數位科技對於教育領域的發展，不同的學科均有很大的變革，其中，對於傳統藝術設計的課程，亦有相當程度的影響。傳統藝術設計課程，學生在學習過程中，如何獲得教師的回饋，對於藝術設計課程的學習，是一個很重要的關鍵。然而，傳統教學模式常因班級人數眾多，導致教師難以對每位學生作品進行即時且深入的個別化回饋，進而形成教學資源分配不均與回饋效能受限的問題。有鑑於此，建構以同儕為核心的回饋機制，已成為提升學生學習互動與作品評量品質的關鍵教學策略，同儕回饋機制對回饋者而言，有助於培養評估能力、批判性思考與後設認知策略；對被回饋者而言，則能提供多元觀點與具建設性的建議，促進自我反思與作品修正，進而提升整體參與感受與創作品質。
隨著數位科技的成熟發展，透過社會學習網絡平台進行的同儕回饋機制，能有效紀錄學生回饋歷程，提供即時互動功能，促進學生在非同步學習環境中進行更具深度且有意義的互動交流。因此，本研究旨在探討運用社會學習網絡平台所支援之同儕回饋機制，對藝術設計學生在回饋歷程中的學習表現與認知發展之影響。研究採單組後測實驗設計，以某大學設計系基礎設計課程中48位一年級學生為研究對象，進行為期16週的實驗教學，期間實施三回合匿名的線上同儕回饋活動。學生透過研究者團隊開發的社會學習網絡平台CoCoing.info，課後能進行評分與即時文字回饋。研究資料包含問卷調查結果、作品評分紀錄、同儕回饋語句及平台使用之行為序列紀錄。資料分析採用SPSS進行描述性統計與相關性分析，並透過滯後序列分析法，深入探討學生多回合回饋歷程中的行為改變與認知發展趨勢。
研究針對學生的評分行為與回饋內容進行以下四個面向之分析：(1) 學生對同儕回饋的接受性、公平性認知與參與感受之感受；(2) 學生與教師評分結果的一致性與相關性；(3) 同儕回饋語句在情感、認知與後設認知層面之發展變化；(4) 學生回饋歷程中之時間序列特徵與行為轉換變化。
研究結果顯示：(1) 學生普遍對數位同儕回饋具有高度接受性，並肯定其評量公平性，認為有助於提升自身的創作能力；(2) 學生與教師的評分結果在第三次作業表現出顯著且高度的相關性，說明隨著活動推展，學生回饋能力逐步貼近教師水準；(3) 學生回饋語句內容主要聚焦於情緒支持與認知描述，且後設認知語句比例隨回饋次數增加而逐步提高，顯示學生在持續回饋活動中逐漸提升思考能力；(4) 行為序列分析揭示高、低分組學生在回饋策略與行為轉換的過程中存在明顯差異，特別是低分組學生在後期回饋的認知深度與持續性明顯下降，而高分組學生則表現出持續穩定且深度的回饋行為。
綜合而言，本研究指出透過社會學習網絡平台進行數位同儕回饋，學生普遍對此教學模式表現出高度的接受性與正向態度，且學生與教師間評分結果具高度一致性。此外，學生學習回饋行為在情緒支持、認知與後設認知歷程等層面皆呈現進展，顯示學生在歷經多回合回饋後，能較有效地參與知識建構與他人作品的評析活動。整體而言，本研究提供具體的實證結果，支持社會學習網絡結合同儕回饋機制於藝術教育創作作品課程中的應用價值，並為未來創作型課程的教學創新與實務設計提供參考依據。

The integration of digital technologies has brought transformative changes to education, particularly in fields such as art and design where iterative feedback and reflection practice a central role in student development. Traditional teaching models often struggle to deliver timely and individualized feedback due to constraints on time and instructional resources, especially in large classes. As a result, peer feedback has emerged as a promising strategy as an alternative strategy to enhance evaluative engagement and support learning through collaborative critique. Peer-based assessment not only fosters evaluative judgment, critical thinking, and metacognitive skills among reviewers, but also offers feedback recipients diverse perspectives to promote self-reflection and creative refinement.
This study investigates the implementation and outcomes of a digital peer feedback mechanism in a university-level foundational design course, supported by the CoCoing.info social learning network platform. Employing a one-group post-test experimental design, the study engaged 48 first-year undergraduate design students over a 16-week instructional period. Participants completed three rounds of anonymous peer assessments via the platform, engaging in structured scoring and asynchronous written feedback outside of regular class hours. Collected data included questionnaire responses, peer and instructor rating records, peer feedback statements coded by cognitive dimensions, and behavioral logs of interaction sequences on the platform.
Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses were conducted using SPSS, while Lag Sequential Analysis (LSA) was employed to examine behavioral patterns and developmental trajectories in peer feedback practices over time. The analysis was structured around four focal dimensions: (1) students’ perceived fairness and learning effectiveness of peer assessment; (2) correlations between peer and instructor ratings; (3) progression of emotional, cognitive, and metacognitive components in peer comments; and (4) behavioral transitions and sequential characteristics observed across the three feedback cycles.
The findings indicated that: (1) students generally reported high acceptance of digital peer feedback, perceived it as fair, and believed it contributed to enhancing their creative thinking; (2) a strong and statistically significant correlation was found between peer and instructor scores on the third assignment, suggesting that students’ evaluative ability improved over time and began to approximate that of their instructors; (3) feedback content was initially dominated by emotional support and cognitive observations, with metacognitive statements increasing progressively in each round, indicating a gradual development of higher-order thinking; and (4) LSA revealed distinct differences in feedback strategies between high- and low-achieving groups, with the latter showing a decline in cognitive depth and consistency over time, whereas the former maintained stable and reflective feedback patterns.
In summary, this study provides empirical evidence for the effectiveness of integrating social learning networks with structured peer assessment in art and design education. The results underscore the potential of such systems to cultivate reflective thinking, enhance the quality of peer interaction, and develop evaluative competence among students engaged in creative learning environments.

中文書目
張家慧、蔡銘修 (2018) 。淺談同儕作業互評與實施建議。臺灣教育評論月刊，7 (8) ，219-226。https://www-airitilibrary-com.ezproxy.lib.ncu.edu.tw/Article/Detail?DocID=P20130114001-201808-201808230011-201808230011-219-226
黃麗芳 (2005) 。視覺藝術科學習成果架構的建立。香港特別行政區教育局課程發展處藝術教育組委託研究計劃。https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/tc/curriculum-development/kla/arts-edu/resources/va-curri/Phase2Part1.pdf
楊晰勛、王馨儀 (2016) 。分析型評分規準應用於磨課師的設計類課程。文化創意產業研究學報，6 (3) ，11-22。https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.ncu.edu.tw/10.6639/JCCIR.2016.0603.02
劉光夏 (2021) 。跨越主觀：網路同儕互評應用於大學藝術設計課堂之實踐研究。設計學報，26 (2) ，69-92。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=16068327-202106-202107090008-202107090008-69-92

英文書目
Anderson, J., & Taner, G. (2023). Building the expert teacher prototype: A metasummary of teacher expertise studies in primary and secondary education. Educational Research Review, 38, 100485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100485
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2016). It's not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 103, 102-110.
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., Brooks, D. C., Saichaie, K., & Petersen, C. I. (2016). A guide to teaching in the active learning classroom. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction : an introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139017343
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995). Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bensur, B. J. (2002). Association frustrated voices of art assessment. Art Education, 55(6), 18-23.
Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. Routledge.
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325.
Çevik, Y. D. (2015). Assessor or assessee? Investigating the differential effects of online peer assessment roles in the development of students’ problem-solving skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 250- 258.
Chang, B., Shih, Y. A., & Lu, F. C. (2018). Co-construction concept through cloud- based social network platform design, implementation, and evaluation. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i5.3419
Chang, C.-Y., Lee, D.-C., Tang, K.-Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2021). Effect sizes and research directions of peer assessments: From an integrated perspective of meta-analysis and co-citation network. Computers & Education, 164, Article 104123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104123
Chen, Y. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). An educational research course facilitated by online peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 105-117.
Chen,Y.-T (2024). HTML-Lag-Sequential-Analysis (20240624.165348) [Computer software ]. Zenodo. https//doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.12513720
Cheng, K.-H., & Hou, H.-T. (2015). Exploring students’ behavioural patterns during online peer assessment from the affective, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives: a progressive sequential analysis. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.822416
Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B., & Ingraffea, A. (2007). Social networks, communication styles, and learning performance in a CSCL community. Computers & Education, 49(2), 309-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.07.00
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002
Dalipi, F., Idrizi, F., Kurti, A., Zaphiris, P., & Ioannou, A. (2017). Exploring the impact of social learning networks in m-learning: A case study in a university environment. Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Novel Learning Ecosystems, 10295, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58509-3_16
Davies, A., & Reid, A. (2000). Uncovering problematics in design education: Learning and the design entity. CLTAD, University of the Arts London.
Day, I. N. Z., Admiraal, W., Saab, N., Kift, S., Shah, M., & Thomas, L. (2021). Designing Assessment and Feedback to Improve Student Learning and Student Success. In Student Retention and Success in Higher Education (pp. 217-249). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80045-1_11
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Con tent analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6-28.
