期刊專區/ Periodical Section

引進校本評核提升學習水平的迷思：教師信念剖析

The Myth of Raising Standards of Learning through School-based Assessment: An Analysis of Teachers’ Beliefs

所屬期刊：	第5卷第2期 「課程與教學」 主編：國立臺北教育大學國民教育學系、課程與教學研究所教授 黃嘉雄
系統編號：	vol017_07
主題：	課程與教學
出版年份：	2009
作者：	譚彩鳳
作者(英文)：	Choi-Fung TAM
論文名稱：	引進校本評核提升學習水平的迷思：教師信念剖析
論文名稱(英文)：	The Myth of Raising Standards of Learning through School-based Assessment: An Analysis of Teachers’ Beliefs
共同作者：
最高學歷：
校院名稱：
系所名稱：
語文別：
論文頁數：	32
中文關鍵字：	校本評核;教師信念;教師角色;學與教
英文關鍵字：	school-based assessment; teachers beliefs; teachers roles; learning and teaching
服務單位：	香港中文大學課程與教學學系助理教授
稿件字數：	28029
作者專長：	教師信念;課程實施;課程領導;校本課程
投稿日期：	2008/12/4
論文下載：
摘要(中文)：	課程與評核不可分割，但是兩者的關係不是對等的，評核應該從屬於課程。然而，香港教育由考試主導，不但教學上出現倒流效應，而課程與評核的原本關係也被顛倒。因此，為配合新課程改革，香港考試及評核局把校本評核引進中國語文科，合併入中學會考之中，以期改進學與教的成效、拓寬評核的基礎、舒緩學生在公開考試的壓力。本研究以個案形式探究四位教師對校本評核的信念，結果反映教師的信念影響他們對校本評核的詮釋、對評核課業的評價、實施校本評核的方向及支配其角色。研究又指出學生的語文能力並沒有提升，其承受的公開考試壓力也沒有減少。研究建議政策制定者要支援教師改變其秉持的評核信念及實踐方式、重新為評核角色定位及簡化校本評核計劃，才能改進學與教的素質。
摘要(英文)：	Curriculum and assessment are an integral whole, but they are not of equal standing, assessment should be subordinate to curriculum. The education of Hong Kong, however, is examination-driven. It not only exerts backwash effect on teaching and learning, but reverses the original positions of curriculum and assessment. Aligns with the new curriculum reform, School-Based Assessment (SBA), therefore, has been introduced in Chinese Language, incorporating with the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. It aims at improving the effectiveness of learning and teaching, broadening the assessment base, and alleviating pressure of public examinations on students. Case studies were conducted to tap beliefs of four teachers on SBA. Results revealed that teachers’ beliefs exerted significant influence on their interpretation of SBA, evaluation of SBA assignments, approaches adopted to implement SBA and roles they played in conducting SBA. Findings also indicated that neither language ability of students had been enhanced nor examination pressure put on students had been reduced. The paper concludes with the suggestion that changing beliefs and practices of teachers on assessment, reshaping the role of assessment and simplifying the SBA scheme are essential to improve the effectiveness of learning and teaching.
參考文獻：	李宇明（1994）。語言學習異同論。載世界漢語教學編輯部等（編），語言學習理論研究（頁77–93）。北京：北京語言學院出版社。 林怡呈、吳毓瑩（2003）。多元評量概念在課程標準演變中之定向與意義。教育研究資訊，11（6），頁3-32。 邱憶惠（1999）。個案研究法：質化取向。教育研究（國立高雄師範大學教育學系），7，頁113-127。　 洪碧霞、林素微、林宜樺、陳沅、陳靜姿（1993）。以多元化的數學評量支持學生的學習進展。教育研究資訊，11（6），頁33 – 64。 香港考試及評核局（2005）。2007香港中學會考中國語文課試題舉例。香港：香港考試及評核局。 香港教育統籌局（2004）。改革高中及高等教育學制—對未來的投資。香港：教育統籌局出版，政府物流服務署印。 香港教育統籌委員會（1996）。?育統籌委員會第七號報告書：優質學校?育。香港： 香港政府印務局。 香港課程發展議會（2001）。中國語文課程指引（初中及高中）。香港：香港政府印務局。 黃毅英、林智中（1997）。〈目標為本課程的學習評估〉。載林智中（編）目標為本課程：設計與實施（頁135-158）。香港：天地圖書。 羅豪章（2002）。發展多元評量模糊複合分數之初探。科學教育學刊，10（4），頁407-421。 譚彩鳳（2008）。教師對校本評核的信念及其回應之方法。教育曙光，56（1），頁71-84。 Biggs, J. B. (1995). Assumptions underlying new approaches to educational assessment: Implications for Hong Kong. Curriculum Forum, 4(2), 1-22. Biggs, J. B. (1998). The assessment scene in Hong Kong. In P. Stimpson & P. Morris(Eds.), Curriculum and assessment for Hong Kong: two components, one system (pp.315-324). Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148. Borko, H., Cone, R., Russo. N. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1979). Teachers’ decision making. In P. L. Peterson & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: concept, findings and implications (pp. 136-160). California: McCutchan Publisher Corporation. Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(9). Retrieved May 3, 2007, from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9 Cheng, L. Y. (1998). How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong. In P. Stimpson & P. Morris (Eds.), Curriculum and assessment for Hong Kong: two components, one system (pp.325-350). Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press. Cheng, M. H., & Cheung, F. W. M. (2001). Science and biology assessment in relation to the recently proposed education reform in Hong Kong. Journal of Biological Education, 35(4), 170-177. Cheung, D. (2001). School-based assessment in public examinations: Identifying the concerns of teachers. Education Journal, 29(2), 105-123. Cheung, D. & Yip, D. Y. (2004). How science teachers’ concerns about school-based assessment of practical work vary with time: the Hong Kong experience. Research in Science & Technological Education, 22(2), 153-169. Choi, C. C. (1999). Public examinations in Hong Kong. Assessment in Education, 6(3), 405-417. Cohen, D. K. & Spillane, J. P. (1992). