:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:數位歷程檔案評量應用於設計作品及其對學習動機與成效之關聯性
作者:孫志誠 引用關係
作者(外文):Chih-Cheng Sun
校院名稱:國立雲林科技大學
系所名稱:設計學研究所博士班
指導教授:嚴貞
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2010
主題關鍵詞:評量規準數位歷程檔案評量設計作品評量e-Portfolio assessmentassessment criteriaassessment of design works
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:71
數位歷程檔案評量為一兼重過程與成果的評量方法,使作品呈現、儲存及分享的方式更為多元且便利,並可提昇教師教學與學生學習的品質。本研究旨在將數位歷程檔案評量應用於設計作品,以探討其實施狀況及對學生學習動機與成效的關聯性,並提出具體建議,供設計教師教學評量改進及系統業者未來建置與發展適切的評量系統之參考。為達研究目的,本研究分為四階段進行:首先調查並整合學界與業界共通使用的評量方法及規準;其次進行實驗教學,調查以不同的數位學習平台實施線上評量設計作品的可行性等相關議題;接者導入數位歷程檔案評量,探討其實施狀況及對學習成效的關聯性;最後,進一步驗證在設計科系中數位歷程檔案評量對學習動機具提昇作用,並探討個人背景變項對學習成效的關聯性。研究方法包括:文獻分析、參與觀察法、調查法、準實驗研究法、德菲法。主要研究結果如下:
1.(1)評量方法-就認知而言,學界與業界所使用共通的評量方法為非結構式評量法、結構式評量法及討論會議法。其中結構式評量法為設計類科教師認為最適合設計領域的評量方法,而較不適合的方法是非結構式評量法。但就施行而言,設計類科教師最常使用的評量方法是「排序比較法」。此乃由於結構式評量法中各項效標合理權重的建構並不容易,評量的過程也較為費時,因此影響評量者的使用意願。(2)評量規準-學界與業界所使用共通的評量規準包括創意、美感、表現技法。
2.線上評量設計作品可行性-(1)設計教師使用線上評量設計作品之比例仍偏低,主因與課程性質不符、作品檔案上傳不易有關。(2)線上評量設計作品的優點包括檔案管理方便、即時、經濟、環保、可建立教材資料庫,提供學生觀摩案例;缺點則為檔案大小與格式的限制、互動性不如面對面的溝通、無法呈現設計作品的細部與色差的問題、平台發展受限於硬體設施及所選擇的平台系統之穩定度。(3)受測學生對兩種不同平台的看法有顯著差異,尤其是在操作功能、對學習成效的影響以及介面設計三方面。而網路使用經驗豐富與否及每天上網時數是否足夠,均會影響學生對線上評量設計作品的看法。
3.實施設計作品數位歷程檔案評量-(1)全體受測學生大都認同此評量方法且認為可促進學習,惟在評量系統部分,南台網路教學平台的受測者大多對此評量系統的功能性相當滿意,但Blackboard平台的受測者則不甚滿意。(2)對此評量實施的看法包含四項共同因素,依其重要程度排序分別為學習成效、評量功能、評量特性及使用限制。對Blackboard平台受測者而言,先備條件中的電腦使用能力與網路使用經驗影響層面最廣。(3)不同平台受測者的學期成績有顯著差異,部分原因可能與平台之使用者介面及操作功能有關。
4.實施數位歷程檔案評量後,整體學習動機提高,驗證了數位歷程檔案評量應用於設計科系之基礎課程亦有助於提昇學習動機。性別差異對學習動機的自我效能、控制信念、學科價值、內在目標導向四向度有顯著影響,且男生高於女生。低先備知識且為設計背景的學生學習表現焦慮較高。不同性別與學習背景的學生學習成效並無顯著差異。
E-Portfolio assessment is an assessment method of emphasizing both the process and the outcome, which makes presenting, storing, and sharing the works more diversifying and convenient; meanwhile, it enhances the qualities of teaching and learning. The purpose of this study is to explore the implementation of e-Portfolio assessment to design works and the relevance in students’ learning motivation and achievement. Then we make concrete suggestions for design teachers to improve teaching assessment and system developers to further construct and develop an appropriate assessment system. To achieve these purposes, this study proceeds with four stages: (a) investigating and integrating the common assessment methods and criteria of design works used by the academia and design world; (b) conducting the experimental teaching to investigate issues related to the feasibility of implementing online assessment of design works through various e-learning platforms; (c) integrating the assessment criteria from the first stage with the help of online assessment to implement e-Portfolio assessment of design works, and discussing the implementation and its relevance in learning achievement; and (d) further testing and verifying that e-Portfolio assessment does increase the learning motivation among design students, and exploring the relationship between the personal background variables and the learning achievement. The research methods include literature review, participant observation, survey research, quasi-experimental method, and Delphi technique. The main results are as followed:
1.(a) Assessment methods: Generally speaking, the common assessment methods used by the academia and design world are non-structured method, structured method and discussing method. The structured method is regarded as the most appropriate method for design teachers in the design field, while the non-structured method is the least appropriate one. Nevertheless, in practice, the most frequently used evaluation method for design teachers is the ordering method. It is because that setting proper weight of each criterion is not easy in the structured method, and the whole assessment process is time-consuming. Thus, the intention of using this method is affected; (b) Assessment criteria: The common assessment criteria used by the academia and design world are creativity, aesthetic sensibility and performance skill.
2.Feasibility of the online assessment system: (a) The percentage of design teaching in using the online assessment is still low, because of the inconsistency with the nature of the course and the difficulty of uploading design works; (b) The advantages of the online assessment of design works include the convenience in the file management, the real time, economical and environmental concern, the establishable database of teaching materials, and the chance of providing exemplification for students. The disadvantages include the limitations in the file size and the format, the less interaction than face-to-face communication, the incapability of displaying the design works in detail, the problem of chromatic aberration, and the limitations in hardware facilities and system stability of selected platform; (c) Students’ perspectives on two various platforms are significantly different, especially in three aspects of operation function, influence in the learning achievement, and interface design. Whether students are well-experienced in the network usage and have enough internet access time will influence their opinions on the online assessment of design works.
3.Implementing e-Portfolio assessment of design works: (a) Most students agree this method and believe that it can improve learning. As far as the assessment system is concerned, the participants using STUT-Online platform are considerably satisfied with its functions, but those who use Blackboard are not; (b) The four common factors toward the assessment are learning achievement, assessment function, assessment characteristic, and utility limitation in important degree order. For the participants using Blackboard, the most extensive influences in prior conditions are the abilities of using computer and the internet experiences; (c) There are significant differences on learning achievement among students using various platforms, and the reasons are partly related to the user interface and functions of the platform.
