不同回饋操弄對臺灣國中生期望－價值信念與學習表現之影響

彭淑玲

doi:10.6251/BEP.202112_53(2).0006

山西大学，您好！

感谢采购，人社期刊库｜人社论文库，期间：2024/01/01~2024/12/31

感谢试用，科学期刊库｜科学论文库，期间：2024/10/20~2025/01/20

浏览高级检索

关闭
检索检索高级检索出版物检索
浏览期刊主题浏览核心期刊浏览期刊拼音浏览

关闭

查询符号(半角)	查询符号意义说明
空格	表示为「AND」两个查询词之交集
双引号 ( " " )	片语以双引号标示开始及结束，而且只寻找出现顺序相同的字词，例： " image process "
?	表示一个字母切截，输入两个?表两个字母，依此类推，例：输入「Appl?」，查得结果应为appl e , appl y … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
*	表示不限字母切截，由0~n. 例：输入「appl*」，查得结果应为appl e , appl es , appl y , appl ied , appl ication … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
AND、OR、NOT	布尔逻辑组合关键字，用来扩大或缩小查询范围的技巧。 (1) AND ：缩小查询范围 (2) OR ：扩大查询范围(3) NOT：排除不相关的范围

DOI 是数位物件识别码（ D igital O bject I dentifier ）的简称，
为物件在网路上的唯一识别码，可用于永久连结并引用目标物件。

使用DOI作为永久连结

每个DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」便成为永久网址。
如以DOI号为 10.5297/ser.1201.002 的文献为例，此文献的永久连结便是： http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5297/ser.1201.002 。
日后不论出版单位如何更动此文献位置，永久连结所指向的位置皆会即时更新，不再错失重要的研究。

引用含有DOI的文献

有DOI的文献在引用时皆应同时引用DOI。若使用APA、Chicago以外未规范DOI的引用格式，可引用DOI永久连结。

DOI可强化引用精确性、增强学术圈连结，并给予使用者跨平台的良好使用经验，目前在全世界已有超过五千万个对象申请DOI。如想对DOI的使用与概念有进一步了解，请参考（）。

ACI:

数据来源：Academic Citation Index，简称ACI

台湾最大的引用文献资料库，目前收录台湾与港澳地区所出版的人文学、社会学领域学术期刊之书目资料与参考文献，总期刊量超过690种，每年定期公布收录期刊的影响指数(Impact Factor)等指标给大众，并提供专家学者与学术单位实用的计量与分析功能。

五年影响指数（5-Year Impact Factor）：某一期刊前五年所出版的文章在当年度的平均被引用次数。

公式：（前五年发表论文在统计年的被引用次数）÷（前五年论文产出论文总篇数）

例如：A期刊2017年之五年影响指数

(A期刊2012-2016年发表论文在2017年的被引总次数)/(A期刊2012-2016年发表的论文总数)

什么是预刊文章？

为提供读者最前线之学术资讯，于期刊文献获同意刊登后、纸本印制完成前，率先于网路线上发表之文章即为预刊文章。预刊文章尚未有卷期、页次及出版日期资讯，但可藉由DOI号识别。 DOI号是文献的数位身份证字号，不论预刊或正式出版皆不会改变，读者可点击DOI连结，或于DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」连结到文献目前最新版本。

如何引用预刊文章？

请使用预刊文章的线上发表日期及DOI号来引用该篇文献。

引用范例(视不同引文格式规范可能有所差异)：

作者姓名。文章篇名。期刊名称。 YYYY/MM/DD线上预先发表。

doi:DOI 号

来源数据

P383 - 405

社会科学 > 心理学
社会科学 > 教育学

DOI： 10.6251/BEP

书目管理工具

相关连结

问题回报

全文下载

不同回馈操弄对台湾国中生期望－价值信念与学习表现之影响

The Power of Feedback Manipulations: Effects on Taiwanese Junior High School Students' Expectancy-Value Beliefs and Academic Performance

彭淑玲(Shu-Ling Peng)

