed that (1) senior high school students tended to use more action control strategies. (2) senior high school students tended to use more regulated strategies when they faced with difficult course material. (3) subjects tended to use more regulated strategies in informal learning context than in formal learning context. (4) senior high school students’ use of regulated strategies varied across different learning contexts and motivational problems. (5) action-orientation subjects tended to use more regulated strategies than state-orientation ones. (6) there were significant three-way interaction among action and state orientation, motivational problems and regulated strategy types. (7) participants tended to use more self-handicapping strategies in informal learning context than in formal learning context. (8) participants tended to use more self-handicapping strategies when faced unimportant course material and less ones when faced difficult course material. (9) senior high school students’ use of self-handicapping strategies varied across different learning contexts and motivational problems. Implications for theory, teaching intervention and research are discussed.

林清山譯（1997）：教育心理學－認知取向。台北：遠流。
程炳林（1995）：國中生自我調整學習因素與學習表現之關係暨自我調整的閱讀理解教學策略效果之研究。教育心理學報，28期，15-58。
程炳林（2001）：大學生行動導向量表。未出版。
程炳林（2002a）：大學生學習工作、動機問題與自我調整學習策略之關係。教育心理學報，33卷，2期，79-102。
程炳林（2002b）：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。
陳麗芬（1995）：行動控制觀點的自我調整學習及其相關研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
Ablard, K. E., & Lipschultz, R. E. (1998). Self-regulated learning in high-achieving students: Relations to advanced Reasoning, achievement goals, and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 94-101.
Ames, C. (1992). Classroom: Goals, structure, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Blumenfeld, P. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272-281.
Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 161-186.
Boekaerts, M. (1998). Do culturally rooted self-construals affect students’ conceptualization of control over learning? Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 87-108.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445-457.
Boekaerts, M., & Minnaert, A. (1999). Self-regulated with respect to informal learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 533-544.
Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 317-329.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Corno L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 14-22.
Dai, D. Y., Moon, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 45-63.
DeBacker, T. K., & Nelson, R. M. (1999). Variations on an expectancy-value model of motivation in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 71-94.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473-490.
Duba, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 290-299.
Feick, D. L., & Rhodewalt, F. (1997). The double-edged sword of self-handicapping: discounting, augmentation, and the protection and enhancement of self-esteem. Motivation and Emotion, 21(2), 147-163.
Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediators of cognitive-behavior consistency: Self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman(Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp.101-128). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kuhl, J. (2000). A function-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: The dynamic of personality system and interactions. In M., Boekaerts & P. R., Pintrich(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
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.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 405-412.
Meece, J. L., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 514-523.
Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). “If I don’t do well tomorrow, there’s a reason”: predictors of adolescents’ use of acdemic self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 423-434.
Nurmi, J. E., Onatsu, T., & Haavisto, T. (1995). Underachievers’ cognitive and behavioral strategies－self-handicapping at school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 188-200.
Perry, R. P., Hladkyj, S., Pekrun, R. H., & Pelletier, S. T. (2001). Academic control and action control in the achievement of college students: a longitudinal field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 776-789.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999a). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459-470.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999b). Taking control of research on volitional control: Challenges for future theory and research. Learning & Individual Differences, 11(3), 335-355.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts & P. R. Pintrich(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivation and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R., Roeser, R., & De Groot, E. V.(1994). Classroom and individual difference in early adolescents’ motivation and self-regulated learning. Jounal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 139-164.
Rao, N., Moely, B. E., & Sachs, J. (2000). Motivational beliefs, study strategies, and mathematics attainment in high- and low-achieving Chinese secondary school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 287-316.
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Rollett, W. (2000). Motivation and action in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts & P. R. Pintrich(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.503-529). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgan, C. (1992). Once a boring task? Interest as aself-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 379-390.
Snow, R. E. (1996). Self-regulation as meta-conation? Learning & Individual Differences, 8(3), 261-268.
Sternberg R. J. (1992). Ability tests, measurements, and markets. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 134-140.
Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic Self-Handicapping: What we know, what more there is to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 115-138.
Wigfield, A.., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 224-235.
Wolters, C. A. (1999). The relation between high school student’ motivational regulation and their use of learning strategies, efforts, and classroom performance. Learning & Individual Differences, 11(3), 281-301.
Wolters, C. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 27-47.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Martinez-Pons M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614-628.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Martinez-Pons M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51-59.
Zimmerman, B. J.(1989). Models of self-rgulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J., Zimmerman & D. H., Schunk (Eds.), Theory, research. and practice (pp.1-25). New York: Spring-Verlag.
Zimmerman, B. J.(2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts & P. R. Pintrich(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.