4.An overall increase in learning motivation after experimental teaching, demonstrating that e-portfolio assessment in fundamental design courses is conducive to enhancing learning motivation. Gender differences significantly influenced the learning motivation in the four scales of self-efficacy, control beliefs, course value, and intrinsic goal orientation, and males scored higher than females. Students with low-level prior knowledge and design backgrounds display higher levels of learning-performance anxiety than those without design backgrounds. There are no differences between students of different genders and educational backgrounds on learning achievements.
中文部分
[1]Armstrong, T., 1987,因材施教:開啟多元智慧,破除學習困難的迷思,丁凡譯,遠流出版社,台北。
[2]Boughton, D. & 王士樵,2002,“數位作品集在美術學習評量上的應用”,美育,129期,頁68-75,9月。
[3]Best, K., 2008,管理設計:創意獲利的關鍵競爭力,李琦等譯,麥浩斯出版社,台北。
[4]Danielson, C. & Abrutyn, L., 1997,檔案教學,鄭英耀、蔡佩玲譯,心理出版社,台北。
[5]Denton, C., 1998,視覺傳達(下),劉錫權、陳幸春譯,六合出版社,台北。
[6]Eisner, E. W., 1972,藝術視覺的教育,郭禎祥譯,文景書局,台北。
[7]Landa, R., 1996,平面設計的成功之鑰(下),王桂沰譯,六合出版社台北。
[8]Lazear, D., 1999,落實多元智慧教學評量,郭俊賢、陳淑惠譯,遠流出版社,台北。
[9]Scott, G. P., & Linda, R. A., 1994,培養反思力,林心茹譯,遠流出版社,台北。
[10]Sharma, S., 1996,多變量分析,呂金河譯,滄海圖書公司,台中。
[11]Stewart, D. W. & Shamdasani, P. N., 1990,焦點團體:理論與實務,歐素汝譯,弘智出版社,台北。
[12]Strauss, A. & Corbin, J., 1990,質性研究概論,徐宗國譯,初版,巨流圖書公司,台北。
[13]王文中等,2004,教育測驗與評量-教室學習觀點,五南出版社,台北。
[14]王文科,2001,教育研究法,五南出版社,台北。new window
[15]王受之,1997,世界現代設計,藝術家出版社,台北。
[16]王保進,1996,“教育指標基本概念之分析”,教育研究資訊,4卷,3期,頁1-17,5月。new window
[17]江文慈,2007,“超越測量-評量典範轉移的探索與啟示”,教育實踐與研究,20卷,1期,頁173-200,3月。new window
[18]何英奇,1992,“教學評量的基本原則”,教學評量研究,台灣師範大學學術研究委員會主編,五南出版社,台北。
[19]余民寧,2002,“學科知識結構之評量研究-以「教育測驗與評量」學科知識為例”,教育與心理研究,25期(中),頁341-367,5月。new window
[20]---,2002,教育測驗與評量-成就測驗與教學評量,心理出版社,台北。
[21]---,2006,“影響學習成就因素的探討”,教育資料與研究雙月刊,73期,頁11-24,12月。
[22]吳志衍,2000,多階層分析在設計教育評量指標之研究,國立台灣師範大學工業教育研究所,碩士論文。
[23]吳清山、林天佑,1997,“卷宗評量”,教育資料與研究,15期,頁68-69,3月。new window
[24]吳毓瑩,1995,“開放教室中開放的評量:從學習單與檢核表的省思談卷宗評量”,開放社會中的教學,國立台北師範學院,台北,頁93-100。
[25]---,1996,“蛻變與突破-紙筆及另類評量的理念與實務”,現代教育論壇研討會(四),國立教育資料館,台北。
[26]---,1998,“我看、我畫、我說、我演、我想、我是誰呀?-卷宗評量之概念、理論、與應用”,教育資料與研究,20期,頁13-17,1月。
[27]呂燕卿,1994,“談美勞科教學評量及作品評量(上) ”,美育,45期,頁40-46,3月。
[28]---,1996,兒童美術教育理論與實務探討,台灣省國民學校教師研習會,台北縣,頁194-195。
[29]李大偉,1986,技職教育測驗與評鑑,三民書局,台北。
[30]李台玲,2001,“遠距教學之評量”,生活科技教育,34卷,8期,頁30-37,8月。
[31]李玉嬋,2000,“焦點團體研究法-評估輔導需求的利器”,輔導季刊,36卷,4期,頁41-46,12月。new window
[32]李坤崇,1999,多元化教學評量,心理出版社,台北。
[33]---,2001,綜合活動學習領域教材教法,心理出版社,台北。
[34]---、歐慧敏,2000,統整課程理念與實務,心理出版社,台北。
[35]李美奇,2006,“淺談檔案評量之理念”,網路社會學通訊期刊,53期,網址:http://www.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/53/53-19.htm。
[36]李炳煌,2006,“大學生學習動機與學習適應關係研究”,煤炭高等教育,24卷,3期,頁155-157。
[37]李新民,2000,“電子卷宗在教育上的應用”,教育資料與研究,35期,頁92-99,7月。new window
[38]杜瑞澤、陳漪佩,1997,“設計素養教育之重要性與內涵規劃”,工業設計,25期,頁18-23。new window
[39]汪承蓉,2004,實施網路教學線上即時授課之問題探討與解決方法,國立中山大學資訊管理研究所,碩士論文。new window
[40]亞卓市網站,2003,“全民學校網路開課訓練計劃(第一期)-認識網路教學與網站介紹”,網址:http://edumaterial.educities.edu.tw/content/robin/elearning6/week1.htm。
[41]卓宜青,2001,網路化學習歷程檔案系統及同儕評量,國立交通大學資訊科學研究所,碩士論文。
[42]周文欽,2004,研究方法:實徵性研究取向,二版,心理出版社,台北。
[43]周倩、簡榮宏,1997,“網路評量系統之發展與研究”,遠距教育,4期,頁12-15,6月。
[44]周斯畏、孫思源、朱四明,2000,“遠距教學的應用-進修推廣教育教師與學員的探索性研究”,中華管理評論,3卷,2期,頁123-134,5月。
[45]岳修平,1999,“網路教學於學校教育之應用”,課程與教學季刊,2卷,4期,頁61-76。new window
[46]---、王郁青,2000,“電子化學習歷程檔案實施之態度研究”,教育心理學報,31卷,2期,頁65-83。new window
[47]林甘敏、陳年興、方國定,2005,“結合傳統與網路教學和純網路教學在學習成效與班級氣氛之比較”,當代教育研究季刊,13卷,4期,頁133-166,12月。new window
[48]林佳芬,2000,“國小自然科試用卷評量之行動研究”,科學教育研究與發展季刊,21期,頁16-33,12月。
[49]林昭汶,2003,程式設計網路學習系統之設計與實作-評量建構,東吳大學資訊科學研究所,碩士論文。
