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

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

10.6251/BEP.202112_53(2).0006

彭淑玲(Shu-Ling Peng)

學習表現 ； 期望－價值信念 ； 回饋操弄 ； academic performance ； expectancy-value belief ； feedback manipulation

教育心理學報

53卷2期（2021 / 12 / 01）

383 - 405

繁體中文

本研究採用教學實驗法，將實驗操弄融入公民與社會科課程，考驗不同回饋對學生持有之期望──價值信念與學習表現的影響。本研究共抽取170位七年級學生參與研究，以班級為單位進行不同回饋操弄（自我／常模／多重參照回饋組、對照組），並於第一次～第三次段考前／後三個階段蒐集學生的期望──價值信念與學習表現資料。蒐集資料以二因子混合樣本變異數分析與單因子共變數分析考驗之。本研究結果顯示：不同回饋對學習者持有的動機信念與學習表現帶來不同效果。常模與多重參照回饋組對自我效能的效果較大，在第三次測量得分顯著高於第一次測量與對照組；多重參照回饋組對學生持有的重要效用性信念之正向效果最大，能提升學生在第二階段的重要效用性信念，並隨著操弄次數增加，在第三階段持續維持正向效果；而其他三組學生的重要效用信念則隨時間逐漸下滑。最後，本研究發現：在排除第一次學習表現後，自我參照回饋組的第二次學習表現顯著高於多重參照回饋組與對照組，但與常模參照回饋組無差異；隨著回饋操弄時間增加，三組實驗組的第三次學習表現均顯著高於對照組，但此三組之學習表現並無差異。本研究依據研究結果進行討論，並提出教學與未來研究建議。

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.