教育心理学报； 53 卷 2 期 (2021 / 12 / 01) ， P383 - 405

繁体中文 DOI： 10.6251/BEP.202112_53(2).0006

学习表现；期望－价值信念；回馈操弄； academic performance ； expectancy-value belief ； feedback manipulation

0 个人觉得这篇文章赞

摘要 │ 参考文献 (58) │ 被引用文献 (2) │ 国际计量

摘要〈TOP〉

并列摘要〈TOP〉

The feedback given by teachers to students is one of the most important and frequent instructional practices in the classroom, which would affect the individual's learning motivation, emotions, strategies, behavior and performance. The concept of feedback (i.e., evaluation) is conceived as information about a students' performance on a leaning task or a test (Pekrun et al., 2014), which conveying different types of messages, such as performance improvement vs. relative performance (Butler, 1987; Steele-Johnson et al., 2008), success vs. failure feedback (Senko & Harackiewicz, 2005), temporal evaluation vs. normative evaluation (Butler, 2006), and self-referential feedback vs. normative feedback (Pekrun et al., 2014). So far, a number of studies have addressed which types of feedback students received after task engagement influences on their achievement goals and achievement-relevant outcomes (e.g., Butler, 1987, 2006; Pekrun et al. 2014; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2005). However, a few studies have examined the impact of multiple feedback on students' learning motivations and outcomes except for the synthesize-referenced feedback (combining effects of normative and self-referential feedback) proposed by Ju and Lin (2011); in addition, the impact of feedback on both students' expectancy and value belief has been neglected. Accordingly, based on the view of multiple goal on achievement goal theory (Pintrich, 2000), the expectancy-value theory (Eccles et al., 1983), and work by Ju and Lin, we proposed a framework linking different kinds of feedback to learning motivations and performance. More specifically, we addresses self-referential feedback based on student's improvement of performance over time, normative feedback based on comparing a students' performance with the performance of other students, and multiple-referential feedback based on the combined characteristics of the above two feedbacks. It posited that these kinds of feedback influence students' expectancy-values beliefs and academic performance. These hypotheses were examined in a teaching experimental study with junior high school students. The aims of this study was to test the impacts of different kind of feedback instructions on Taiwanese junior high school seven-grade students' expectancy-value beliefs and performance in the subject of civil ethics. Correspondingly, two research questions guided the study: (1) do different kinds of feedbacks given by teachers to students influence on their expectancy and value belief? (2) and academic performance? Moreover, which one have the most promotion effect on these beliefs and performance? For research question 1, we hypothesized that students who are given experimental manipulations will report holding higher level of learning motivation (both in terms of expectancy and value beliefs) compared to students who will not receive any feedback (i.e., control group). Among them, it is further posited that the group of multiple-referential feedback has the most effect on these belief; in addition, the expectancy and value belief held by control group will decline over time. For research question 2, we hypothesized that students who receive experimental manipulations will have better performance in the second and the third regular examinations respectively compared to control group after controlling for their performance of the first regular examination. Similarly, it is further posited that the group of multiple-referential feedback has the best effect on these performance. For expectancy-value beliefs, 4 (group) × 3 (measurement wave) two-way mixed experimental design is conducted. The first independent variable is group including four levels: self-referential feedback, normative feedback, multiple-referential feedback, and control group (no feedback) as the between-subject factor; the second independent variable is measurement waves including three measurements as the within-subject factor. Dependent variables are students' expectancy-value beliefs including self-efficacy, interest, utility, and attainment. For performance, nonequivalent pretest-posttest-delay posttest design is conducted. The independent variables include group (including three manipulation groups and control group) and measurement wave (including three measurements); and dependent variables are students' performances of the second and the third regular examinations. A convenience sample was involved. A total of 170 seven-grades Taiwanese junior high school students (60 females and 60 males at ages 13-14) from eight classes with 1 school in Tainan City voluntarily participated (upon written parental consent) in this study after the study was approved by the University Ethics Committee. The period of the teaching experiment executed was the first semester of the 107 academic year (from September 2018 to January 2019) including six sessions: firstly, all participants completed the first measurement instruments (including perceived teacher feedback and expectancy-value belief questionnaires) one week before the first regular examination; secondly, each experimental group received four manipulations via quizzes during the first to the second examinations; thirdly, all participants completed the second measurement instruments one week before the second regular examination; fourthly, each experimental group received one manipulations via the second regular examination; fifthly, each experimental group received four manipulations via quizzes during the second to the third examinations; finally, all participants completed the third measurement instruments one week before the third regular examination. The data of students' expectancy-value beliefs and academic performance were collected respectively before and after the implementation of the three regular examinations. We used SPSS Statistics Version 17.0 for Windows in all the analyses. Firstly, we conducted a 4 × 3 two-way mixed ANOVA analysis for the first research question; and one-way ANCOVA for the second research question. On the whole, the results showed that the various types of feedback exerted different impacts on students' expectancy-value belief and academic performance. For the first research question, results revealed that there were significant two-way interaction effects between groups and measurement waves on self-efficacy and attainment-and-utility. More specifically, the normative and multiple-referential feedback groups had a greater effect on students' self-efficacy, and the scores of the two experimental groups in the third measurement were significantly higher than those in the first measurement and the control group; however, as hypothesized, students' self-efficacy of control group in the third measurement was lower than that in the first measurement, implying that students' self-efficacy of control group gradually declined over time. Moreover, the multiple-referential feedback had a positive influence on attainment-and-utility value. That is, students' attainment-and-utility value were enhanced by multiple-referential feedback in the second measurement and its positive effect remained in the third measurement as the number of manipulations increased. However, as our expectation, students' attainment-and-utility value among the other three groups gradually decreased over time. For the second research question, this study found that after excluding the students' performance of the first regular examination, their performance of the second regular examination of self-referential feedback group was significantly higher than those of multiple-referential feedback group and the control group, but there was no difference from the normative feedback group. Nevertheless, with the increase of feedback manipulation time, students' performance of the third regular examination among all the three experimental groups was significantly higher than that of control group, but differences were not found among the three experimental groups. What kind of feedback promotes students' expectancy-value beliefs and academic performance? Results disclosed that different types of feedbacks exerts distinct impacts on students' learning motivations and academic performance. Specifically, normative and multiple-referential feedbacks had the most effects on promoting students' self-efficacy; multiple-referential feedback exerted the best promotion on students' attainment-and-utility value; and all the three experimental groups had positive impacts on students' academic performance. Results have theoretical and applied implications for understanding and improving feedback practices and students' motivations and performance.

