本研究的目的為：（1）探討國中生在三種趨向表現目標上的差異性。（2）探討國中生在三種文化價值觀上的差異性。（3）分析國中生在適應性學習組型上的差異性。（4）考驗國中生的趨向表現目標與其適應性學習組型之關係。（5）考驗國中生的趨向表現目標與文化價值觀之關係。（6）探討國中生的文化價值觀與適應性學習組型之關係。（7）分析國中生的文化價值觀在趨向表現目標與適應性學習組型之間的調節效果。為完成上述研究目的，本研究抽取799名國中生為研究樣本，並以研究者自編的趨向表現目標量表、文化價值觀量表與適應性學習組型量表進行施測。本研究以單因子多變量變異數分析、Hotelling T2、單因子重複量數變異數分析、典型相關分析與多元迴歸分析來考驗各項假設。

本研究發現如下：
一、不同年級與性別的國中生在三種趨向表現目標上有差異，進一步分析一年級與二年級學生在相對能力、外在酬賞上的得分高於三年級學生；一年級學生在他人期望上的得分高於二年級與三年級學生；男生在外在酬賞上的得分高於女生。此外，國中生在三種趨向表現目標上也有顯著差異，進一步分析顯示國中生的相對能力目標高於他人期望及外在酬賞目標。

二、不同年級與性別的國中生在三種文化價值觀上有差異，進一步分析一年級學生在集體取向、未來時間觀上的得分高於二年級學生與三年級學生，三年級學生在重視努力上的得分高於一年級學生與二年級學生；男生在集體取向上的得分低於女生；此外，國中生在三種文化價值觀上有顯著差異，進一步分析顯示國中生所持重視努力之信念高於未來時間觀、集體取向。

三、不同年級的學生在訊息處理策略、後設認知策略、堅持與努力上有顯著差異，而在正向情感、興趣上沒有顯著差異，進一步分析顯示一年級學生在訊息處理策略、後設認知策略、堅持與努力上的得分高於二年級與三年級學生；男女生在訊息處理策略、後設認知策略、堅持與努力上沒有顯著差異，而在正向情感、興趣上有顯著差異，進一步分析顯示男生在正向情感、興趣上的得分高於女生。

四、國中生的相對能力與他人期望目標均能有效預測訊息處理策略、後設認知策略、正向情感、興趣、堅持與努力。外在酬賞目標只能正向預測訊息處理策略，且負向預測後設認知策略、努力，但無法有效預測正向情感、興趣與堅持。

五、趨向表現目標與文化價值觀有顯著的典型相關存在。國中生在集體取向、未來時間觀與重視努力上的得分愈高者，其相對能力及他人期望目標的得分也傾向愈高。

六、三種文化價值觀皆能有效預測訊息處理策略、後設認知策略，但是無法有效預測正向情感、興趣；未來時間觀能正向預測堅持、努力；重視努力則只能正向預測堅持，但無法有效預測努力；集體取向均無法顯著預測堅持、努力。

七、文化價值觀之重視努力是相對能力目標與訊息處理策略的調節變項，也是外在酬賞目標與興趣的調節變項。進一步分析顯示持中程度重視努力的學生，其相對能力目標能正向預測訊息處理策略；持中程度重視努力的學生，其外在酬賞目標能正向預測興趣。

本研究根據研究結果提出建議，以供國中教學與學習輔導，以及未來研究之參考。

　　The purposes of this study were (a) to explore the differences among junior high school students’ three kinds of approach performance goals, (b) to explore the differences among junior high school students’ three kinds of cultural values, (c) to analyze the differences among junior high school students’ adaptive patterns of learning, (d) to examine the relation between students’ approach performance goal and adaptive patterns of learning, (e) to examine the relation between students’ approach performance goal and cultural values, (f) to explore the relation between students’ adaptive patterns of learning and cultural values, and (g) to analyze cultural values as moderators between approach performance goal and adaptive patterns of learning. The participants were 799 junior high school students. The instruments used in this study included: Approach Performance Goal Scale, Cultural Values Scale, Adaptive Patterns of Learning Scale. The statistical methods used to analyze the data were one-way MANOVA, Hotelling T2, one-way repeated measures ANOVA, canonical correlation analysis, multiple regression analysis.

　　The results of this study were summarized as followings:
1.Students from different grades and genders differed in three kinds of approach performance goals. By furthermore analysis, seven grade and eighth grade students scored higher on relative ability and extrinsic rewards than ninth grade students; seven grade students scorded higher on others’ expectations than eighth grade and ninth grade students; male students scored higher on extrinsic rewards than female students. In addition, junior high school students had significant differences in three kinds of approach performance goals, and the scores of their relative ability were higher than others’ expectations and extrinsic rewards.

2.Students from different grades and genders differed in three kinds of cultural values. By furthermore analysis, seven grade students scored higher on collectivism orientation and future time perspective than eighth grade and ninth grade students; ninth grade students scorded higher on emphasis on effort than seven grade and eigth grade students; male students scored lower on collectivism orientation than female students. Moreover, junior high school students had significant differences in three kinds of cultural values, and the scores of their emphasis on effort were higher than those of future time perspective and collectivism orientation.

