期刊專區/ Periodical Section

國際課程評鑑研究課題與趨勢分析：2000-2020年

An Analysis on the Issues and Trends of International Curriculum Evaluation Research: from 2000-2020

所屬期刊：	第19卷第1期 主編：國立彰化師範大學教育研究所教授 龔心怡
系統編號：	vol072_04
主題：	測驗與評量
出版年份：	2023
作者：	陳美如；郭昭佑；曾莉婷
作者(英文)：	Mei-Ju Chen；Chao-Yu Guo；Li-Ting Tseng
論文名稱：	國際課程評鑑研究課題與趨勢分析：2000-2020年
論文名稱(英文)：	An Analysis on the Issues and Trends of International Curriculum Evaluation Research: from 2000-2020
共同作者：
最高學歷：
校院名稱：
系所名稱：
語文別：	中文
論文頁數：	34
中文關鍵字：	教師發展、評鑑典範、課程評鑑、學生學習、趨勢分析
英文關鍵字：	curriculum evaluation, evaluation paradigm, student learning, teacher development, trend analysis
服務單位：	國立清華大學教育與學習科技學系教授；國立政治大學教育學院教授兼院長；國立清華大學教育與學習科技學系博士生
稿件字數：	18553
作者專長：
投稿日期：	2022/12/18
論文下載：
摘要(中文)：	國際的課程評鑑於20世紀漸興起，相關的學術論著亦日益增加。本研究目的在運用文獻計量工具，系統化地探究課程評鑑研究議題的變化與趨勢，以作為臺灣課程評鑑之反思參照。由於課程評鑑的對象包括教師與學生，其發展於學校。因此，本研究透過文獻計量與文獻分析方法，以「課程評鑑」為主題，分析收錄於社會科學引文索引中的學術文章資料分別合併「學生學習」、「教師發展」與「學校」之主題文獻；透過數據與文獻分析從時間序列中，理解課程評鑑在過去20年間的發展重點與趨勢。研究結果發現：（1）評鑑典範不再強制實證量化的方法，呈現客觀結果，而是基於建構主義的觀點往自然典範移動，評鑑語言也產生轉化；（2）除確保課程評鑑的品質，學生是課程評鑑關照的主體，教師自我效能促進亦不可忽略，人的發展與課程同等重要；（3）關注現場的脈絡實踐、意義與需求，帶著成長心態持續以證據為本（而非產製資料）的對話、反思與回饋，是當前與未來課程評鑑的主旋律。最後，根據上述發現，提出後續課程評鑑研究與發展之建議。
摘要(英文)：	International curriculum evaluation has gradually emerged in the 20th century. Related academic literatures are also increasing. This study is to use bibliometric tools to explore the changes and trends of curriculum evaluation research topics systematically, as a reference for reflection on curriculum evaluation in Taiwan. Since curriculum evaluation targets both teachers and students, and it is developed in schools. The research adopted bibliometric analysis and literature review, collecting academic literatures about "Curriculum Evaluation" in Social science citation index (SSCI). Then the literatures merged "student learning", "teacher development" and "school" respectively, trying to understand the curriculum evaluation researches’ issues and trends during 2000-2020. The study found that: (1) Evaluation paradigms no longer force empirical quantitative methods to present objective results, the evaluation has moved to natural paradigms based on the viewpoint of constructivism. The evaluation language has also been transformed. (2) Notwithstanding the fact that students are the main characters of curriculum evaluation, promoting self-efficacy of teachers cannot be ignored. (3) Focus on the contextual practice, meaning and requirement, with a growth mindset, keeping dialogue, reflection and feedback based on evidence (not paperwork) are the main theme of current and future curriculum evaluation research. Finally, based on the above findings, suggestions for the follow-up research and the development of curriculum evaluation were discussed.