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. Review of Research in Education, 18, 3-49. Cumming, J. J. & Maxwell, G. S. (2004). Assessment in Australian schools: Current practice and trends. Assessment in Education, 11(1), 89-108. Davison, C. (2007). Views from the chalkface: English language school-based assessment in Hong Kong. Language assessment quarterly, 4(1), 37-68. Fan, L. (2002). In-service training in alternative assessment with Singapore mathematics teachers. The Mathematics Educator, 6(2), 77-94. Fan, L. (2005). Improving mathematics teaching and learning through effective classroom assessment: Experiences and perspectives from Singapore schools. In N.Y. Wong (Ed.), Revisiting Mathematics Education in Hong Kong for the New Millennium (pp.359-376). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Association for Mathematics Education. Fung, A., Broadfoot, P., & Cheung, D. (1998). Review of public examination system in Hong Kong: Final report. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Baptist University.Gipps, C. V. (1994). Beyond testing: towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Falmer. Hargreaves, A. (1989). Curriculum and assessment reform. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Hargreaves, A. (1994).Changing teachers, changing times: teachers work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell. Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational factors in teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 967-983. Harlen, W. & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education, 4(3), 365-379. Lim, E. P. Y. & Tan, A. (1999). Educational assessment in Singapore. Assessment in Education, 6(3), 391-404. Llewellyn, J., Hancock, J. G., Kirst, M., & Roeloffs, Y. K. (1982). A perspective on education in Hong Kong: Report by a visiting panel. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Merriam, S. D. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.　 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Moon, B. & Mortimore, P. (1989). The National Curriculum, straightjacket or safetynet? London: Education Reform Group. Morris, P. (1996). The Hong Kong school curriculum: development, issues and policies (2nd ed.). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Morris, P. (1998). School knowledge, the state and the market: An analysis of the Hong Kong secondary school curriculum. In P. Stimpson & P. Morris (Eds.), Curriculum and assessment for Hong Kong: Two components, one system (pp.141-170). Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation method (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Pratt, D. (1980). Curriculum: Design & Development. N. Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Proudford, C. (1998). Implementing educational policy change: Implications for teacher professionalism and professional empowerment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 139-151. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77-84. Sebatane, E. M. (1994). Enhancement of teacher capacities and capabilities in school-based assessment: Lesotho experience. Assessment in Education: Principles,Policy & Practice, 1(2), 223-234. Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgements, decisions and behaviour. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappan, September, 22-27. Stillman, G. (2001). The impact of school-based assessment on the implementation of a modeling/applications-based curriculum: An Australian example. Teaching Mathematics and its applications, 20(3), 101-107. Torrance, H. (1995). Evaluating authentic assessment. Buckingham: Open University Press. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. California: Sage Publications, Inc. Yip, D. Y. & Cheung, D. (2005). Teachers’ concerns on school-based assessment of practical work. Journal of Biological Education, 39(4), 156-162. Yung, B. H. W. (2001a). Three views of fairness in a school-based assessment scheme of practical work in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 985-1005. Yung, B. H. W. (2001b). Examiner, policeman or students’ companion: Teachers’ perceptions of their role in an assessment reform. Educational Review, 53(3), 251-260. Yung, B. H. W. (2002). Same assessment, different practice: Professional consciousness as a determinant of teachers’ practice in a school-based assessment scheme. Assessment in Education, 19(1), 97-117.