Forslind, E.-L., Hrastinski, S., & Forsler, I. (2024). Digital peer feedback on visual ideas: A study of eighth-grade students in visual art. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(6),3016-3033.
Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 20, 289-299.
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 315-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.019
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112.
Henderson, M., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., Dawson, P., Molloy, E., & Mahoney, P. (2019). Conditions that enable effective feedback. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(7), 1401-1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807
Henderson, M., Ryan, T., & Phillips, M. (2019). The challenges of feedback in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1237–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1599815
Hou, H.-T. (2011). A case study of online instructional collaborative discussion activities for problem-solving using situated scenarios: An examination of content and behavior cluster analysis. Computers & Education, 56(3), 712-719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.013
Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., & Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(1), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658765
Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8
Hung, W. (2019). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(1), 147-165.
Hwang, G.-J., Zou, D., & Wu, Y.-X. (2023). Learning by storytelling and critiquing: A peer assessment-enhanced digital storytelling approach to promoting young students’ information literacy, self-efficacy, and critical thinking awareness. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(3), 1079-1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10184-y
Jenkins, J. M., Garn, A., & Jenkins, P. (2005). Preservice Teacher Observations in Peer Coaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24(1), 2-23. Retrieved Feb 24, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.24.1.2
Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20, 344-348.
Kowalchuk, E.A. (1993). Novice and expert differences in art teaching: The effects of knowledge and experience. Arts Education Policy Review, 94(5), 16-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.1993.9936928
Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2015). An interactive peer-assessment criteria development approach to improving students' art design performance using handheld devices. Computers & Education, 85, 149-159.
Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2021). Peer feedback or peer feedforward? Enhancing students’ argumentative peer learning processes and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 768-784.
Li, H., Xiong, Y., Hunter, C. V., Guo, X., & Tywoniw, R. (2020). Does peer assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 193-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1620679
Linn, R. L., & Miller, M. D. (2005). Measurement and assessment in teaching (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009). “I really need feedback to learn:” students’ perspectives on the effectiveness of the differential feedback messages. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(4), 347-367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-009-9082-2
Logan, E. (2009). Self and peer assessment in action. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 3(1).
Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40, 257-275.
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
Noroozi, O., & De Wever, B. (2023). Assessing higher-order thinking through peer assessment: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 38, 100478.
Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., & Biemans, H. J. (2022). The role of argumentation-based learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 1-24.
Noroozi, O., Pijeira-Díaz, H. J., Sobocinski, M., Dindar, M., Järvelä, S., & Kirschner, P. A. (2020). Multimodal data indicators for capturing cognitive, motivational, and emotional learning processes: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 5499–5547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10229-w
Orr, S., & Bloxham, S. (2013). Making judgements about students making work: Lecturers’ assessment practices in art and design. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 12(2-3), 234-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022212467605
Panadero, E., & Alqassab, M. (2019). An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1253-1278. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186
Pardo, A., Jovanovic, J., Dawson, S., Gašević, D., & Mirriahi, N. (2019). Using learning analytics to scale the provision of personalised feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12592
Poulos, A., & Mahony, M. J. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: The students’ perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 143-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930601127869
Riley, N. R. (2006). Methods for evaluating critical learning using online discussion forums. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15, 63-78.
Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11, 1-31.
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), Article 926290246. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015
Smith, H., Cooper, A., & Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: A case for student and staff development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 71-81.
Strachan, I. B., & Wilcox, S. (1996). Peer and self assessment of group work: Developing an effective response to increased enrollment in a third-year course in microclimatology. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 20, 343-353.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76(3), 467-481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3
Tasker, T. Q., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2016). Using peer feedback to improve students’ scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(1),35-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9454-7
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in college and university. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276.
Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569
Tsai, C. C., Lin, S. S. J., & Yuan, S. M. (2002). Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system. Computers & Education, 38, 241-252.
Tsai, C. C., & Liang, J. C. (2009). The development of science activities through on-line peer assessment: A perspective of peer feedback types. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 98-109.
Tseng, S. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feed- back: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49, 1161-1174.
Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Peer assessment in university teaching: evaluating seven course designs. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500262346
Van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P. R.-J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.10.003
van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, T.-H., Hou, H.-T., & Wu, S.-Y. (2017). An analysis of social interaction in online peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(3), 249-259.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14.
Winstone, N. E., & Carless, D. (2019). Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach. Routledge.
Zhang, Y., Pi, Z., Chen, L., Zhang, X., & Yang, J. (2021). Online peer assessment improves learners’ creativity: Not only learners’ roles as an assessor or assessee, but also their behavioral sequence matter. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100950