1. 林易慧, Y.-H.,程炳林, B.-L.(2006)。課室目標線索與個人目標導向對國小學童解題成就及自我調整學習之影響。教育心理學報，37，231-255。
   連結：
2. 林宴瑛, Y.-Y.,彭淑玲, S.-L.(2015)。以多重目標觀點探討課室目標結構對國中生自我調整學習策略的影響：課室教學實驗研究。教育心理學報，47(2)，159-178。
   連結：
3. 許崇憲, C.-S.(2013)。目標結構知覺對成就目標取向、學業表現、及學習策略的預測力：期刊文獻的後設分析研究。教育心理學報，45(1)，63-82。
   連結：
4. 彭淑玲, S.-L.(2019)。知覺教師回饋、個人成就目標、學業自我效能與無聊之關係：中介效果與條件化間接效果分析。教育心理學報，51(1)，83-108。
   連結：
5. 程炳林, B.-L.(2003)。四向度目標導向模式之研究。師大學報：教育類，48(1)，15-40。
   連結：
6. 黃博聖, P.-S.,劉政宏, C.-H.,陳學志, H.-C.(2017)。不同結果狀態對正、負向回饋的注意與回憶效果。教育心理學報，48(4)，469-486。
   連結：
7. 鄧毓浩, Y.-H.(2006)。九年一貫課程社會學領域公民基本內容評析。公民訓育學報，18，1-18。
   連結：
8. 簡嘉菱, C.-L.,程炳林, B.-L.(2018)。學業拖延與課業情緒之交互關係：課室目標結構的調節效果。教育心理學報，50(2)，293-313。
   連結：
9. Ames, C.(1992).Classroom: Goals, structures, and student motivation.Journal of Educational Psychology,84(3),261-271.
10. Bandura, A.(1997).Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.Freeman.
11. Becker, L. J.(1978).Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field study of residential energy conservation.Journal of Applied Psychology,63(4),428-433.
12. Bong, M.(2008).Effects of parent-child relationships and classroom goal structures on motivation, helpseeking avoidance, and cheating.The Journal of Experimental Education,76(2),191-217.
13. Brookhart, S.(1997).A theoretical framework for the role of classroom assessment in motivating student effort and achievement.Applied Measurement in Education,10(2),161-180.
14. Butler, R.(2006).Are mastery and ability goals both adaptive? Evaluation, initial goal construction and the quality of task engagement.British Journal of Educational Psychology,76,595-611.
15. Butler, R.(1987).Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance.Journal of Educational Psychology,79(4),474-482.
16. Cohen, J.(1998).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
17. Duijnhouwer, H.,Prins, F. J.,Stokking, K. M.(2012).Feedback providing improvement strategies and reflection on feedback: Effects on students’ writing motivation, process, and performance.Learning and Instruction,22(3),171-184.
18. Eccles J. S.,Adler, T. F.,Futterman, R.,Goff, S. B.,Kaczala, C. M.,Meece, J. L.,Midgley, C.(1983).Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors.Achievement and achievement motivation
19. Elliot, A. J.(Ed.),Dweck, C. S.(Ed.)(2005).Handbook of competence and motivation.Guilford.
20. Fredricks, J. A.,Eccles, J. S.(2002).Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood to adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains.Developmental Psychology,38(4),519-533.
21. Greene, B. A.,Miller, R. B.,Crowson, H. M.,Duke, B. L.,Akey, K. L.(2004).Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology,29(4),462-482.
22. Guo, J.,Parker, P. D.,Marsh, H. W.,Morin A. J. S.(2015).Achievement, motivation, and educational choices: A longitudinal study of expectancy and value using a multiplicative perspective.Developmental Psychology,51(8),1163-1176.
23. Gutman, L. M.(2006).How student and parent goal orientations and classroom goal structures influence the math achievement of African Americans during the high school transition.Contemporary Educational Psychology,31(1),44-63.
24. Jiang, Y.,Song, J.,Lee, M.,Bong, M.(2014).Self-efficacy and achievement goals as motivational links between perceived contexts and achievement.Educational Psychology,34(1),92-117.
25. Kosovich, J. J.,Flake, J. K.,Hulleman, C. S.(2017).Short-term motivation trajectories: A parallel process model of expectancy-value.Contemporary Educational Psychology,49,130-139.
26. Lavasani, M. G.,Hejazi, E.,Varzaneh, J. Y.(2011).The predicting model of math anxiety: The role of classroom goal structure, self-regulation and math self-efficacy.Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,15,557-562.
27. Lazarides, R.,Buchholz, J.,Rubach, C.(2018).Teacher enthusiasm and self-efficacy, student-perceived mastery goal orientation, and student motivation in mathematics classroom.Teaching and Teacher Education,69,1-10.
28. Linnenbrink, E. A.(2005).The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning.Journal of Educational Psychology,97(2),197-213.
29. Madjar, N.,Chohat, R.(2017).Will I succeed in middle school? A longitudinal analysis of self-efficacy in school transitions in relation to goal structures and engagement.Educational Psychology,37(6),680-694.
