評量的方式在教育議題中一直都十分重要。在台灣，教師與家長過於重視升學與評量的結果，考試主導了教學。學生對學習喪失了興趣與動機，學習的內容也偏重記憶性的知識與考試的技巧。本研究設計一個評量方式──學習歷程多元分析，希望能反應學生實際學習表現的評量方式。研究者並設計了一個以家長為使用者的數位平台──親師方舟，配合學習歷程多元分析，透過平台讓家長能定時了解學生的學習狀況，查看學生的學習歷程，逐漸改變對於評量的理念。研究者使用了設計研究法，研究歷經了二年的時間，將導入學習歷程多元分析與親師方式的過程，分成三個階段：指標訂定、導入學校與導入親師方舟階段。經過了多次的設計循環，重新的設計、修正評量方式與親師方舟，以符合學校、教師與家長的需求。研究對象是桃園縣某國民小學的三個年級學生的家長們，約有653個家庭與24位教師。初步發現多數的家長對於學習歷程多元分析的理念與評量方法亦能接受並願意嘗試使用，但仍習慣使用分數檢視孩子的學習。本研究觀察到學校與教師會修正教學與課程的方式，讓評量與教學更加一致。從擴展科技接受模式(TAM2)中可以了解，家長對於親師方舟的使用意圖、感知有效性、系統操作觀感皆呈現正向的態度，家長對於親師方舟能查看學生的學習歷程與在學校的學習狀況，也都抱持正面的態度。研究結果顯示，教師與家長正逐漸改變使用評量的方式與想法。

Assessment is an important education issue. In Taiwan, education system tends to emphasize training students to pass entrance exams. Parents and teachers regard grades as the sole standard of learning. Students strive for high grades in order to enter their ideal university, and ignore learning interests and motivation. Hence, this study designed a new assessment approach, called Learning Portfolio Multiple Analytics (LPMA), and attempt to balance of authentic learning and assessment. This study developed an online system to support parents understanding their children’s authentic performance and helping children’s learning, entitled Parent-Teacher-Ark (PTA). This study adopted design-based research to design and re-design the LPMA and PTA during the two years. Research process is divided into three phases: to develop LPMA, to implement LPMA, and to conduct PTA with LPMA. This PTA was conducted in an elementary school and at home for approximate 1306 parents of 1st grade, 2nd grade and 3rd grade students and 24 teachers. The findings indicated that most of parents and teachers are willing to use LPMA and PTA. In particular, this study observed that school’s administrative staff and teachers adjust their instruction. According to TAM2, this study found that parents have positive perceptions on perceived usefulness, intended use and system operation of PTA. The result also showed that teacher and parents gradually changed attitude and accepted LPMA.

一、中文文獻
王文中（1999）。擴展多元智慧評量。載於：落實多元智慧教學評量。台北：遠流。
王為國（2006）。多元智能教育理論與實務。台北：心理出版社。
朱耀明、郭皇局（2005）。高雄市國民小學行動家庭聯絡簿科技接受模式的分析研究。論文發表於國際科技教育課程改革與發展研討會。台灣。
艾菲．柯恩（2010）。家庭作業的迷思(項慧齡譯)。台北：天下雜誌。（原出版年：2006年）
李坤崇（2006）。教學評量。台北：心理出版社。
何青蓉（1996）。終生學習與個人發展。載於中華民國成人教育學會主編：終生學習與教育改革。台北：師大書苑。
林生傳（2003）。教育研究法。台北：心理出版社。
周崇儒（1999）。如何建立良好的親師溝通。教育實習輔導季刊，5(3)，1-8。
波．布朗森與艾許麗．梅里曼（2010）。教育大震撼（潘勛譯）。台北：雅言文化。（原出版年：2009年）
吳宗立（2002）。親師溝通的障礙與突破。臺灣教育，616，48-54。
涂怡如（2000）。論親師溝通的理論與實務。國教之友，51（4），14-22。
黃春木（2008）。台灣社會升學主義的發展與解決對策（1945-2007）。國立台灣師範大學教育學系博士論文，台北市。
黃俊傑（2006）。戰後臺灣的轉型及其展望。台北：台大出版中心。
許正妹、張奕華（2005）。教學平台發展與設計之研究：以 Blackboard 和中山網路大學為例。課程與教學，1(1)，vol001_09。
教育部（2001）。國民中小學學生成績評量準則。台北市。
教育部（2006）。國民教育階段家長參與學校教育事務辦法。台北市。
教育部（2010）。國民小學及國民中學學生成績評量準則修正總說明。台北市。
教育部（2011）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要總綱。台北市。
莊啟文（2005）。鳳山地區攤商家庭升學主義意識形態與成就價值觀之歷史社會學分析。國立屏東教育大學教育行政研究所博士論文，屏東縣。
許瑛玿、莊福泰、林祖強（2012）。解析設計研究法的架構與實施：以科學教育研究為例。教育科學研究期刊，51:1，001-027。
郭淑娥（1999）。以現況談電子聯絡簿實施之可行性。國教新知，46:l，101-104。
張基成、廖悅媚（2012）。以網路化學習歷程檔案評量系統中學習目標設定機制促進自我調整學習。江紹祥（主持人），教師專業發展、政策及學習評量。全球華人計算機教育應用大會，台灣墾丁。
蔡秀美（1996）。終生學習社會的成長與規劃。載於中華民國成人教育學會主編，終生學習與教育改革。台北：師大書苑。
劉晨鐘（2000）。網路學習歷程之知識探索：學習效能評鑑之工具。國立中央大學資訊工程學系博士論文，桃園縣。
德威克（2007）。心態致勝（李明譯）。台北：大塊文化。（原出版年：2006年）。
簡茂發（1999）。多元化評量之理念與方法。教學評量命題專業之能研習會，飛揚專刊，2。

