國中生所知覺到的教師自主支持、自我效能、任務價值對學習投入之影響

Effects of Perceived Autonomy Support, Self-Efficacy, and Task Value on the Learning Engagement of Junior High School Students

10.6251/BEP.202203_53(3).0002

賴英娟(Ying-Chuan Lai)；巫博瀚(Po-Han Wu)

任務價值 ； 自我效能 ； 教師自主支持 ； 學習投入 ； task value ； self-efficacy ； teachers' autonomy support ； learning engagement

教育心理學報

53卷3期（2022 / 03 / 01）

543 - 564

繁體中文

學習投入不僅是影響學生能否成功學習的關鍵因素，且與學生成就表現有高度的關聯。目前國內有關個人與情境因素在學習投入的探究，仍相當有限。本研究探討學生所知覺到教師自主支持、自我效能及任務價值對學習投入之影響，並針對所建構的模型進行適配度考驗。本研究以叢集抽取方式，抽取臺灣地區30所學校60個班級，1,697位八年級學生。研究工具包含教師自主支持量表、自我效能量表、任務價值量表及學習投入量表。結果顯示：（1）本研究的理論模型具有良好的適配度，可用來解釋所蒐集的觀察資料；（2）教師自主支持除了對自我效能、任務價值、學習投入具有直接影響效果外，亦能透過上述變項對學習投入產生間接的影響效果。細言之，當教師能與學生溝通、瞭解學生的學習狀況、提供自我選擇與決定的機會、及時地提供回饋訊息，並減少在課堂上使用強迫與要求的教學方式時，愈能提高學生自我效能與任務價值；（3）自我效能對學習投入具有直接影響效果；（4）任務價值對學習投入具有直接影響效果。因此，在教學實務上，教師要培養學生對於學習活動的自我效能與任務價值，協助學生養成對學習活動的信心與興趣，以提升其學習投入。