[50]林家弘,2000,我國大學生網路學習滿意度之研究,國立政治大學教育研究所,碩士論文。
[51]林清平,1999,繪畫作品評量研究─以模糊理論為基礎的學生參與評量方式之建構,國立台灣師範大學工業教育研究所,博士論文。new window
[52]林菁、鍾如雅、陳雅萍,2006,“網路教學中學生特質與選課動機和學習成效之研究”,教育資料與圖書館學,43卷,4期,頁413-433,6月。new window
[53]邱皓政,2005,量化研究與統計分析,二版七刷,五南出版社,台北。
[54]邱煥能,1984,“企業經營環境變動下DELPHI預測術在策略制定上的應用”,中美技術季刊,29卷,1期,頁85-95。
[55]施弼耀,2004,“電子化校園之網路教學激勵因素探討─以南部某科技大學為例”,屏東師院學報,20期,頁401-422,3月。new window
[56]柳雅梅,2002,“檔案評量在高職英文戲劇教學運用之個案研究”,師大學報,教育類,47卷,2期,頁159-174,10月。new window
[57]韋伊珊,2004,“國小兒童電腦繪圖學習與作品評量研究”,數位藝術教育網路期刊,6卷,秋季號,11月,網址:http://www.aerc.nhcue.edu.tw/。
[58]徐美蓮、薛秋子,2002,“醜小鴨和小天鵝-以檔案評量與學習者共享語文天地之行動研究”,載於國立台東師範學院主編,教育行動研究與教學創新(下)(pp.621-643),揚智文化,台北。
[59]張太平、張一岑、蔡匡忠,2007,SPSS統計建模與分析程序,文魁資訊,台北。
[60]張青峰,1998,“繪畫創作學導論-繪畫創作課程結構與作品評量探微”,國教月刊,45卷,1期,台北市立師範學院,11月。
[61]張春興,1994,教育心理學:三化取向的理論與實踐,東華書局,台北。
[62]---,1996,現代心理學,東華書局,台北。
[63]---、林清山,1984,教育心理學(五版),東華書局,台北。
[64]張美玉,2000,“歷程檔案評量的理念與實施”,科學教育月刊,231期,頁58-63,6月。
[65]張美玲,2000,以專題為基礎之教學與學習對國小學生自然科學習動機與學習成就之影響。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所,碩士論文。
[66]張基成、童宜慧,2000,“網路化學習歷程檔案系統之建構與評鑑-一個電子化的真實性學習評量工具”,遠距教育,13•14期,頁78-90,3月。
[67]張添洲,2004,X檔案-教學檔案•學習檔案,五南出版社,台北。
[68]張紹勳,2004,研究方法,初版,滄海圖書公司,台中。
[69]張鈿富,2001,“知識經濟與高等教育發展”,師友月刊,7期,頁11-21,7月。
[70]張蕊苓,1999,“兒童學習動機內化歷程中的影響因素探討”,花蓮師院學報,9期,頁33-60,6月。new window
[71]張檳,1981,“特爾菲生產預測術”,管理技術,12卷,頁13-16。
[72]張麗麗,2002,“評量改革的應許之地,虛幻或真實?-談實作評量之作業與表現規準”,教育研究月刊,93期,頁76-86,1月。new window
[73]教育部全球資訊網,2007,教育部94年度施政方針,網址:http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/SECRETARY/EDU8559001/guide/94guide.htm。
[74]梁宗賀,2000,網路卷宗評量在國小電腦科教學之研究,國立台南師範學院資訊教育研究所,碩士論文。
[75]莊麗娟,2000,系統化多元評量模式之發展研究,國立高雄師範大學教育學系,博士論文。new window
[76]許成之,1998,“論我國遠距教育的發展空間”,隔空教育論叢,10輯,頁31-51,5月。
[77]許瑛玿,2000,“因應e時代的多元評量-網際網路使教學評量變得有聲有色”,科學教育月刊,232期,頁68-72,9月。
[78]許慧玉、劉瓊文,2001,“卷宗評量的特色及對學習的影響”,測驗統計簡訊,41期,頁9-20,5月。
[79]設計印象雜誌編輯室,2008,“出版告事-好樣台灣平面設計14人”,設計印象雜誌,41期,頁66-72。
[80]陳文典等,1995,“由馬里蘭州的學習成就評量與其在台灣試測的結果看實作評量的功能與運用”,科學教育月刊,185期,頁2-11,11月。
[81]陳文誌、游萬來,2001a,“網際網路在設計課程的應用:線上課程互動的參與度分析”,中華民國設計學會第6屆設計學術研究成果研討會論文集(光碟版), 樹德科技大學,高雄,頁243-248.。new window
[82]---,2001b,“網際網路在設計課程上應用的探討”,工業設計,29卷,2期,頁139-146。
[83]陳玉花,1996,創造性取向教學對國小兒童繪畫表現之實驗研究,國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所,碩士論文。
[84]陳年興、石岳峻,2001,“新世紀教學架構與教學設計”,資訊管理學報,7卷,2期,頁81-102,中華民國資訊管理協會,1月。new window
[85]陳年興、楊錦潭,2006,數位學習-理論與實務,博碩文化,台北。
[86]陳育淳,2005,“大家一起寫情書-談視覺藝術教育的形成性評量”,美育,146期,頁60-70,7月。
[87]陳明印,2002,“基準評量表及其在實作評量上的應用”,研習資訊,19卷,1期,頁60-77,2月。
[88]陳玫良,2002,“評量規準(rubrics)在生活科技教學評量上之運用”,生活科技教育,35卷,1期,頁2-9,1月。
[89]陳秋麗,2005,國中生英語學習動機、學習滿意度與學習成就之相關研究-以雲林縣為例,雲林科技大學技術及職業教育研究所,碩士論文。
[90]陳得利,2002,網路化歷程檔案系統之設計與實作,國立中山大學資訊管理研究所,碩士論文。
[91]陳凱貞,2004,實施國小英語電子化檔案評量研究-以一國小三年級班級為例,國立台北師範學院兒童英語教育研究所,碩士論文。
[92]陳朝平,2002,“藝術學與藝術教育”,載於黃壬來主編,藝術與人文教育(上),桂冠出版社,台北,頁437-459。
[93]---、黃壬來,2002,國小美勞科教材教法,五南出版社,台北。
[94]陳聖謨,1998,“「檔案」在師資培育上的應用”,教育研究資訊,6卷,2期,頁150-156,3月。new window
[95]彭森明,2006,“學習成就評量的多元功能及其相應研究設計”,教育研究與發展期刊,2卷,4期,頁21-37,12月。new window
[96]曾文雄、吳美麗、卓娟秀 ,1995,“自然學科成就測驗的評量-馬里蘭州及台灣學習成就評量計畫”,科學教育月刊,180期,頁30-41,5月。
[97]游寶達、尹玫君、楊錦潭,2005,94年大專院校數位學習訪視計畫期末報告書(摘要版),教育部電子計算機中心。
[98]湯清二,1997,“另一種評量工具的選擇—學習檔案”,教育實習輔導季刊,3卷,1期,頁23-26,3月。
[99]童宜慧,1999,網路化學習歷程檔案系統之建構與實施,淡江大學教育科技學系,碩士論文。
[100]---、張基成,1996,“網路化學習歷程檔案系統”,第八屆ICCAI國際電腦輔助教學研討會,台中,逢甲大學。
[101]黃光雄主編,1997,教學原理,師大書苑,台北。
[102]黃政傑,1990,課程評鑑,師大書苑,台北。
[103]黃淑清,1998,“以方法論的觀點來看深度訪談研究法”,輔導季刊,34卷,1期,頁39-45,3月。new window
[104]黃雅萍,2002,網路教學系統平台評量規準之研究,國立台灣師範大學工業教育研究所,博士論文。
[105]---,2003,“網路教學的評量問題探討-從系統理論及教學科技的角度來審視”,WISCS 2003網路教學系統平台與內容標準化研討會,國立高雄師範大學,高雄,4月18日,頁165-167。
