本研究的研究目的有三：（一）根據Kuhl與Kraska（1989）的行動控制理論，以認知、情緒、執行三個偏好子系統為基礎，編製行動控制策略量表，並分析其信、效度。（二）根據情境限制的相關文獻，編製知覺的情境限制因素量表，並分析其信、效度。（三）建構國中生的行動控制策略歷程模式，並考驗該模式與觀察資料的適配度。
為完成上述的研究目的，本研究先以競爭模式取向選擇行動控制策略一階、二階驗證性因素分析模式中，適合用來解釋國中生的觀察資料者；再以該模式驗證行動控制策略量表的建構效度。同樣地，本研究也以競爭模式取向選擇知覺的情境限制因素一階、二階驗證性因素分析模式中，適合用來解釋國中生的觀察資料者；再以該模式檢驗知覺的情境限制因素量表的建構效度。最後，本研究考驗行動控制策略歷程模式與觀察資料是否適配，所用的研究工具包含本研究自編的行動控制策略量表、知覺的情境限制因素量表，以及其他已發展且具有良好信、效度之量表。本研究為完成研究分析，共抽取兩批樣本，第一批樣本199人，用以進行兩份自編量表的信度分析與探索性因素分析；第二批樣本599人，用以進行兩份量表的一階、二階驗證性因素分析模式競爭與模式考驗，以及考驗行動控制策略歷程模式的適配度。抽樣地區為台灣北、中、南三區的11所國中，資料分析方法以結構方程模式為主。
本研究的發現如下：
一、本研究選取行動控制策略二階驗證性因素分析模式進行模式考驗，考驗結果顯示該模式與國中生的觀察資料適配，顯示行動控制策略量表具有不錯的建構效度。
二、本研究選取知覺的情境限制因素二階驗證性因素分析模式進行模式考驗，考驗結果顯示該模式與國中生的觀察資料適配，顯示知覺的情境限制因素量表具有良好的建構效度。
三、本研究所建構的行動控制策略歷程模式與觀察資料之適配度良好，可用來解釋國中生的觀察資料。分析結果顯示：行動／狀態導向、逃避氣質、動機成分對知覺的情境限制因素有直接效果；知覺的情境限制因素對行動控制策略有直接效果；行動控制策略對適應性學習行為有直接效果。另外，行動／狀態導向、趨向氣質、逃避氣質、動機成分、知覺的情境限制因素皆對適應性學習行為有間接效果；行動／狀態導向、趨向氣質、逃避氣質、動機成份皆對行動控制策略有間接效果。

The purposes of this study contain three folds:
（1） To construct the action control strategies scale（i.e. the ACS） which is based on the three preference subsystems as well as to test its reliability and validity. The contention of preference subsystems is addressed by Kuhl, J. & Kraska, K.（1989）, one of the theoretical issues in the action control theory.
（2）To construct the Perceived Restricted Conditions Scale （i.e. the PRCS）and to test its reliability and validity.
（3）To construct the action control strategies model and to test the model fit.

To achieve the purposes above, the study firstly compared the ACS’s first-order CFA model with the second-order CFA model, and chose the suitable one to test the construct validity of the ACS. Secondly, the study also compared the PRCS’s first-order CFA model with the second-order CFA model, and chose the suitable one to test its construct validity. Thirdly, the study used the two scales which is mentioned above, and other scales as the instruments to test the model fit of the action control strategies model. In order to finish the research, the study gathered two samples from junior high school students domestically. 199 students, as the first sample, were to test the ACS and the PRCS’s reliability and EFA. 599 students, the second sample, were to test the ACS’s and the PRCS’s CFA and the model fit of all theoretical models in this study. The major statistical method of this study is Structural Equation Modeling.

The results of this study showed that:
（1）The ACS’s second-order CFA model was chosen to test the model fit. The theoretical model fitted the data well, displaying that the ACS had good construct validity.
（2）The PRCS’s second-order CFA model was chosen to test the model fit. The theoretical model fitted the data very well, displaying that the PRCS had good construct validity.
（3）The action control strategies model fitted the data well, and the analysis displayed that:
（a）Action orientation（AO）／State orientation（SO）, avoid temperament, and motivation had direct effects on perceived restricted condition.;
（b） Action control strategy had the direct effect on adaptive learning behavior;
（c）AO／SO, approach temperament, avoid temperament, motivation, and perceived restricted condition had indirect effect on adaptive learning behavior.
（d）AO／SO, approach temperament, avoid temperament, and motivation had indirect effect on action control strategy.

