本研究旨在比較國中學生在全民英檢聽力測驗中不同聽力題型之測驗結果，並探究聽力題型是否造成學生聽力策略選擇之差異。 本研究對象為宜蘭一所公立國中八年級六個班級共177位學生。研究工具為全民英檢初級聽力測驗以及聽力策略問卷。問卷內容以Vandergrift(1997)的聽力策略分類為架構，改編自蘇曉雯(2007)自編問卷。問卷回收後資料以統計軟體SPSS 17.0進行敘述性統計、單因子變異數分析及雙因子變異數分析，獲得結果簡述如下： 1.國中學生在全民英檢聽力測驗四種題型中的聽力表現有所差異。四種題型的不同因素包括了聽力內容中參與談話者的人數、聽力內容所包含的難字以及測驗題型是否提供圖片輔助。 2.整體來說，在聽力測驗作答時，國中學生較常使用後設認知策略。例如:理解監測(monitoring)，選擇性專注(selective attention)和前導組織(advance organizers)。然而，若細究不同的聽力題型，學生則較常使用不同認知策略。例如:當遇到較長的聽力內容，學生較常使用摘要(summarization)策略。而遇到較難的聽力內容，學生則慣用由下自上(bottom-up)策略。 3.綜觀不同語言能力之學生在不同題型中使用聽力策略的差異，本研究發現學生之語言能力與題型對聽力策略使用上並無交互作用。整體而言，高低成就學生 在四種不同題型中使用相似的聽力策略。然而，若細究各項不同聽力策略的使用頻率，則高低成就者中所慣用的聽力策略有所不同。 根據統計及問卷調查結果，本研究最後提供教學上相關建議以供參考。第一，教師可協助學生分析試題題型，以幫助作答。第二，教師應提供學生不同類型之聽力練習，讓學生嘗試使用不同聽力策略。第三，教師可請高成就學生分享聽力理解過程，以幫助低成就學生能有更好的聽力表現。 / The major purpose of the study is to examine whether question types influence junior high students’ listening performance and their listening strategy choice. The study is mainly concerned with three aspects: (1) whether students performed differently among the four different question types of GEPT listening section; (2) what kind of strategies did junior high students tend to use in the four types of questions; (3) whether proficiency level played a significant role in listening strategy choice among four question types. GEPT elementary level of listening comprehension test and a questionnaire were used to collect quantitative data from 177 students in one public junior high school in Yilan Area. The items in the questionnaire were mainly adapted from Su (2007), which followed Vandergrift’s (1997) classification of strategy use. In this study, statistical analysis, including descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA with Scheffe post- hoc test and two-way ANOVA were used to analyze the collected data. The major findings are summarized as follows: 1.Junior high students performed differently in the four different types of listening questions. Factors that differentiate the four question types include the number of speaker, the content itself and the presence of pictures. 2.Generally speaking, junior high students tended to use metacognitive strategies, such as monitoring, selective attention and advance organizers more often in different question types. However, in specific question types, students appeared to have preference in using certain cognitive strategies. For example, students were inclined to use summarization when encountering question type with longer listening text. They also tended to use bottom-up strategies to tackle with more difficulty text. 3.There was no significant interaction effect between question types and proficiency level. Overall on the four question types, students with high and low levels used same strategies. However, when examining strategy items specifically, high and low achievers had different preference for using strategy in different question types. Finally, based on the findings in this study, several suggestions and implications were presented in the conclusion of the paper. First, teachers could help students analyze question types before listening test. Second, teachers could give students more kinds of listening activities to make students experience the effectiveness of using different kinds of listening strategies. Third, teachers could invite high level listeners to share their listening process so that low level listeners might learn from them.