The present study explored motivation and engagement among Chinese and Australian school students. Based on a sample of 528 Hong Kong Chinese 12-13 year olds and an archive sample of 6,366 Australian 12-13 year olds, achievement motivation was assessed using the Motivation and Engagement Scale-High School (MES-HS). Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling using LISREL found that, across Chinese and Australian students, there was similar factor structure, reliability, correlations with educational outcomes, and gender and age effects—suggesting there are no fundamental differences of kind between the two cultures. There were, however, differences of degree in that Australian students reported significantly higher levels of adaptive achievement motivation and significantly lower levels of maladaptive achievement motivation. It is concluded that although Australian students have higher levels of reported achievement motivation than Chinese students on a number of dimensions, the two groups' fundamental orientation does not appear to be markedly different in terms of motivation structure, profile, and relationships. This holds implications for cross-cultural motivation assessment, data analysis, and programmatic intervention aimed at enhancing (and sustaining) students' achievement motivation in different cultural and national contexts.
[Copyright of International Journal of Testing is the property of Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2010.482220]

該研究表明，北京、廣州、香港和台北的大學生在對創造力和創造力人才的內隱認知甚為一致。其中北京和廣州大學生的內隱認知更為接近，而香港和台灣大學生的內隱認知更為接近。在對高創造力特徵的內隱認知上，四地大學生一致看重的條目有：有創造力、有創見、創新、有觀察力、有思考力、願做嘗試、靈活性、有自信、有想象力、有好奇心、有個性和有獨立性等。而在對低創造力表現的內隱認知上，四地大學生的一致認同的條目有：、呆鈍、保守、跟隨傳統和願做讓步。在對創造力人才的認知上，四地的大學皆首推政治名人，次推科技界名人。四地大學生最不看重的創造力人才是藝術界和音樂界名人。這說明，兩岸三地的中國人雖然分離長久，但其對創造力的認知上仍相當一致，都甚看重政治與科技人物的影響。
This study was intended to examine how much Chinese people in Beijing, Guangzhou, Taipei and HK might share or differ on their view of creativity or creative figures. Specifically, it examined the implicit conception of creativity and creative people among a sample of 451 undergraduates in Beijing, Guangzhou, Hong Kong and Taipei. A Likert style questionnaire consisting of 60 adjectives was administered to the undergraduates and in addition, each respondent was required to nominate up to three most creative historical modern figures in China as well. The results showed that (a) the core characteristics of creativity identical in all the samples were: originality, innovativeness, thinking and observational skills, flexibility, willingness to try, self confidence, and "imagination"; (b) the Taipei sample, unlike the other three samples, do not associates wisdom, assertiveness, and individualism with creativity; (c) in all Chinese populations the three factors labeled innovative, dynamic, and intellectual were distinguishable in the concept of creativity; (d) a number of specifically Chinese personality traits were identified as not beneficial for creativity ; (e) artistic and humorous were consistently missing in the Chinese perception of creativity. In short, the respondents in the four cities shared much more than they differed in their implicit conception of creativity. Additionally, politicians were unanimously nominated by all four samples as being the most creative people in the past and at present. Scientists and inventors ranked second in position. Taken together, they occupy over 90 percent of the total number of nominations. Thus, it may