Learning engagement is highly valued by Chang (2012). According to some scholars, only by engaging in learning activities, students can promote their learning and development; as such, learning engagement plays an essential role in the learning process. Learning engagement is a key factor for successful learning and highly related to students' academic performance. Despite the high value placed on learning engagement, no empirical research has clarified the factors that influence students' learning engagement, the effects of learning environment and teachers' autonomy support on learning engagement, or the mechanism through which an individual's self-efficacy and task value are influenced by teachers' autonomy support. Evidently, further investigation is required. This study investigated whether the effects of teachers' autonomy support on learning engagement were moderated by students' self-efficacy and task value while learning mathematics. The study can supplement control value and self-determination theories and fill an empirical research gap by elucidating the effects of teachers' autonomy support on students' learning engagement. This study focused on the intrinsic and extrinsic factors involved in promoting junior high school students' learning engagement in mathematics. The study investigated whether junior high school students' perceived autonomy support would indirectly affect their learning engagement through self-efficacy and task value. The following hypotheses were proposed: Hypothesis 1. Students' perceived autonomy support from teachers would predict self-efficacy, task value, and learning engagement. Hypothesis 2. Self-efficacy would predict learning engagement. Hypothesis 3. Task value would predict learning engagement. Hypothesis 4. The theoretical model used in this study would fit the observed data related to Taiwanese junior high school students. The participants were 1697 eighth-grade Taiwanese students from 30 classes in 10 junior high schools. In total, 869 participants were girls (51.21%) and 828 were boys (48.79%). The instruments used in the study included the teachers' autonomy support scale, self-efficacy scale, task value scale, and learning engagement scale. Participants answered questions by indicating their agreement on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The collected data were analyzed through structural equation modeling. Information on each scale used is presented as follows: Teachers' autonomy support scale: Students' perceptions of teachers' autonomy support has been assessed using the learning climate questionnaire (LCQ; Shih, 2009). This questionnaire has sustained reliability and validity when used in the Taiwanese context (Shih, 2009). Furthermore, a confirmatory factor analysis of the data pertaining to the 1697 participants produced the following results: χ^2(9, N = 1, 697) = 152.45, p ＜ .05, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .097, goodness of fit index (GFI) = .97, adjusted GFI (AGFI) = .93, normed fit index (NFI) = .98, nonnormed fit index (NNFI) = .97, comparative fit index (CFI) = .98, incremental fit index (IFI) = .98, relative fit index (RFI) = .97. The Cronbach's α value was .87. Self-efficacy scale: Students' self-efficacy has been assessed using the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ; Wu & Cherng, 1992). The measure has sustained reliability and validity when used in the Taiwanese context (Wu & Cherng, 1992). The results suggested that this model had a reasonable fit with the proposed scale structure [χ^2(5, N = 1, 697) = 92.12, p ＜ .05, RMSEA = .10, GFI = .98, AGFI = .94, NFI = .99, NNFI = .98, CFI = .99, IFI = .99, RFI = .98; Cronbach's α = .92]. Task value scale: Students' task value has been assessed using the MSLQ (Wu & Cherng, 1992). This measure has sustained reliability and validity when used in the Taiwanese context (Wu & Cherng, 1992). The results indicated that this model had a reasonable fit with the proposed scale structure [χ^2(6, N = 1, 697) = 44.84, p ＜ .05, RMSEA = .06, GFI = .99, AGFI = .97, NFI = 1.00, NNFI = .99, CFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.00, RFI = .99; Cronbach's α = .92]. Learning engagement scale: Students' learning engagement has been assessed using the learning engagement scale (Lai & Wu, 2017), which contained effort, attention, and persistence subscales. This measure has sustained reliability and validity in the Taiwanese context (Lai & Wu, 2017). This model had a reasonable fit with the proposed scale structure [χ^2(87, N = 1, 697) = 921.66, p ＜ .05, RMSEA = .075, GFI = .93, AGFI = .91, NFI =.99, NNFI = .99, CFI = .99, IFI = .99, RFI = .99; the Cronbach's α for the effort, attention, and persistence subscales were .93, .95, and .92, respectively]. A correlation analysis revealed that teachers' perceived autonomy support was positively related to self-efficacy, task value, and learning engagement. Additionally, self-efficacy and task value were positively related to learning engagement. The statistical results indicated that all of indices, except for the chi-squared test value [χ^2(31, N = 1, 697) = 1186.74, p ＜ 0.05], demonstrated a reasonable fit between the theoretical model and the observed data (GFI = .88, AGFI = .78, and RMSEA = .15). All relative fit indices [NFI = .94, NNFI = .91, CFI = .94, IFI = .94 and RFI = .91] exceeded the standard value of .90. Finally, the parsimony normed fit index (PNFI) was 0.65 and the parsimony goodness fit index (PGFI) was .50. These results indicate that this theoretical model had excellent overall fit with observed data, indicating that the model is suitable for characterizing Taiwanese junior high school students. Regarding the fit of the model's internal structure, the statistical results indicated that all of the estimated parameter values of factor loadings achieved statistical significance, with standardized estimated values being between .80 and .95. The individual item reliability valueswere between .64 and .90, conforming to the measurement standard of .50. The composite reliability values of the four latent variables of teachers' autonomy support, self-efficacy, task value, and learning engagement were .90, .91, .88, and .89, respectively; all these values were higher than the measurement standard of .60. The average variances extracted (AVE) from these variables (teachers' autonomy support, self-efficacy, task value, and learning engagement) were .81, .84, .71 and .73, respectively. Again, all these values were higher than the measurement standard of .50. Therefore, this theoretical model exhibited good fit with the model's internal structure. According to our results, students' perceived autonomy support from teachers positively affected their self-efficacy (γ_(11) = .52, t = 19.44, p ＜ .05), task value (γ_(21) = .55, t = 20.53, p ＜ .05), and learning engagement (γ_(31) = .26, t = 8.85, p ＜ .05). Students' self-efficacy positively affected their learning engagement (β_(31) = .46, t = 5.49, p ＜ .05). Finally, students' task value positively affected their learning engagement (β_(32) = .13, t = 16.99, p ＜ .05). The study results can be summarized as follows: (a) The theoretical model had good fit with the empirical results. (b) Teachers' autonomy support had direct effects on self-efficacy, task value, and learning engagement and indirect effects on learning engagement through self-efficacy and task value. If teachers can effectively communicate with students, understand their learning status, provide them with the opportunity to make independent decisions, give timely feedback, and reduce teacher's control teaching styles, such teachers have a high likelihood of enhancing students' self-efficacy and task value. (c) Self-efficacy had direct effects on learning engagement. (d) Task value had direct effects on learning engagement. Thus, to enhance students' learning engagement in teaching practice, teachers should cultivate students' self-efficacy and task value and help them develop their confidence and interest in learning activities. On the basis of these results, this study has several implications for educational practice. Relevant suggestions for future research are provided.