30. Meece, J. L.,Anderman, E. M.,Anderman, L. H.(2006).Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement.Annual Review of Psychology,57,487-503.
31. Nuutila, K.,Tuominen, H.,Tapola, A.,Vainikainen, M-P.(2018).Consistency, longitudinal stability, and predictions of elementary school students’ task interest, success expectancy, and performance in mathematics.Learning and Instruction,56,73-83.
32. Pekrun, R.(Ed.),Linnenbrink-Garcia, L.(Ed.)(2014).International handbook of emotions in education.Taylor & Francis.
33. Pekrun, R.,Cusack, A.,Murayama, K.,Elliot, A. J.,Thomas, K.(2014).The power of anticipated feedback: Effects on students’ achievement goals and achievement emotions.Learning and Instruction,29,115-124.
34. Penk, C.,Schipolowski, S.(2015).Is it all about value? Bringing back the expectancy component to the assessment of test-taking motivation.Learning and Individual Differences,42,27-35.
35. Perez, T.,Wormington, S. V.,Barger, M. M.,Schwartz-Bloom, R. D.,Lee, Y-K.,Linnenbrink-Garcia, L.(2019).Science expectancy, value, and cost profiles and their proximal and distal relations to undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math persistence.Science Education,103(2),264-286.
36. Pintrich, P. R.(2000).Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology,92(3),544-555.
37. Putwain, D. W.,Nicholson, L. J.,Pekrun, R.,Becker, S.,Symes, W.(2019).Expectancy of success, attainment value, engagement and achievement: A moderated mediation analysis.Learning and Instruction,60,117-125.
38. Robinson, K. A.,Lee, Y-K.,Bovee, E.,Perez, T.,Walton, S. P.,Briedis, D.,Linnenbrink-Garcia, L.(2019).Motivation in transition: Development and roles of expectancy, task value, and costs in early college engineering.Journal of Educational Psychology,111(6),1081-1102.
39. Rolland, R. G.(2012).Synthesizing the evidence on classroom goal structures in middle and secondary school: A meta-analysis and narrative review.Review of Educational Research,82(4),396-435.
40. Ryan, R. M.,Deci, E. L.(2000).Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.American Psychologist,55(1),68-78.
41. Senko, C.,Harackiewicz, J.(2005).Regulation of achievement goals: The role competence feedback.Journal of Educational Psychology,97(3),320-336.
42. Shim, S. S.,Cho, Y.,Wang, C.(2013).Classroom goal structures, social achievement goals, and adjustment in middle school.Learning and Instruction,23,69-77.
43. Shute, V. J.(2008).Focus on formative feedback.Review of Educational Research,78(1),153-189.
44. Slavin, R. E.(1980).Effects of individual learning expectations on student achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology,72(4),520-524.
45. Steele-Johnson, D.,Heintz, P., Jr.,Miller, C. E.(2008).Examining situationally induced state goal orientation effects on task perceptions, performance satisfaction: A two-dimensional conceptualization.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,38,334-365.
46. Ucar, F. M.,Sungur, S.(2017).The role of perceived classroom goal structures, self-efficacy, and engagement in student science achievement.Research in Science & Technological Education,35(2),149-168.
47. Wentzel, K. R.(Ed.),Wigfield, A.(Ed.)(2009).Handbook of motivation at school.Routledge.
48. Wigfield, A.,Cambria, J.(2010).Expectancy-value theory: Retrospective and prospective.The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement
49. Wigfield, A.,Eccles, J. S.(2000).Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology,25(1),68-81.
50. 毛國楠, K.-N.(1997)。成績回饋方式對不同能力水準國中生數學科的學習動機、學習策略、學習態度與學業成就之影響。教育心理學報，29，117-135。
51. 朱展志, J.-J.,林如瀚, J.-H.(2011)。不同參照回饋對低體適能學童成就動機與體適能成績之影響。教育與多元文化研究，5，119-137。
52. 吳青蓉, C.-J.(2001)。國立臺灣師範大學=National Taiwan Normal University。
53. 吳靜吉, J.-J.,程炳林, B.-L.(1992)。激勵的學習策略量表之修訂。測驗年刊，39，59-78。
54. 李茂能, M.-N.(1985)。國立臺灣師範大學=National Taiwan Normal University。
55. 范儷齡, L.-L(2002)。國立臺灣科技大學=National Taiwan University of Science and Technology。
56. 郭生玉, S.-Y(2004).教育測驗與評量.精華書局=Jinghua Shuju.
57. 陳正昌, C.-C.,程炳林, B.-L.(2002).SPSS、SAS、BMDP 統計軟體在多變量統計上的應用.五南=Wu-Nan.
58. 程炳林（計畫主持人）, B.-L. (Principal Investigator)(2009)。科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告,未出版

1. (2023)。控制—價值評估互動對愉悅／無聊情緒與動機涉入之效果。教育科學研究期刊，68(4)，1-33。
2. (2024).No Best Prize, But a Better Way: Exploring the Primary Prevention Application of Rewards in School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) Programs.教育心理學報,56(1),25-43.