中文部分
王文科（1994）。質的教育研究法（第二版）。台北市：師大書苑。
朱敬先（1997）。教育心理學：教學取向。台北：五南。
吳青蓉、張景媛 （2003）國中生英語學習歷程模式之驗證。教育心理學報，35（2）。121-140。
吳靜吉、程炳林（1992）激勵的學習策略量表之修訂。測驗年刊，39，59-78。
吳靜吉、程炳林（1993）。國民中小學生學習動機、學習策略與學業成績之相關研究。政大學報，66，13-39。
林清山、程炳林（1997）。國中生學習行動控制模式的建構與驗證暨教學輔導策略實驗方案效果之研究（Ⅰ）。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告 （NSC 86-2413-H-003-010-G10）台北：國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系。
林清山譯（2001）。Mayer, R. E.著。教育心理學—認知取向。台北：遠流。
張春興（1994）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華。
張憲卿（2002）。大學生行動控制之研究：學習動機之機轉。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵（2005）。多變量分析方法：統計軟體應用（四版）。台北：五南。
陳秀惠（2007）。國中生學習經驗量表。未出版手稿。
陳虹瑾（2007）。國中生社會目標歷程分析：環境—社會與成就目標模式之檢驗。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
程炳林（2000）。行動或狀態導向、目標層次、工作複雜度對國中生行動控制策略與工作表現之影響。教育心理學報，31（2）， 85-104。
程炳林（2001）。動機、目標設定、行動控制、學習策略之關係：自我調整學習歷程模式之建構及驗證。師大學報：教育類，46（1），67-92。
程炳林（2003）。四向度目標導向模式之研究。師大學報：教育類，48（1），1-24。
程炳林、林清山（1998）。行動導向量表編製報告。測驗年刊，45（1），65-82。
程炳林、林清山（1999）。國中生學習行動控制模式之驗證及行動控制變項與學習適應之關係。教育心理學報，31（1），1-35。
程炳林、林清山（2000a）。行動控制教學課程之教學效果研究。教育心理學報，31（2），1-22。
程炳林、林清山（2000b）。中學生自我調整學習之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（NSC 89-2413-H-035-001-）台中：逢甲大學教育學程中心。
程炳林、林清山（2001）。中學生自我調整學習量表之建構及其信效度研究。測驗年刊，48（1），1-41。
程炳林、林清山（2002）。學習歷程前決策與後決策階段中行動控制的中介角色. 教育心理學報，34（1），43-60。
黃瑞琴（1991）質的教育研究方法。台北市：心理出版社。
楊岫穎（2003）。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，未出版，台南市。
劉佩雲（1998）。兒童自我調整學習之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
潘慧玲（2006）。教育論文格式。台北：雙葉。
賴美璇（2006）。動機調整策略融入英語科之教學效果。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
謝岱陵（2003）。國中生四向度目標導向之中介效果分析。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
蘇嘉鈴（2005）。國中生行動導向、目標導向與動機調整策略之關係。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。

西文部分
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Bandulos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 78-102.
Beswick, G., & Mann, L. (1994). State orientation and procrastination. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 391-396). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Boekaerts, M. (1994). Action control: How relevant is it for classroom learning? In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 427-435). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Bossong, B. (1994). Scholastic stressors and achievement-related anxiety. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 397-406). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Corno, L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 83-110). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 14-22.
Corno, L. (1994). Student volition and education: Outcomes, influences, and practices. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and education applications (pp. 229-251). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corno, L. (2001). Volitional aspects of self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 191-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corno, L. (2004). Introduction to the special issue work habits and work styles: Volition in education. Teachers College Record, 106, 1669-1695.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Self-worth and the fear of failure. In Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform (pp. 72-103). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Dibbelt, S., & Kuhl, J. (1994). Volitional processes in decision making: Personality and situational determinants. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 177-194). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
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.
Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediators of cognition-behavior consistency: Self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 101-128). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Kuhl, J. (1987). Action control: The maintenance of motivational states. In F. Halisch & J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation, intention, and volition (pp. 279-291). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Kuhl, J. (1994). A theory of action and state orientations. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (1 ed., pp. 9-46). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (1994). Introduction: Action versus state orientation in the context of personality and volition. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (1 ed., pp. 1-5). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Kuhl, J., & Goschke, T. (1994). A theory of action control: Mental subsystems, modes of control, and volitional conflict-resolution strategies. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 93-124). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Kuhl, J., & Kazén, M. (1994). Volitional aspects of depression: State orientation and self-discrimination. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 297-315). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Kuhl, J., & Kraska, K. (1989). Self-regulation and metamotivation: Computational mechanism, development, and assessment. In R. Kanfer, P. L. Ackerman & R. Cudeck (Eds.), Abilities, motivation, and methodology (pp. 32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. M., & 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.
Meyer, W.-U. (1987). Perceived ability and achievement-related behavior. In F. Hlisch & J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation, intention, and volition (pp. 73-86). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and achievement goals: A further examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 61-75.
Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). "If I don't do well tomorrow, there's a reason": Predictors of adolescents' use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 423-434.
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., & Schunk, D. H. (2008a). Attribution theory. In K. M. Davis (Ed.), Motivation in education: Theory, research, and application (pp. 91-140). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2008b). Intrinsic motivation. In K. M. Davis (Ed.), Motivation in education (pp. 199-254). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2008c). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Merrill.
Richard M, R., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and Internalization: Examing reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Socail Psychology, 57(5), 749-776.
Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). "Should I ask for help?" The rold of motivation and attitudes in asolescents' help seeking in Math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 329-341.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory：an organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L.Deci & R. M.Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (1st ed., pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
Skinner, E., & Edge, K. (2002). Self-determination, coping and development. In E. L.Deci & R. M.Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (1st ed., pp. 297-337). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Anderman, E. M., Midgley, C., Cheen, M., Kang, Y., et al. (2002). The classroom environment and students' reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 88-106.
Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what more there is to learn?, Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 115-138.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003-1019.
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.
Walschburger, P. (1994). Action control and excessive demand: Effects of situational and personality factors on psychological and physiological functions during stressful transactions. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 233-266). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.