參考文獻：	卯靜儒（2019）。教育改革的昔與今：挑戰與回應。元照。 卯靜儒、林君憶、鄭淑惠、李姍靜（2021）。課程評鑑做什麼？如何回饋？─從政策轉譯談我們的觀察。課程協作與實踐專刊，2，95-115。https://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/23/relfile/8653/78250/9c7fe88b-197e-4fa1-99fb-6669084c874d.pdf 吳政達、郭昭佑（1997）。概念構圖法在國民小學教科書評鑑標準建構之應用。教育與心理研究，20（2），217-242。 吳清山、蔡菁芝（2006）。英美兩國教育績效責任之比較分析及其啟示。師大學報：教育類，51（1），1-21。https://doi.org/10.29882/JTNUE.200604.0001 李杰（2018）。科學知識圖譜原理及應用：VOSviewer 和CitNetExplorer 初學者指南。高等教育。 林君憶、卯靜儒、鄭淑惠（2021）。校本課程評鑑之真義：從關懷教師作為課程發展者的觀點出發。教育研究月刊，330，21-33。https://doi.org/10.53106/168063602021100330002 林逢棋（2009，6 月27 日）。「美學取向課程與教學之理論建構與應用」課程美學研討會會議紀錄。https://teric.naer.edu.tw/wSite/DoDownload?xmlId=1508852 &fileName=1400756152286.pdf&format=pdf&OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=U4MI-HAWIOENP- V7XZ-BTG4-E34D-6P6O-9KCJ 張郁蔚（2012，10 月）。共被引。樂詞網。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/27d8419608301753f1b7f1dd4422db3a/?startswith=zh&seq=1 張繼寧（2011，1 月）。教師認同（Teacher Identity）。臺灣師資培育電子報，16，1-4。https://teacher.edu.tw/packages/tted/web/epaper/others/dictionary_16.pdf 教育部（2018）。國民中學及國民小學實施課程評鑑參考原則。 許健將（2019）。文獻計量學在教育研究上之應用。教育科學期刊，18（1），51-69。 郭昭佑（2000）。學校本位評鑑。五南。 郭昭佑、陳美如（2003）。學校本位課程評鑑概念與基礎研究。國立台北師範學院學報，16（1），1-28。 陳美如（2002）。臺灣課程評鑑的回顧與展望。教育學刊，18，87-112。 陳美如（2007）。她，從評鑑走來：從教師的「存」「在」再思課程評鑑。應用心理研究，33，199-230。 陳美如（2018）。走一條回歸本質的學校課程評鑑之路。中等教育，69（4），8-21。https://doi.org/10.6249/SE.201812_69(4).0039 陳景花（2020）。正向心理學應用於運動研究之文獻計量分析。臺灣運動心理學報，20（2），45-72。https://doi.org/10.6497/BSEPT.202007_20(2).0003 黃政傑（1987）。課程評鑑。師大書苑。 黃健翔、吳清山（2021）。國民中學校長創新領導、教師專業學習社群與教師教學創新表現關係之研究。香港中文大學教育學報，49（1），51-72。 黃嘉莉（2011）。各國師資培育制度與教師素質之理論分析。載於楊深坑、黃嘉莉（主編），各國師資培育制度與教師素養現況（頁353-401）。教育部。 黃嘉雄（2010）。課程評鑑。心理。 黃嘉雄（2012）。臺灣課程評鑑研究的回顧與前瞻。課程與教學季刊，15（4），25-52。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.201210.0025 黃嘉雄（2021）。校本課程之建構主義評鑑：理念與實施。教育研究月刊，330，51-63。https://doi.org/10.53106/168063602021100330004 楊燕枝（2010）。以文獻計量法分析台灣在國際科管期刊的發表現況。科技管理學刊，15（4），61-68。https://doi.org/10.6378/JTM.201012.0061 潘慧玲（2005）。邁向下一代的教育評鑑：回顧與前瞻。載於潘慧玲（主編），教育評鑑的回顧與展望（頁3-36）。心理。 潘慧玲、洪秋瑋（2020）。標準本位政策脈絡下師資培育改革成效之評估：應用「行動模式／改變模式圖式」分析師資培育學程。教育科學研究期刊，65（2），73-104。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202006_65(2).0003 簡菲莉、曾怡潓、陳思伶（2021）。實踐見樹又見林的校本課程評鑑：讓課程評鑑成為行動學習。教育研究月刊，330，96-114。https://doi.org/10.53106/168063602021100330007 薩爾伯格（Sahlberg, P.）（2010）。芬蘭教育改革概述（涂馨予，譯），載於國立教育資料館（編），芬蘭教育理論與實務（頁35-72）。國立教育資料館。（原著出版年：2009） Akker, J. V., & Verloop, N. (1994). Evaluation approaches and results in curriculum research and development in the Netherlands. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20(4), 421-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-491X(94)00035-F Ali, S. K., & Baig, L. A. (2012). Problems and issues in implementing innovative curriculum in the developing countries: The Pakistani experience. BMC Medical Education, 12, 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-31 Arrieta, G. S. (2021). Curriculum evaluation: Inputs for principal’s instructional leadership.International Journal of Social Learning, 1(2), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.47134/ijsl.v1i2.45 Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Van Nostrand. Azizi, R., HajHosseinNezhad, G., Ghaderi, M., & Aliaskari, M. (2020). Provide an optimal framework for evaluating the curriculum system at the university (Systematic review study along with qualitative research). Research in Teaching, 8(1), 150-121. https://doi.org/10.34785/J012.2020.986 Badeni, B. (2019). Factors affecting teachers’ stage of concern on evaluation system of primary school curriculum innovation. International Journal of Educational Review, 1(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.33369/ijer.v1i2.8835 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of Rehavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 175-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640902902252 Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 Braam, R. R., Moed, H. F., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1991). Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis. II: Dynamical aspects. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 42(4), 252-266. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199105)42:4 <252::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-G Briner, R. B., & Denyer, D. (2012). Handbook of evidence-based management: Companies, classrooms and research. Oxford University Press. Canadian Evaluation Society. (2014, October). Annual Report 2013-2014. http://evaluationeducation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/CUEE_Annual_Report_2013-2014.pdf Carden, F., & Alkin, M. C. (2012). Evaluation roots: An international perspective. Journal of MultiDisplinary Evaluation, 8(17), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v8i17.348 Cathcart, A., Greer, D., & Neale, L. (2014). Learner-focused evaluation cycles: Facilitating learning using feedforward, concurrent and feedback evaluation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 790-802. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.870969 Chen, C. M. (1999). Visualising semantic spaces and author co-citation networks in digital libraries. Information Processing & Management, 35(3), 401-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00068-5 Chen, S., Hsu, I. C., & Wu, C. M. (2009). Evaluation of undergraduate curriculum reform for interdisciplinary learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(2), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902757203 Chiu, T. K. F., Meng, H., Chai, C. S., King, I., Wong, S., & Yam, Y. (2022). Creation and evaluation of a pretertiary artificial intelligence (AI) curriculum. IEEE Transactions on Education, 65(1), 30-39. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2021.3085878 Clayson, D. E. (2009). Student evaluation of teaching: Are they related to what students learn? A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475308324086 De Ketele, J. M. (2011). L’evaluation et le curriculum: les fondements conceptuels, les debats, les enjeux. Evaluation et Curriculum, 25, 89-106. http://doi.org/10.4000/dse.1022 Duan, B., Zhong, Y., & Liu, D. Y. (2017, December 15-17). Education application of blockchain technology: Learning outcome and meta-diploma [Paper presentation]. IEEE 23rd International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS), Shenzhen, China. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPADS.2017.00114 Faubert, V. (2009, December 15). School evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. https:// doi.org/10.1787/218816547156 Freeman, R., & Dobbins, K. (2013). Are we serious about enhancing courses? Using the principles of assessment for learning to enhance course evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(2), 142-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.611589 Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., Mcdonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 Fullan, M., & Gallagher, M. J. (2020). The devil is in the details: System solutions for equity, excellence, and student well-being. Corwin. Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College. Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. (2018). Deep learning: Engage the world change the world. Corwin. Good, T. L., Wiley, C. R. H., & Sabers, D. (2010). Accountability and educational reform: A critical analysis of four perspectives and considerations for enhancing reform efforts. The Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 138-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461521003720171 Greene, M. L., Way, N., & Pahl, K. (2006). Trajectories of perceived adult and peer discrimination among Black, Latino, and Asian American adolescents: Patterns and psychological correlates. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 218-236. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649. 42.2.218 Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006a). Sustainable leadership. Jossey-Bass. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006b). The ripple effect. Educational Leadership, 63(8), 16-20. Hopmann, S. T. (2003). On the evaluation of curriculum reforms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(4), 459-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270305520 House, E. R. (2001). Responsive evaluation (and its influence on deliberative democratic evaluation). New Directions for Evaluation, 2001(92), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.32 Jorrin-Abellan, I. M., Stake, R. E., & Martinez-Mones, A. (2009, June 8-13). The needlework in evaluating a CSCL system: The evaluand oriented responsive evaluation model [Paper presentation]. The 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Rhodes, Greece. Kelly, M., Noemi, K., Elisabeth, L. J., & Reena, T. (2015). Inspiring future program evaluators through innovative curriculum for undergraduates. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(2), 205-215. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjpe/article/ view/31067/25223 Kenway, J. (2008). The ghosts of the school curriculum: Past, present and future. The Australia Educational Researchers, 35(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216880 Kim, H. Y. (2020). A study on strengthening teaching capacity through a teacher learning community of class exploration. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 23(3), 51-73. http://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2020.23.3.51 Kliebard, H. M. (1975). Metaphorical roots of curriculum design. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists (pp. 84-85). McCutchan. Kneen, J., Breeze, T., Thayer, E., John, V., & Davies?Barnes, S. (2021). Pioneer teachers: How far can individual teachers achieve agency within curriculum development? Journal of Educational Change, 24, 243-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09441-3 Kristiawan, M., & Elnanda, D. (2017). The implementation of authentic assessment in cultural history of Islamic subject. Al-Ta Lim Journal, 24(3), 266-276. http://doi.org/10.15548/jt.v24i3.345 Kristiawan, M., Jumeldi, A., Ahmad, S., & Asvio, N. (2016). The implementation of affective assessment for Islamic education in high school 1 pariangan. Research Journal of Social Sciences, 9(4), 1-8. https://osf.io/a76y4/download Kurt, A., & Erdo?an, M. (2015). Content analysis and trends of curriculum evaluation research:2004-2013. Education & Science, 40(178), 199-224. http://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4167 Ladyshewsky, R., & Taplin, R. (2015). Evaluation of curriculum and student learning needs using 360 degrees assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5),698-711. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.950189 Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034 Lenoir, Y. (2011). Consequences des conceptions curriculaires actuelles sur les modes evaluatifs.Evaluation et Curriculum, 25, 13-28. http://doi.org/10.4000/dse.973 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The constructivist credo. Left Coast. Lingard, B., Hayes, D., & Mills, M. (2003). Teachers and productive pedagogies: Contextualizing,conceptualizing, utilizing. Pedagogies, Culture & Society, 11(3), 399-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360300200181 MacBeath, J. (1999). The case for school self-evaluation. Routledge. Malecka, B., Boud, D., & Carless, D. (2022). Eliciting, processing and enacting feedback:Mechanisms for embedding student feedback literacy within the curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(7), 908-922. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1754784 Marsh, H. W. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence based perspective (pp. 319-383). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5742-3_9 Marshakova-Shaikevich, I. (1973). System of document connections based on references.Nauchno-Teknicheskaya Informatsiya, 2(6), 3-8. https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/marshakova/marshakovanauchtechn1973.pdf Maryani, I., & Martaningsih, S. T. (2015). Correlation between teacher’s PCK (pedagogical content knowledge) and student’s motivation in primary school in Indonesia. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 4(1), 38-44. http://doi.org/10. 11591/ijere.v4i1.4490 Marten, B. V. (2004). Five generations of evaluation: A meta-evaluation. Syracuse University. Middlewood, D. (2001). Leadership of the curriculum. In D. Middlewood & N. Burton (Eds.), Managing the curriculum (pp. 110-113). SAGE. Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2013). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518 Noddings, N. (2007). When school reform goes wrong. Teacher College. Nouraey, P., Al-Badi, A., Riasati, M. J., & Maata, R. L. (2020). Educational program and curriculum evaluation models: A mini systematic review of the recent trends. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(9), 4048-4055. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080930 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199 Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307 Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (4th ed.). Sage. Saracaloglu, S., Yilmaz, S., Cengel, M., Cogmen, S., Karademir, C. A., & Kanmaz, A. (2010).Elementary teachers’ views about their roles in curriculum development and evaluation process. The case of Denizli. Innonation and Creativity in Education, 2(2), 2427-2434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.349 Shilbury, D. (2011). A bibliometric analysis of four sport management journals. Sport Management Review, 14(4), 434-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2010.11.005 Spinner, H., & Fraser, B. J, (2002, April 1-5). Evaluation of an innovative mathematics program in terms of classroom environment, student attitudes, and conceptual development [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association 2002 Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, United State, USA. Stake, R. E. (1991). Evaluation theory development: II. In M. W. McLaughlin & D. C. Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century (pp. 67-88). National Society for the Study of Education. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage. Stake, R. E. (2000). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam,G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed., pp. 343-362). Kluwer Academic. https://doi. org/10.1007/0-306-47559-6_18 Steyn, C., Davies, C., & Sambo, A. (2019). Eliciting student feedback for course development:The application of a qualitative course evaluation tool among business research students.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1466266 Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. Open University Press. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). Foundational models for 21st century program evaluation. In D. L.Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed., pp. 33-83). Kluwer Academic. Stufflebeam, D. L., Madaus, G. F., & Kellaghan, T (2000). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed.). Kluwer Academic. Thanuskodi, S., & Umamaheswari, P. (2013). Bibliometric analysis of electronic journal of knowledge management. International Journal of Advanced Library and Information Science, 1(1), 23-32. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago University Press. Tyler, R. W. (1981). Specific approaches to curriculum development. In H. A. Giroux, A. N.Penna, & W. F. Pinar (Eds.), Curriculum & instruction: Alternatives in education (pp.17-30). McCutchan. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2020, April). VOSviewer manual. CWTS Leiden Ranking. https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.15.pdf Von Glaserfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 19-30). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.2307/749910 White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 49(4), 327-355. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(19980401)49:4<327::AID-ASI4>3.0.CO;2-4 Whittaker, J., Courtial, J. P., & Law, J. (1989). Creativity and conformity in science: titles, keywords and co-word analysis. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 473-496. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003004 William, D., & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 22(5),537-548. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192960220502 Hu, X., & Su, Y. (2019). Vocational education curriculum evaluation model based on big data.Solid State of Technology, 63(5), 10070-10078. Yeung, S. Y. S. (2012). A school evaluation policy with a dual character: Evaluating the school evaluation policy in Hong Kong from the perspective of curriculum leaders. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(1), 37-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143211420616 Zimbardo, P. G., & Gerrig, R. J. (1999). Psychologie. Springer.