1. 林啟超, C.-C.,謝智玲, C.-L.(2018)。高職學生知覺教師心理支持、情境興趣、個人興趣與課業投入間關係之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，11(1)，123-153。
   連結：
2. 林淑惠, S.-H.,黃韞臻, Y.-C.(2012)。「大學生學習投入量表」之發展。測驗學刊，59，373-396。
   連結：
3. 邱素玲, S.-L.,洪福源, F.-Y.(2014)。大學生班級情緒氣氛、學習自我效能、學習倦怠與學習投入關係研究。彰化師大教育學報，25，85-112。
   連結：
4. 張鈿富, D.-F.(2012)。大學生學習投入理論與評量實務之探討。高教評鑑，S，41-62。
   連結：
5. 陳慧蓉, H.-J.,張郁雯, Y.-W.,薛承泰, C.-T.(2018)。脈絡因素、學業自我概念、與學習投入對學業表現的影響：臺灣國小三年級經濟弱勢與一般學生之比較。當代教育研究季刊，26(2)，73-107。
   連結：
6. 彭台光, T. K.,高月慈, Y. T.,林鉦棽, C.-C.(2006)。管理研究中的共同方法變異：問題本質、影響、測試和補救。管理學報，23，77-98。
   連結：
7. 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：中介效果與條件間接化效果分析。教育心理學報，51，83-108。
   連結：
8. 彭耀平, M. Y.-P.,陳榮政, R. J.-C.,何希慧, S. S.-H.(2018)。大學生學習模式與學習成效間關聯之研究：深度取向學習投入為中介變項。課程與教學，21(1)，133-157。
   連結：
9. 賴英娟, Y.-C.,巫博瀚, P.-H.(2018)。國中生所知覺到的教師自主支持、自我效能及自主動機對學業情緒之影響。課程與教學，21(2)，85-110。
   連結：
10. 賴英娟, Y.-C.,巫博瀚, P.-H.(2017)。國中生學業情緒與學習投入對學業成就之影響。課程與教學，20(3)，139-164。
    連結：
11. 魏麗敏, L.-M.,黃德祥, D.-H.(2001)。國中與高中學生家庭環境、學習投入狀況與自我調節學習及成就之研究。中華輔導學報，10，63-118。
    連結：
12. 十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱（2014 年 11 月）。[Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education: General Guidelines. (2014, November).]
13. Ahmed, W.,Minnaert, A.,van der Werf, G.,Kuyper, H.(2010).Perceived social support and early adolescents' achievement: The mediational roles of motivational beliefs and emotions.Journal of Youth and Adolescence,39,36-46.
14. Bagozzi, R. P.,Yi, Y.(1988).On the evaluation of structural equation models.Journal of the Academic of Marketing Science,16,74-94.
15. Bandura, A.(1997).Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.Freeman.
16. Bandura, A.(2001).Social congitive theory: An agentic perspective.Annual Review of Psychology,52,1-26.
17. Bandura, A.,National Inst of Mental Health(1986).Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Prentice-Hall.
18. Black, A. E.,Deci, E. L.(2000).The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self‐determination theory perspective.Science Education,84,740-756.
19. Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
20. Deci, E. L.,Ryan, R. M.(1985).The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality.Journal of Research in Personality,19,109-134.
21. Dogra, A.,Dutt, S.(2016).The association between students’ learning engagement and their achievement in psychology.International Journal of Multidisciplinary Education and Research,1(7),33-35.
22. Downer, J. T.,Rimm-Kaufman, S. E.,Pianta, R. C.(2007).How do classroom conditions and children's risk for school problems contribute to children's behavioral engagement in learning?.School Psychology Review,36,413-432.
23. Eccles, J. S.,Wigfield, A.(2002).Motivational beliefs, values, and goals.Annual Review of Psychology,53,109-132.
24. Farmer, H. S.(1985).Model of career and achievement motivation for women and men.Journal of Counseling Psychology,32,363-390.
25. Fredricks, J. A.,Blumenfeld, P. C.,Paris, A. H.(2004).School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.Review of Educational Research,74,59-109.
26. Froiland, J. M.,Worrell, F. C.(2016).Intrinsic motivation, learning goals, engagement, and achievement in a diverse high school.Psychology in the Schools,53,321-336.
27. Greene, B. A.,Miller, R. B.,Crowson, H. M.,Duke, B. L.,Akey, K. L.(2004).Predicting high school studentsʼ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology,29,462-482.
28. Hair, J. F., Jr.,Anderson, R. E.,Tatham, R. L.,Black, W. C.(1998).Multivariate data analysis.Prentice-Hall.