二、英文文獻
Adana, D., & Hamm, M. (1994). New designs for teaching and learning: Promotion active learning in tomorrow’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Arter, J. A. (1995). Portfolios for Assessment and Instruction. ERIC Digest.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
Barab, S. (2006). Design-Based Research: A Methodological Toolkit for the Learning Scientist. In Sawyer, R. Keith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of: The learning sciences. (pp. 153-169). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Bauch, J. (1994). Voice-based technology for parent involvement: Results and effects (13 pp.). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental psychology, 22(6), 723.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
Burch, C. B. (1999). Inside the portfolio experience: The student’s perspective. English Education, 32(1), 34-49.
Chan, T.-W. (2013). Sharing sentiment and wearing a pair of ‘field spectacles’ to view classroom orchestration. Computers & Education. Online publication date: 1-Apr-2013.
Chappuis, S. (2003). Assessment for learning: An action guide for school leaders. Assessment Training Institute.
Chen, H. M., Yu, C., & Chang, C. S. (2007). E-Homebook System: A web-based interactive education interface. Computers & Education, 49(2), 160-175.
Chen, Z.-H., Liao, C. C. Y., Cheng, H. N. H., Yeh, C. Y. C., & Chan, T.-W. (2012). Influence of Game Quests on Pupils’ Enjoyment and Goal-pursuing in Math Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (2), 317–327.
Coleman, J. S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational researcher, 16(6), 32-38.
Collins, A., Joseph D. & Bielaczyc K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-8.
Comer, J. P., & Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological approach. The Elementary School Journal, 271-277.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, anduser acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 13, 319–339.
Dewey, J. (1961). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm foreducational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
Epstein, J. L. (2008). Improving family and community involvement in secondary schools. The Education Digest . www.Eddigest.Com.
Fishbein, M., I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the twenty-first century. Basic Books.
Glaser, R., & Silver, E. (1994). Assessment, testing, and instruction: Retrospect and prospect. Review of research in education, 20, 393-419.
Greenwood, G. E., & Hickman, C. W. (1991). Research and practice in parent involvement: Implications for teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 279-288.
Hartwick, J., H. Barki. 1994. Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Sci. 40 440–465.
Liao, C. C. Y., Chen, Z.-H., Cheng, H. N. H., & Chan T.-W. (2012). Unfolding learning behaviors: A sequential analysis approach in a game-based learning environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 7(1), 25-44.
Linn R. L., Miller M. D. (2005). Measurement and assessment in teaching. Pearson/Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K.T. (2012). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Rogers, C. R. (1962). Learning to be free. Pastoral Psychology, 13(9), 43-51.
Poon, P., & Wagner, C. (2001). Critical success factors revisited: success and failure cases of information systems for senior executives. Decision Support Systems, 30(4), 393-418.
Shumow L 1997. Parents' educational beliefs: Implications for parent participation in school reforms. School Community Journal, 7:37-49.
Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying different types of portfolio use. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(6), 625-648.
Tanaka, K. (2002). Small talk with friends and family: Does text messaging on the mobile phone help users enhance relationships? Published doctoral dissertation, U WASHINGTON,The Washington State.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information systems research, 6(2), 144-176.
Telem, M., & Pinto, S. (2006). Information technology’s impact on school–parents and parents–student interrelations: a case study. Computers & Education, 47(3), 260-279.
Tyler, R. W. (2010). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago press.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
Waldrop, M. M. (2013). Campus 2.0.
http://moodle.unitec.ac.nz/pluginfile.php/267814/mod_forum/attachment/160208/Nature%2014%20March%202013%20Campus%202.0.pdf
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23.
Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 703-713.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Goal setting: A key proactive source of academic self-regulation. In D. H.Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research,and Applications (pp.267-295). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.