3.Students from different grades had significant differences in information-processing strategy, metacognitive strategy, persistence and efforts, but not in positive affect and interest. By furthermore analysis, seven grade students scored higher on information-processing strategy, persistence and efforts than eighth grade and ninth grade students. Both male and female students had no significant differences in information-processing strategy, metacognitive strategy, persistence and effort. However, they had significant differences in positive affect and interest, and male students’ scored higher on positive affect and interest than female students.

4.The relative ability and others’ expectations of junior high school students could predict information-processing strategy, metacognitive strategy, positive affect, interest, persistence and effort. Extrinsic rewards could positively predict information-processing strategy, and could negatively predict metacognitive strategy and effort. But extrinsic rewards could not significant predict positive affect, interest and persistence.

5.Approach performance goals and cultural values had significant canonical correlation relationships among junior high school students. Those who scored high on collectivism orientation, future time perspective and emphasis on effort were also scored high on relative ability and others’ expectations.

6.All three kinds of cultural values could significant predict information-processing strategy and metacognitive strategy among junior high school students, but could not significant predict positive affect and interest. Their future time perspective could positively predict persistence and effort; their emphasis on effort could positively predict persistence, but could not significant predict effort, and their collectivism orientation could not significant predict persistence and effort.

7.The emphasis on effort on cultural values was the moderator between relative ability and information-processing strategy, and it was also the moderator between extrinsic rewards and interest. Furthermore, the relative ability of those who had middle level of emphasis on effort, could positively predict information-processing strategy. In addition, extrinsic rewards on those who had middle level of emphasis on effort could positively predict interest.

　　Based on the findings in this research, suggestions to junior high school teaching, educational guidance and future studies were proposed.

壹、中文部分
林清山譯（民90）。R. E. Mayer（1989）原著。教育心理學：認知取向 （Educational psychology: A cognitive approach）。台北：遠流。

侯玫如（民91）。多重目標導向對國中生認知、動機、情感與學習行為之影響。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文。

張春興（民90）。教育心理學--三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華。

張景媛（民86）。青少年的價值觀、後設認知與學習動機對情緒適應影響之研究。國科會專案研究報告。NSC86-2413-H003-008-G10。

張華葆（民74）。社會學。台北：三民。

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

陳嘉成（民91）。成就目標、行動控制取向與數學能力知覺的中介效果對國中生數學學習行為組型之關係研究。教育與心理研究，25期，629-656。

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

程炳林、林清山（民89）。中學生自我調整學習之研究(1/2)。國科會專案研究報告。NSC89-2413-H-035-001。

楊岫穎（民92）。國中生自我設限的情境及歷程因素之研究。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文。

楊國樞（民91）。華人心理的本土化研究。台北：桂冠。

劉潔玲（民91）。從中國傳統文化思想及價值觀論目標取向理論在華人社會的應用。教育研究資訊，10（3），183-203。

蔡宜妙（民92）。成就動機的文化特徵：台灣地區青少年的努力信念。國立台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。

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

謝岱陵（民92）。國中生四向度目標導向之研究。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文。

貳、英文部分
Aiken, L. S, ＆ West, S. G. (1993). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA；Sage.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Ames, C., ＆ Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267.

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

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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

Dai, D. Y. (2000). To be or not to be (challenged), that is the question: Task and ego orientations among high-ability, high-achieving adolescents. The Journal of Experimental Eduation, 68(4), 311-330.

Dweck, C. S. ＆ Elliot, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In E. M. Heatherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality, and social development (Vol. 4, pp.643-691). New York: Wiley.

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

Dweck, C. S., (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychology, 41(10), 1040-1048.

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

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

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

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

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 638-645.

Maehr. M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In R. Ames ＆ C. Ames （Eds.）, Research on motivation in education, Vol.1 (pp. 115-144). New York: Academic Press.

McInerney, D. M., Roche, L. A., McInerney, V., ＆ Marsh, H.W. (1997). Cultural perspectives on school motivation: The relevance and application of goal theory. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 207-236.

Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C. ＆ Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Education Psychology, 80（4）, 710-718.

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

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Perfomance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost？ Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 77-86.

Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of concepts of effort and ability, perception of own attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800-814.

Nicholls, J. G. (1980). The development of comcept of difficulty. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 26, 271-281.

Nicholls, J. G. (1983). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames ＆ C. Ames (Eds), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3., pp.185-218). New York: Academic Press.

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

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

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

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

Pintrich, P. R. (2000c). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92-104.

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

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

Smith, L., Sinclair, K. E., ＆ Chapman, E. S. (2002). Students’ goals, self-efficacy, self-handicapping, and negative affective responses: An Australian senior school student study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 471-485.

Smith, M., Duda, J., Allen, J., ＆ Hall, H. (2002). Contemporary measures of approach and avoidance goal orientations: Similarities and differences. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 155-190.

Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative functions. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

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

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

Volet, S. E. (1997). Cognitive and affective variables in academic learning: The significance of direction and effort in students’ goals. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 235-254.