[106]楊彩霞、謝發忠,2009,“當代大學生學習動機研究綜述”,中國電力教育,6期,頁122-123,網址:
http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical_zgdljy200906058.aspx。
[107]溫嘉榮、林佳宏,2001,“不同認知型態的國中學生在虛擬實境教室中學習歷程之研究”,教育研究資訊,9卷,4期,頁145-171,8月。new window
[108]葉錫南,2001,“英語科檔案評量於中小學之實施”,敦煌英語教學雜誌,30期,頁11-14。
[109]鄒慧英,1994,“一種日漸歡迎的教學評量形式-檔案評量”,網址:http://epnet1.ecpsy.ntnu.edu.tw/學理/%C0%C9%AE%D7%B5%FB%B6q.htm。
[110]鄒慧英,1997,“實作型評量的品管議題-兼談檔案評量之應用”,教育測驗新近發展趨勢學術研討會論文集,台南師範學院測驗發展中心,台南,頁73-84。
[111]鄒慧英,1998,“實作評量的研發-以國小說話課為例”,測驗與輔導,149期,頁3082-3087,8月。
[112]鄒慧英,2000,“國小寫作檔案評量應用之探討”,台南師院初等教育學報,13期,頁141-181,6月。new window
[113]管倖生、許正妹、嚴貞,2006,“網路教學平台設計準則暨量表發展過程之研究”,科技學刊,科技類,15卷,2期,頁151-166,7月。new window
[114]劉安彥,2003,“教學評量的理論與實用”,教育資料與研究,55期,頁100-108,11月。new window
[115]劉旨峰等,2003,“中學生與網路同儕互評之預測性研究”,新竹師院學報,17期,頁51-71,12月。new window
[116]劉清榕,1990,“機率與取樣”,載於楊國樞等編,社會及行為科學研究法(上) ,東華書局,台北。
[117]劉興郁、蔡瑞敏,2006,“組織變革知覺、學習動機對學習成效之影響”,朝陽商管評論,5卷,S期(特別刊),頁63-88,12月。new window
[118]歐滄和,1998,“談學習歷程檔案法點點滴滴”,教育資料與研究,20期,頁28-30,1月。new window
[119]歐滄和,2002,教育測驗與評量,心理出版社,台北。
[120]蔣秋萍,1999,“國中生活科技學習評量之探討”,生活科技教育,32卷,9期,頁14-22,9月。
[121]蔡登傳,1996,“以群體決策技法評價設計作品的探討”,第二屆設計與管理學術暨實務研討會論文集,頁1-8。
[122]鄭雅文,2002,網路化反省思考學習歷程檔案的設計與應用,國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所,碩士論文。
[123]魯俊賢,陳美英,吳毓瑩,2005,“過程技能能力要項藉由能力指標聚焦並轉化成實作評量設計之行動研究”,當代教育研究季刊,13卷,4期,頁95-132,12月。new window
[124]盧貞穎,2001,“讓學生做學習的主人-檔案評量的應用與省思”,敦煌英語教學雜誌,30期,頁15-21。
[125]盧雪梅,1998,“實作評量的應許:難題與挑戰”,教育資料與研究,20期,頁1-5,1月。new window
[126]賴羿蓉,2000,“學習歷程檔案的教學表格設計”,職教園地雜誌,35期,頁49-52,11月。
[127]---,2004,“歷程檔案評量在通識課程中的應用規劃”,朝陽學報,9期,頁315-335,9月。
[128]儲慧平,2003,“提昇學生學習動機的創新教學”,教育資料與研究,55期,頁109-115,12月。new window
[129]簡茂發,1996,“評量”,載於黃政傑主編,教學評量,師大書苑,台北。
[130]---,2001,心理測驗與統計方法,心理出版社,台北。
[131]嚴貞,1997,“結構式評量法在視覺傳達設計作品評量之探討”,設計:教育、文化、科技-視覺傳達設計,亞太圖書公司,台北,頁231-236。
[132]---、孫志誠,2003,“設計作品評量方法與內涵之研究”,商業設計學報,7期,國立台中技術學院商業設計系,頁19-30,7月。new window

英文部分
[1]Abrami, P. C. & Barrett, H., 2005, “Directions for research and development on electronic portfolios”, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol.31, No.3, online version.
[2]Airasian, P. W., 1996, Assessment in the Classroom, McGraw Hill, New York.
[3]Anderson, V., 1991, Alternative economic indicators, Routledge, London.
[4]Arter, J. A., 1992, “Portfolio in practice: what is portfolio?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
[5]Arter, J. A. & Spandel, V., 1992, “Using portfolios of student work in instruction andassessment”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Vol.11, No.1, pp.36-44.
[6]Aschbacher, P. R., 1991, “Performance assessment: state activity, interest, and concerns”, Applied Measurement in Education, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.275-288.
[7]Axelson, M. A., 2005, “Online, Standards-Based, Formative Assessment Conference Proceedings”, Edvantia, Inc., Charleston, WV, pp.1-19, December.
[8]Bachman, L. F., 2002, “Alternative interpretations of alternative assessments: some validity issues in educational performance assessments”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Vol.21, No.3, pp.5-18.
[9]Bandura, A., 1997, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, Freeman, New York.
[10]Barker, K. C., 2006, “Environmental scan: Overview of the ePortfolio in general and in the workplace specifically”, available at: http://www.FuturEd.com
[11]Barrett, H. C., 1997, “Collaborative planning for electronic portfolios: Asking strategic questions”, Electronic Portfolio Planning Issues, available at: http://transition.alaska.edu/www/portfolio/planning.html.