29. Halvari, H.,Ulstad, S. O.,Bagøien, T. E.,Skjesol, K.(2009).Autonomy support and its links to physical activity and competitive performance: Mediations through motivation, competence, action orientation and harmonious passion, and the moderator role of autonomy support by perceived competence.Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,53,533-555.
30. Hong, J. C.,Hwang, M. Y.,Tai, K. H.,Lin, P. C.(2015).Self-efficacy relevant to competitive anxiety and gameplay interest in the one-on-one competition setting.Educational Technology Research and Development,63,791-807.
31. Jones, S. H.,Johnson, M. L.,Campbell, B. D.(2015).Hot factors for a cold topic: Examining the role of task-value, attention allocation, and engagement on conceptual change.Contemporary Educational Psychology,42,62-70.
32. Joo, Y. J.,Lim, K. Y.,Kim, J.(2013).Locus of control, self-efficacy, and task value as predictors of learning outcome in an online university context.Computers & Education,62,149-158.
33. Legault, L.,Green-Demers, I.,Pelletier, L.(2006).Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support.Journal of Educational Psychology,98,567-582.
34. Lei, H.,Cui, Y.,Zhou, W.(2018).Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis.Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,46,517-528.
35. Lin, T.-P.,Wu, P.-H.,Shih, C.-L.(2014).The effects of students’ perceived teacher autonomy support, self-efficacy, task value, and achievement emotions on the students’ engagement of college students in Taiwan: Using structural equation modeling.The Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) 2014 Conference,Hong Kong:
36. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L.,Pekrun, R.(2011).Students’ emotions and academic engagement: Introduction to the special issue.Contemporary Educational Psychology,36,1-3.
37. Mark, A. E.,Boruff-Jones, P. D.(2003).Information literacy and student engagement: What the national survey of student engagement reveals about your Campus.College & Research Libraries,64,480-493.
38. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2020, February 6). National survey of student engagment. https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/
39. O'Donnell, A. M.,Reeve, J.,Smith, J. K.(2011).Educational psychology: Reflection for action.John Wiley & Sons.
40. Oriol-Granado, X.,Mendoza-Lira, M.,Covarrubias-Apablaza, C.-G.,Molina-López, V.-M.(2017).Positive emotions, autonomy support and academic performance of university students: The mediating role of academic engagement and self-efficacy.Revista de Psicodidáctica (English ed.),22,45-53.
41. Pekrun, R.(2000).A social-cognitive, control-value theory of achievement emotions.Motivational psychology of human development developing motivation and motivating development
42. Pekrun, R.,Elliot, A. J.,Maier, M. A.(2006).Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test.Journal of Educational Psychology,98,583-597.
43. Pintrich, P. R.,Schunk, D. H.(2002).Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications.Prentice-Hall.
44. Reeve, J.,Jang, H.,Carrell, D.,Jeon, S.,Barch, J.(2004).Enhancing students' engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support.Motivation and Emotion,28,147-169.
45. Roth, G.,Assor, A.,Kanat-Maymon, Y.,Kaplan, H.(2007).Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning.Journal of Educational Psychology,99,761-774.
46. Ryan, R. M.,Deci, E. L.(2000).Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.American Psychologist,55,68-78.