参考文献 ( 58 ) 〈TOP〉

林易慧, Y.-H.,程炳林, B.-L.(2006)。课室目标线索与个人目标导向对国小学童解题成就及自我调整学习之影响。教育心理学报，37，231-255。
连结：
林宴瑛, Y.-Y.,彭淑玲, S.-L.(2015)。以多重目标观点探讨课室目标结构对国中生自我调整学习策略的影响：课室教学实验研究。教育心理学报，47(2)，159-178。
连结：
许崇宪, C.-S.(2013)。目标结构知觉对成就目标取向、学业表现、及学习策略的预测力：期刊文献的後设分析研究。教育心理学报，45(1)，63-82。
连结：
彭淑玲, S.-L.(2019)。知觉教师回馈、个人成就目标、学业自我效能与无聊之关系：中介效果与条件化间接效果分析。教育心理学报，51(1)，83-108。
连结：
程炳林, B.-L.(2003)。四向度目标导向模式之研究。师大学报：教育类，48(1)，15-40。
连结：

被引用文献 ( 2 ) 〈TOP〉

(2023)。控制—价值评估互动对愉悦／无聊情绪与动机涉入之效果。教育科学研究期刊，68(4)，1-33。
(2024).No Best Prize, But a Better Way: Exploring the Primary Prevention Application of Rewards in School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) Programs.教育心理学报,56(1),25-43.

国际计量

〈TOP〉

E-mail ：

文章公开取用时，将寄通知信至您填写的信箱地址