[12]Barrett, H. C., 1998, “Feature article-learning & leading with technology, strategic questions: What to consider when planning for electronic portfolio”, available at: http://transition.alaska.edu/www/portfolio/LLTOct98.html.
[13]Barrett, H. C., 2000, “Create Your Own Electronic Portfolio (using off-the-shelf software)”, Learning & Leading with Technology, available at: http://transition.alaska.edu/www/portfolios/toolsarticle.html.
[14]Barrett, H. C., 2001, “Electronic portfolios”, In Kovalchick, A. & Dawson, K. (Eds.), Educational Technology: An Encyclopedia, ABC-Clic, Santa Barbara, CA.
[15]Barrett, H. C. & Garrett, N., 2007, “Online Personal Learning Environments: Structuring Electronic Portfolios for Lifelong and Life Wide Learning”, available at: http://www.electronicportfolios.com/portfolios.html#pubs.
[16]Beattie, D. K., 1997, Assessment in art education, Davis Publications, Worcester, MA.
[17]Benson, A. D., 2003, “Assessing participant learning in online environments”, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No.100, pp.69-77.
[18]Bergman, T., 2000, “Digital Portfolios”, available at:
http://www.mehs.educ.state.ak.us/portfolios/portfolio.html.
[19]Biggs, J. B. & Collis K. F., 1982, Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy, Academic Press, Inc., New York.
[20]Black, P. et al., 2003, Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
[21]Black, P. & Wiliam, D., 1998, “Assessment and classroom learning”, Assessment in Education, Vol.5, No.1, pp.7-74.
[22]Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), 1956, Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain, Longman, New York.
[23]Bolig, E. E. & Day, J. D., 1993, “Dynamic assessment and giftedness: The promise of assessing training responsiveness”, Roeper Review, Vol.16, No.2, pp.110-113.
[24]Boughton, D. G., 2002, “Portfolios and Assessment in Art Education: The Potential of Digital Technology”, 2001 InSEA-Asian Regional Congress Proceedings, Publication sponsored by Taiwan Ministry of Education, Council for Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
[25]Boughton, D. G., 2004, “Assessing Art Learning in Changing Contexts: High-Stakes Accountability, International Standards and Changing Conceptions of Artistic Development”, In Eisner, E. W. & Michael, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Research and Policy in Arts Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey.
[26]Brand, B. R. & Wilkins, J. L. M., 2007, “Using self-efficacy as a construct for evaluating science & mathematics methods courses”, Journal of Science Teacher Education, Vol.18, No.2, pp.297-317.
[27]Buckley, D. P., 2002, “In pursuit of the learning paradigm”, Educause Review, Vol.37, No.1, pp.29-38.
[28]Bushweller, K., 1995, “The high-tech portfolio”, The Executive Educator, Vol.176, No.1, pp.19-22.
[29]Buzzetto-More, N. A. & Alade, A. J., 2006, “Best Practices in e-Assessment”, Journal of Information Technology Education, No.5, pp.251-269.
[30]Calfee, L. & Perfumo, P., 1993, “Student portfolios: Opportunities for a revolution in assessment”, Journal of Reading, No.36, pp.532-537.
[31]Campione, J. C. & Brown, A. L., 1987, “Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement”, In Lidz, C. S. (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluation learning potential, Guiford Press, New York, pp.82-115.
[32]Canada, M., 2002, “Assessing e-folios in the on-line class”, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No.91, pp.69-75.
[33]Carless, D., 2005, “Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning”, Assessment in Education, Vol.12, No.1, pp.39-54.
[34]Carley, M. J., 1981, Social measurement and social indicators, George Allen & Unwin, London.
[35]Chang, C. C., 2001, “A study on the evaluation and effectiveness analysis of web-based learning portfolio (WBLP)”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol.32, No.4, pp.435-458.
[36]Chang, C. K., et al., 1998, “Student portfolio analysis for decision support of web-based classroom teacher by data cube technology”, Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol.19, No.3, pp.307-328.
[37]Chen, Y., 1999, “A portfolio approach to EFL University writing instruction”, Proceedings of the 16th conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China, Crane, Taipei.
[38]Chen, Y. F. & Martin, M. A., 2000, “Using performance assessment and portfolio assessment together in the elementary classroom”, Reading Improvement, No.37, pp.32-38.
[39]Cheryal, F. F. & Rita, M. K., 1995, Authentic Assessment: A Guide to Implementation, Corwin Press Inc., Thousand Oaks.
[40]Chris H. & Lindsay H., 1998, “Online Interactions: Developing a neglected aspect of the virtual classroom”, Education Technology, Vol.38, No.4, pp.48-55, July-August.
[41]Chris, R., 2002, “Purposes and principles of assessment”, Learning and Teaching Briefing Papers Series, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, pp.1-4.
[42]Cole, D. J. et al., 2000, Portfolios across the curriculum and beyond, Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[43]Collis, F. L., 1994, “The internet as an educational innovation:Lessons from experience with computer implementation”, Educational Technology, Leadership, Vol.45, No.5, pp.38-40.
[44]Cooper, R. & Press, M., 1995, The design agenda: a guide to successful design management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester, UK.
[45]Custer, R. L., Valesey, B. G., & Burke, B. N., 2001, “An assessment model for a design approach to technological problem solving”, Journal of Technology Education, Vol.12, No.2, pp.5-12.
[46]Danielson, C. & Abrutyn, L., 1997, An introduction to using portfolios in the classroom, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.
[47]Davies, A., 1996, “Assessment and transferable skills in art and design”, International Journal of Art and Design Education, No.3, pp.327-331.
[48]--- & Reid, A., 2000, “Uncovering problematics in design education: Learning and the design entity”, In Swann, C. & Young, E. (Eds.), Reinventing Design Education In The University, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia, pp.179-185.
[49]Dennis, C., Hardy, J., & White, P., 2006, “Development of a model to advance the uptake of e-portfolios for undergraduates in teacher education and registered nurse preparation: An exemplar of best practice”, In Pearson E. & Bohman P. (Eds.), Proceedings of ed-media (pp.248-253), AACE, Norfolk, VA.
[50]Dorn, C., 1999, Mind in Art: Cognitive Foundations in Art Education, Mahway, Lawrence Erubaum Associates Publishers, New Jersey.
[51]Dunbar, S. B., Koretz, D. M., Hoover, H. D., 1991, “Quality control in the development and use of performance assessments”, Applied Measurement in Education, Vol.4, No.4, pp.289-303.
[52]Ehmann, D., 2005, “Using Assessment to Engage Graphic Design Students in their Learning Experience”, Making a Difference: 2005 Evaluations and Assessment Conference, Sydney, November 30-December 1, pp.107-113.
[53]Eisner, E. W., 1973-4, “Examining some myths in art education”, Studies in Art Education, Vol.15, No.3, pp.7-16.
[54]---, 1998, The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice, Merrill, Upper Saddle River, New York.
