教師信念與教室評量:兩位大學英文教師之個案研究

Teachers' Beliefs and Classsroom Assessments: A Case Study of Two University Instructors of English

呂艾穎(Ai-ying Lu)

指導教授 ： 張武昌 ； 葉錫南

國立臺灣師範大學/文學院/英語學系/碩士(2002年)

摘要

摘要
本研究旨在探究兩位大學英文教師之評量信念與教室評量實務，採用質性研究法，包括與兩位教師訪談、進行教室觀察、及收集相關資料。研究結果顯示兩位教師的評量信念影響及引導其對於教室評量的設計、實行、及評估。此外，教師的評量信念受到一些限制，並不能完全反映到實務中，這些限制包括課堂時間、學校政策、和來自同事們的負面建議等。為了克服這些限制，本研究中的兩位教師使用一些共同策略，包括取消、延後、和合併評量活動。其中一位教師還使用簡化評量活動的策略來克服評量實務上的限制。實施上述策略時，兩位教師還遵循了兩項原則，包括遵循教學進度及教學目標。
大致來說，教師的評量信念與實務兩者之間有高度的一致性。此外，在教師的評分實務方面，兩位教師皆使用許多不同的主觀和客觀的評量工具來評量學生。評分時，兩位教師均考量學生的學術及非學術表現（例如努力、進步幅度、課堂參與度等）。此外，兩位教師的評分標準和評分實務間不甚一致，他們會評量學生在一些沒有列在評分標準項目的表現，亦會省略一些已列在評分標準的項目，不加以評分。評量之後，兩位教師會進行一些後續教學活動，包括分享、重教、給予回饋、和實行補救性評量活動等。再者，兩位教師之間的評量信念及實務有所不同，這種差異反映在他們給予不同評量活動的評分比重、和其後續教學活動的本質上。

關鍵字

教師信念 ； 教室評量 ； 大學教師

並列摘要

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the beliefs and practice of assessment by two university instructors of English. This study employed qualitative research methods, and data were collected through interviews, classroom observations, and other related documents from the instructors and the students of the observed classes. The results showed that there were sets of beliefs underlying the instructors’ assessments, and these beliefs guided their planning, implementation, and evaluation of assessment. However, these beliefs could not be successfully realized in the classroom due to some constraints, including lack of time, institutional requirements, negative suggestions from the colleagues, and so on. In order to cope with these constraints, the instructors used some common strategies such as canceling, postponing, and integrating. One of the instructors also used the strategy of simplifying. In the selection of coping strategies in the face of constraints, both instructors followed two general principles: the observance of the instructional schedule and the observance of course objectives.
Generally speaking, high consistency and very mild inconsistency existed between the instructors’ beliefs and practices in assessment. This study also explored the instructors’ grading practices. It showed that the two instructors used many objective and subjective instruments to assess students in the classrooms. In addition to students’ academic performance, they took into account students’ nonacademic performance such as efforts, improvements, and participation in class when grading. There were gaps between their grading policies and grading practices. They both graded students’ performance in certain unlisted criteria, and they also omitted certain listed criteria in their grading practices. After assessment, both instructors implemented some follow-ups, including sharing, re-teaching, offering feedback, and providing remedial assessment activities. Furthermore, the study explored the difference between the two instructors, and the difference was reflected in the percentage of their grading components and the nature of their designing of follow-ups.

並列關鍵字

teachers' beliefs ； classroom assessment ； university instructors

參考文獻

Airasian, P. W. (1991). Classroom assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brookhart, S. M. (1993). Teachers’ grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 123-142.

Brookhart, S. M. (1994). Teachers’ grading: Practice and theory. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 279-301.

Brookhart, S. M. (1999). The art and science of classroom assessment: the missing part of pedagogy. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Brown, D. F. & Rose, T. D. (1995). Self-reported classroom impact of teachers’ theories about learning and obstacles to implementations. Action in Teacher Education, 17, 1, 20-29.