47. Salanova, M.,Llorens, S.,Gumbau, S. L.,Schaufeli, W. B.(2011).'Yes, I can, I feel good, and I just do it!' On gain cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement.Applied Psychology: An International Review,60,225-285.
48. Sánchez-Rosas, J.,Esquivel, S.(2016).Instructional teaching quality, task value, self-efficacy, and boredom: A model of attention in class.Revista de Psicología,25(2),1-20.
49. Schunk, D. H.,Pintrich, P. R.,Meece, J.(2008).Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications.Prentice Hall.
50. Shih, S.-S.(2008).The relation of self-determination and achievement goals toTaiwanese eighth graders' behavioral and emotional engagement in schoolwork.The Elementary School Journal,108,313-334.
51. Vansteenkiste, M.,Lens, W.,Deci, E. L.(2006).Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation.Educational Psychologist,41,19-31.
52. Wang, J.,Liu, R.-D.,Ding, Y.,Xu, L.,Liu, Y.,Zhen, R.(2017).Teacher’s autonomy support and engagement in math: Multiple mediating roles of self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and boredom.Frontiers in Psychology,8,Article 1006.
53. Wigfield, A.,Eccles, J. S.(2000).Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology,25,68-81.
54. Wigfield, A.,Eccles, J. S.(1994).Children's competence beliefs, achievement values, and general self-esteem: Change across elementary and middle school.The Journal of Early Adolescence,14,107-138.
55. Wonglorsaichon, B.,Wongwanich, S.,Wiratchai, N.(2014).The influence of students school engagement on learning achievement: A structural equation modeling analysis.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,116,1748-1755.
56. Woods-McConney, A.,Oliver, M. C.,McConney, A.,Maor, D.,Schibeci, R.(2013).Science engagement and literacy: A retrospective analysis for indigenous and non-indigenous students in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia.Research in Science Education,43,233-252.
57. Xi, X.,Wang, Y.,Jia, B.(2017).The effect of social support on subjective well-being: Mediator roles of self-esteem and self-efficacy.Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research,121,493-505.
58. Zhoc, K. C. H.,Webster, B. J.,King, R. B.,Li, J. C. H.,Chung, T. S. H.(2019).Higher Education Student Engagement Scale (HESES): Development and psychometric evidence.Research in Higher Education,60,219-244.
59. 余民寧, M.-N.(2006).潛在變項模式：SIMPLIS 的應用.高等教育=Higher Education.
60. 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。
61. 巫博瀚, P.-H.,劉孟奇, M.-C.,黃台珠, T.-C.,鄭雯, W.(2014)。教師自主支持、自我效能、工作價值及學習情緒對學習投入之影響。第四屆山海論壇，高雄市=Kaohsiung:
62. 施淑慎, S.-S.(2008)。學習情境中之自主支持與國中生成就相關歷程間關係之探討。教育與心理研究，31(2)，1-26。
63. 施淑慎, S.-S.(2009)。國中生使用逃避策略相關因素徑路模式之檢驗。教育與心理研究，32(1)，111-145。
64. 張鈿富, D.-F.,林松柏, S.-P.,周文菁, W.-C.(2012)。臺灣高中學生學習投入影響因素之研究。教育資料集刊，54，23-57。
65. 陳正昌, C.-C.,程炳林, B.-L.,陳新豐, S.-F.,劉子鍵, T.-C.(2009).多變量分析方法／統計軟體應用.五南=Wu-Nan.
66. 陳薪如, H.-J.,巫博瀚, P.-H.(2016)。以結構方程模式檢驗教師自主支持對國中生自我效能、工作價值及數學焦慮之影響。2016 台灣心理學年會暨學術研討會，臺南市=Tainan:
67. 黃雅琪, Y.-C.,巫博瀚, P.-H.(2016)。自我效能、內在動機、控制信念及教師自主支持對臺灣國中生學習投入之影響：多層次分析的應用。2016 台灣心理學年會暨學術研討會，臺南市=Tainan:
68. 薛杏秋, H.-C.,巫博瀚, P.-H.(2016)。教師自主支持對國中生自我效能、學習情緒及學習投入之影響。2016 台灣心理學年會暨學術研討會，臺南市=Tainan:

1. 劉惠美,丁政本(2023)。國中特殊需求學生的資源班學習投入與幸福感之研究。教育心理學報，54(3)，727-751。
2. 張琬沂,洪浚祐,林雅萍,林佳陞(2023)。探討擴增實境應用於休憩導覽系統之學生學習成效。國立臺灣科技大學人文社會學報，19(2)，187-216。
3. 張萬烽(2023)。國小學習障礙學生與一般學生自我效能、家長支持以及心理健康之縱貫研究。教育心理學報，55(1)，125-151。
4. (2023)。運用虛擬實境於室內設計教學之學習成效探討。設計學報，28(4)，95-114。