[55]---, 2003, “What do the arts teach?”, The International Journal of Arts Education, Vol.1, No.1, pp.7-25.
[56]Elbow, P. & Belanoff, P., 1991, “State University of New York at Stony Brook Portfolio-Based Evaluation Program”, In P. Belanoff and M. Dickson (eds.), Portfolios: Process and Product, Boynton Cook, Portsmith, N.H.
[57]Farr, R. & Tone, B., 1998, Portfolio and performance assessment : Helping students evaluate their progress as readers and writers, 2nd Ed., Harcourt Brace College, Orlando, FL.
[58]Feuerstein, R., 1979, The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers:The learning potential assessment device theory, instruments, and techniques, Scott Foresman & Co., Glenview, Illinois.
[59]Fitzpatrick, R. & Morrison, E. J., 1971, “Performance and product evaluation”, In Thorndike, R. L. (Ed.) , Educational Measurement (pp.237-270), American Council on Education, Washington, DC.
[60]Foote, C. J. & Vermette, P. J., 2001, “Teaching portfolio 101: Implementing the teaching portfolio in introductory courses”, Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol.28, No.1, pp.31-37.
[61]Friedman, K., 2003, “Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods”, Design Studies, Vol.24, No.6, pp.507-522.
[62]Frisby C. L. & Braden J. p., 1992, “Feuerstein’s dynamic assessment: A semantic logical, and empirical critique”, The Journal of Special Education, Vol.26, No.3, pp.281-301.
[63]Gardner, H., 1983, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, Inc., New York.
[64]---, 1992, The unschooled mind, Basic Books, New York.
[65]---, 1997, “Multiple intelligence as a partner in school improvement”, Educational Leadership, Vol.55, No.1, pp.20-21.
[66]Goldsmith, D. J., 2007, Enhancing learning and assessment through e-Portfolios: A collaborative effort in Connecticut, New Directions for Student Services, No.119, pp.31-42.
[67]Giard, J. R., 1999, “The lexicon of industrial design: out with the old, in with the new”, The National Industrial Design Educators Conference, IDSA, Chicago, July.
[68]Gibbs, G., 1995, “Assessing student centred courses”, Oxford Centre for Staff Development, Oxford.
[69]Gipps, C. V., 2002, “Sociocultural perspectives on assessment”, In Wells, G. & Claxton, G. (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education, Oxford, Blackwell, pp.21-31.
[70]---, 2005, “What is the role for ICT-based assessment in universities?”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol.30, No.2, pp.171-180.
[71]--- & Stobart, G., 2003, “Alternative assessment”, In Kellaghan, T. & Stufflebeam, D. (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation, Vol.9, Pt.2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Lancaster, pp.549-575.
[72]Glaser, R., 1990, “Toward new models for assessment”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol.14, No.5, pp.475-483.
[73]Graves, D. H. & Sunstein, B. S. (Eds.), 1992, Portfolio portraits, Portsmouth, Heinemann.
[74]Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S., 1989, Fourth generation evaluation, Newbury Park, Sage, CA.
[75]Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T., 1997, “Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing”, Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol.17, No.4, pp.397-431.
[76]Hart, D., 1994, Authentic assessment: A handbook for educators, Addison-Wesley, New York.
[77]Henri, F., 1992, “Computer conferencing and content analysis”, In Kaye, A. R. (Ed), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing, The Najaden Papers, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp.117-136.
[78]Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L., 1990, “Issues in developing alternative assessments”, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the California Educational Research Association, Chicago.
[79]Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L., 1992, A Practical Guide to Alternative Assessment, Association for Supervision and Curriculum, Alexandria, VA.
[80]Hew, K. F. et al., 2004, “Online education evaluation: What should we evaluate?”, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 27th, Chicago, IL, October 19-23, pp.243-246.
[81]Hicks, W. D., 1984, “The process of entering training programs & its effects on training outcomes”, Dissertation Abstracts International, No.44 (11-B), pp.35-64.
[82]Hiltz, S. R., 1995, The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey.
[83]Houston, W. M., Raymond, M. R., Svec, J. C., 1991, “Adjustment for rater effects in performance assessment”, Applied Psychological Measurement, No.15, pp.409-421.
[84]Inger, M., 1993, Authentic assessment in secondary education, Institute on Education and the Economy, Columbia University, NY.
[85]Jackson, P. W., 1992, Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Education Research Association, Macmillan, New York.
[86]Kaiser, H. F., 1974, “Little Jiffy, Mark Ⅳ”, Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol.34, No.1, pp.111-117.
[87]Karnell, A. P., et al., 2006, “Efficacy of an American alcohol & hiv prevention curriculum adapted for use in south Africa: results of a pilot study in five township schools”, AIDS Education & Prevention, Vol.18, No.4, pp.295-310.
[88]Keedy, J., 1994, “Judges’ Notes”, In American Center for Design (ed.), The 100 Show: The Sixteenth Annual of the American Center for Design (pp.20-22), American Center for Design, Chicago, Illinois.
[89]Keller, J. M., 1987, “Development & use of the ARCS Model of instructional design”, Journal of Instructional Development, Vol.10, No.3, pp.2-10.
[90]Khattri, N., Reeve, A. L., & Kane, M. B., 1998, Principles and Practices of Performance Assessment, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey.
[91]Kibler, R. J. et al., 1974, Objectives for Instruction and Evaluation, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
[92]Kish, C. K. et al., 1997, “Portfolios in the classroom: A vehicle for developing reflective thinking”, The High School Journal, Vol.80, No.4, pp.254-260.
[93]Kujawa, S. & Huske, L., 1995, The Strategic Teaching & Reading Project guidebook (Rev. Ed.), North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Oak Brook, IL.
[94]Lawson, P., 1990, “The dynamic assessment of intelligence: A review of three approaches”, School Psychology Review, Vol.19, No.4, pp.459-470.
[95]Lark-Horovitz, B., Lewies, H., & Luca, M., 1973, Understanding Children’s Art for Better Teaching, Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., Columbus, Ohio.
[96]Lidz, C. S., 1992, “The extent of incorporation of dynamic assessment into cognitive assessment courses: A national survey of school psychology trainers”, Journal of Special Education, No.1, pp.325-331.
[97]Linn, R. L. & Baker E. L., 1992, “Portfolios and accountability”, CREST, available at: http://www.cse.ucla.edu/CRESST/Newsletters/
[98]Linn, R. L. & Gronlund, N. E., 2000, Measurement and Assessment in Teaching, 8th Ed., Prentice Hall, Inc., A Pearson Education Company, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
[99]Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M., 2001, “Web-based peer assessment: Relation of attitude and achievement”, IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol.44, No.2, pp.1-13.
[100]Lockee, B., Moore, M., & Burton, J., 2002, “Measuring success: Evaluation strategies for distance education”, Educause Quarterly, Vol. 25, No.1, pp.20-26.
[101]Luca, J. & McMahon, M., 2006, “Developing multidisciplinary teams through self-assessment, supported with online tools”, In Pearson E. & Bohman P. (Eds.), Proceedings of ed-media (pp.1855-1860), AACE, Norfolk, VA.
[102]Makrakis, V., 1998, “Guidelines for the Design and Development of Computer-Mediated Collaborative Open Distance Learning Courseware”, Proceedings of ED-MEDIA and ED-TELECOM 98:10th World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference ON Educational Telecommunications, AACE, Freiburg, Germany, pp.891-895.
[103]Marja, K., 2001, “Constructing Digital Portfolios: teachers evolving capabilities in the use of information and communications technology”, Teacher Development, Vol.5, No.2, pp.259-276.
[104]Maslow, A. H., 1970, Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row Publishers Inc., New York.
[105]Master, E., 1998, “The use of portfolios in ESL conversation classes”, The Clearing House, Vol.71, No.3, pp.132-133.
[106]McAlpine, D., 2000, “Assessment and the gifted”, Tall Poppies, Vol.25, No.1, available at: http://www.tki.org.nz/r/gifted/reading/assessment/portfolio_e.php
[107]McCollum, K., 1998, “Accreditors are urged to prepare to evaluate distance learning”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, p.A34.
[108]McCombs, B. L., 2000, “Reducing the achievement gap”, Society, Vol.37, No.5, pp.29-39.
[109]McConnell, D., 1999, “Examining a collaborative assessment process in networked lifelong learning”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, No.15, pp.232-243.
[110]McCormack, C. & Jones, D., 1998, Building a web-based education system, John Wiley Sons, New Jersey, pp.17-22.
[111]McFarlane, A., 2001, “Perspectives on the relationships between ICT and assessment”, Journal of Computer-assisted Learning, Vol.17, No.3, pp.227-235.
[112]---, 2002, “Educating the inheritors of the information age”, Inaugural Lecture, University of Bristol, Bristol.
[113]McKenna, C., 2001, “Introducing computers into the assessment process: what is the impact upon academic practice?”, Higher Education Close-up Conference 2, Lancaster University, July 16-18, available at:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001805.htm.
[114]Meltzer, L., & Reid, D. K., 1994, “New directions in the assessment of students with special needs: The shift toward a constructivist perspective”, Journal of Special Education, Vol.28, No.3, pp.338-355.
[115]Messick, S., 1989, “Validity”, In Linn, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement, Macmillan, New York.
[116]Michaelis F. L., 1995, “Putting performance assessment to the test”, Educational Leadership, Vol.49, No.8, pp.14–19.new window
[117]Miller, M. D. & Legg, S. M., 1993, “Alternative assessment in a high-stakes environment”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Vol.12, No.2, pp.9-15.
[118]Mills-Courts K. & Amiran M. R., 1991, “Metacognition and the use of portfolios”, In Belanoff, P. & Dickson, M. (Eds.), Portfolios Process and Product, Boynton/Cook Publishers Heinemann, Portsmouth.
[119]Milman, N. B., 2005, “Web-based digital teaching portfolios: fostering reflection and technology competence in preservice teacher education students”, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, Vol.13, No.3, pp.373-397.
[120]Moersch, C., & Fisher Ⅲ, L. M., 1996, “Electronic portfolios-some pivotal questions”, In Fogarty, R. (Ed.), Student Portfolios: A Collection of Articles, Skylight Training and Publishing, Palatine, IL, pp.111-125.
[121]Moore, M., 1993, “Three Types of Interaction”, Harry, K., John, M. & Keegan, D. (Eds.), Distance Education: New Perspectives, Routledge, London.
[122]Moss, P. A., 1994, “Can there be validity without reliability?”, Educational Researcher, No.23, pp.5-12.
[123]Mullin, J. A., 1998, “Portfolio: Purposeful collections of student work”, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No.74, pp.79-87.
[124]Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W., 1991, “Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol.38, No.1, pp.30-38.
[125]Murphy, N., 1994, “Authentic Assessment for the Learning Cycle Model”, In Schafer, L. (Ed.), Behind the Methods of Class Door: Educating Elementary and Middle School Science Teachers (pp.25-27), ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio.
[126]Murphy E., 2004, “Identifying and Measuring Ill-Structured Problem Formulation and Resolution in Online Asynchronous Discussions”, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol.30, No.1, pp.5-20.
[127]Newman, D. R. et al., 1997, “Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported cooperative learning”, Journal of the American Society of Information Science, No.48, pp.484-495.
[128]Nidds, J. A. & McGerald, J., 1997, “How functional is portfolio assessment anyway?”, Education Digest, Vol.62, No.5, pp.47-50.
[129]Niguidula, D., 2005, “Documenting learning with digital portfolios”, Educational Leadership, Vol.63, No.3, pp.44-47.
[130]Novak, J. D., 1991, “Clarify with concept maps”, The Science Teacher, No.58, pp.45-49.
[131]---, 1993, “Human constructivism: A unification of psychological and epistemological phenomena in meaningful making”, International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, No.6, pp.167-193.
[132]--- & Gowin, D. B., 1984, “Learning how to learn”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, London.
[133]--- & Musonda, D., 1991, “A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning”, American Educational Research Journal, No.28, pp.117-153.
[134]O’Connor, K., 2002, How to grade for learning: Linking grades to standards, 2nd Ed., Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development.
[135]O’Neil, J., 1992, “Putting performance assessment to the test”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 49, No. 8, pp.14-19.new window
[136]Oppenheim, A. N., 1999, Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, Cassell Wellington House, New York.
[137]Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F., 1988, Curriculum: Foundations, Principles and Theory, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
[138]Otnes, H., 2003, “Archive or learning arena? Learning and documentary genres in digital portfolios”, In Dysthe, O. & Engelsen, K. S. (Eds), Mapper som pedagogisk redskap Persektiver og erfaringer, Abstrakt Forlag, Oslo.
[139]Paulson, F. L., Paulson, P. R., & Meyer, C. A., 1991, “What makes a portfolio a portfolio?”, Educational Leadership, Vol.48, No.5, pp.60-63.
[140]Pellegrino, J. W., Chodowsky, N. & Glaser, R. (Eds.), 2001, Knowing what students know: the science and design of educational assessment, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
[141]Perry, N. E., 1998, “Young children''s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it”, Journal of Educational Psychology, No.90, pp.715-729.
[142]Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B., 2001, “Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.25, No.4, pp.401-426.
[143]Pintrich, P. R. & De Groot, E. V., 1990, “Motivational & self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance”, Journal of Educational Psychology, No.82, pp.33-40.
[144]Pintrich, P. R., et al., 1989, A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), National center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning (NCRIPTAL), School of Education, The University Michigan, Michgan.
[145]Pollard, J. S., 1989, “Developing useful educational indicator systems”, Insights on Educational Policy and Practice, No.15, pp.1-6.
[146]Popham, W. J., 1995, Classroom Assessment: What teachers need to know, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
[147]Posner, G., 1995, Analyzing the Curriculum, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
[148]QESN-RÉCIT, 2005, “Portfolio process: On-line resources for teachers”, available at: http://www.qesn.meq.gouv.qc.ca/portfolio/port_eng.html
[149]Quellmalz, E. S., 1991, “Developing criteria for performance assessments: The missing link”, Applied Measurement in Education, Vol.4, No.4, pp. 347-362.
[150]Resnick, L. B., 1992, “Standards, assessment, and educational quality”, Stanford Law and Policy Review, pp.53-59.
[151]Rogers, C. R., 1969, Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become, Charles E. Merrill, Columbus, Ohio.
[152]Ross, M. et al., 1993, Assessing Achievement in the Arts, Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.
[153]Rotter, J. B., 1966, “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement”, Psychological Monographs, No.80.
[154]Schutte, J. G., 1997, “Virtual teaching in higher education: The new intellectual super highway or just another traffic jam”, California State University, CA, available at: http://www.csun.edu/sociology/virexp.htm.
[155]Schutz, A. & Moss, P. A., 2004, “Reasonable decisions in portfolio assessment: Evaluating complex evidence of teaching”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol.12, No.33, pp.1-46, July.
[156]Scriven, M., 1967, “The methodology of evaluation”, In Stake, R. (Ed.) Perspectives of curriculum evaluation, Rand McNally, Chicago.
[157]Singh, O. & Ritzhaupt, A. D., 2006, “Student perceptive of organizational uses of eportfolios in higher education”, In Pearson E. & Bohman P. (Eds.), Proceedings of ed-media (pp.1717-1722), AACE, Norfolk, VA.
[158]Simoff, S. J. & Maher, M. L., 2000, “Analysing participation in collaborative design environments”, Design Studies, Vol.21, No.2, pp.119-144.
[159]Simon, M. & Forgett-Giroux, R., 2000, “Impact of content selection framework on portfolio assessment at the classroom level”, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, Vol.7, No.1, pp.83-101.
[160]Small, R. V. & Gluck, M., 1994, “The relationship of motivational conditions to effective instructional attributes: A magnitude scaling approach”, Educational Techology, Vol.34, No.8, pp.33-40.
[161]Stanley, N. V., 1993, “Gifted and the〝zone of proximal development〞”, Gifted Education Internation, Vol.9, No.2, pp.78-81.
[162]Stecher, B. & Herman, J., 1997, “Using portfolios for large scale assessment”, in Gary D. Phye, Handbook of Classroom Assessment, Academic Press Limited, London, pp.491-516.
[163]Stewart, J., Vankirk, J., & Rowell, R., 1979, “Concept maps: A tool for use in biology teaching”, The American Biology Teacher, No.41, pp.171-175.
[164]Stiggins, R. J., 1994, Student-centered classroom assessment, Macmillan College Publishing Company, New York.
[165]---, 2002, “Assessment crisis: the absence of assessment for learning”, Phi Delta Lappan, Vol.83, No.10, pp.758-765.
[166]---, 2005, Student-involved Assessment for Learning, 4th Ed., Merrill prentice Hall, New York.
[167]Straub, D. W., 1989, “Validating instruments in MIS research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.13, No.2, pp.156-161.
[168]Stuart, H. A., 1985, “Should concept maps be scored numerically?”, European Journal of Science Education, No.7, pp.73-81.
[169]TenBrink, T. D., 1974, Evaluation: a practical guide for teachers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[170]Terwilliger, J. S., 1989, “Classroom Standard Setting and Grading Practices”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Vol.8, No.2, pp.15-19.
[171]Tolsby, H., 2000, “Digital Portfolios:A Tool for Learning, Self-Reflection, Sharing and Collaboration”, available at:
http://www.it.hiof.no/prosjekter/hoit/html/nr1_00/hakont.html.
[172]Topping, K. J., 1998, “Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities,” Review of Educational Reserch, Vol.68, No.3, p.249.
[173]Tosh, D., et al., 2005, “Engagement with electronic portfolios: Challenges from the student perspective”, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol.31, No.3, available at: http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol31.3/tosh.html.
[174]Tyler, R. W., 1942, “General statement on evaluation”, Journal of Educational Research, Vol.35, No.7, pp.492-501.
[175]Wade, A. & Abrami, P. C., 2005, An electronic portfolio for learning, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol.31, No.3, available at: http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol31.3/abrami.html.
[176]---, & Sclater, J., 2005, “An electronic portfolio to support learning”, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol.31, No.3.
[177]Wade, R. C. & Yarbrough, D. B., 1996, “Portfolios: A tool for reflective thinking in teacher education”, Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, Vol.12, No.1, pp.63-79.
[178]Wakkary, R. & Belfer, K., 2002, “An evaluation framework for the development process of an online curriculum”, In Richards, G. (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2002, AACE, Chesapeake, VA, pp.976-983.
[179]Weller, M., 2002, “Assessment issues on a web-based course”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol.27, No.2, pp.109-116.
[180]West, K. C., Farmer, J. A., & Wolff, P. M., 1991, Instructional Design: Implications from cognitive science, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Mass.
[181]Wiggins, G., 1993, “Assessment: authenticity, context, and validity”, Phi Delta Kappa, Vol.75, No.3, pp.200-214.
[182]Wiggins, G., 1998, Educative Assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
[183]Wigifield, A., 1984, “Relationship between ability perceptions, other achievement-related beliefs, & school performance”, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
[184]Wolansky, W. D., 1985, Evaluation Student Performance in Vocational Education, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
[185]Wolters, C. A., 1999, “The relation between high school students’ motivational regulation & their use of learning strategies, effort, & classroom performance”, Learning & Individual Differences, No.11, pp.281-301.
[186]Yerkes, D. M., 1995, “Developing a professional portfolio”, Thrust for Educational Leadership, Vol.24, No.5, pp.10-14.
[187]Yerkes, R. M. & Dodson, J. D., 1908, “The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation”, Journal of Comparative Neurology & Psychology, No.18, pp.459-482.
[188]Yu, F. Y., Liu, Y. H., & Chan, T. W., 2002, “The efficacy of a web-based domain independent question-posing and peer assessment learning system”, Proceeding of International Conference on Computers in Education, Auckland, New Zealand, December 3-6, pp.641-642.
[189]Yueh, H. P., 1997, The Relationship Between the Quality of Portfolios and Student’s use of Self-regulated Learning Strategies, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
[190]Yunghans, M., 1981, “A pull-out program for gifted elementary students”, School Arts, Vol.80, No.8.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE