近年來，同儕互評已經吸引了不少教育與研究學者的注意，被視為是一種創新的評量方式。為了充實同儕互評研究的相關基礎，本論文旨在探索高中生進行線上同儕互評時，在評論他人作品、與修正自己作品時的認知表現和行為模式。本研究共有44位高中學生參加，在透過OPASS（線上同儕互評效能）與MOPAS （線上同儕互評動機）問卷工具收集、同步電腦操作錄影觀察，與提示回憶訪談等資料分析後，研究結果顯示，OPASS與MOPAS 能有效量測學生進行線上同儕互評的自我效能與動機，擁有高自我效能的學生，顯現出較高度的動機與較多的學習進步量。此外，本研究將學生依自我效能分成四個群組進行觀察，也發現不同群組表現出不同的認知行為與行為模式；對以上之觀察與結果，本研究於文末亦提出了相關結論，與未來研究建議。

Peer assessment (PA) is an innovative evaluation method that has caught both educators' and practitioners' attention in recent years. Several theories and empirical studies have suggested that peer assessment practices can enhance the learning outcomes. To contribute to the field of peer assessment, the present study focused on not only the assessment aspect, but the learning aspect during online peer assessment. To do this, students’ self-efficacy, motivation and thinking processes, namely categories of cognitive behaviors, during the online peer assessment activity were explored. A total of 44 senior high school students participated in this study. The results indicated that OPASS (Online Peer Assessment Self-efficacy Scale) and MOPAS (Motivation of Online Peer Assessment Scale) were valid instruments for measuring students’ self efficacy and motivation for online peer assessment. Students with higher self efficacy showed higher motivation and more progression in their online projects. When students were further clustered into four groups based on their scores in OPASS, different groups demonstrated different learning process (behavioral patterns). Based on these findings and observations, some conclusions were proposed and implications were also discussed.

Aholaakko, T. K. (2011). Reducing surgical nurses’ aseptic practice‐related stress. Journal of clinical nursing, 20(23‐24), 3339-3350
Anderson, L.W., and D.R. Krathwohl, eds. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Bakeman, R. & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: an introduction to sequential analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995). Log-linear approaches to lag-sequential analysis when consecutive codes may and cannot repeat. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 272–284.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2008). ActSds and OdfSds: Programs for converting INTERACT and The Observer data files into SDIS timed-event sequential data files. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 869–872.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2012). Behavioral observation. In H. Cooper (Ed.-in-Chief), P. Camic, D. Long, A. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Assoc. Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology: Vol. 1. APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Psychological research: Foundations, planning, methods, and psychometrics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K. & Mylonas, A. (2002). Developing Procedures for Implementing Peer Assessment in Large Classes Using an Action Research Process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27 (5), 427-441.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122−147.
Bandura, A. (1986).Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1997).Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulick, C. L. C., Kulick, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The
instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–238.
Bao, M., Egi, T., & Han, Y. (2011). Classroom study on noticing and recast features: Capturing learner noticing with uptake and stimulated recall. System, 39(2), 215-228.
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science
education. Science Education, 85, 536-553.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 497−505.
Bloom, B.S., and D.R. Krathwohl. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans.
Brindley, C. & Scoffield, S. (1998). Peer Assessment in Undergraduate Programmes.
Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 79-89.
Cestone, C. M., Levine, R. E., & Lane, D. R. (2008). Peer assessment and evaluation in teambased learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 116, 69-78.
Chittenden, A. H. R. (2002). A pastoral care teacher’s theory of action, interactive thinking and effective teaching practice, Pastoral Care in Education, 20, 3-10.
Chen, N.-S., Wie, C.-W., Wu, K.-T., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computers and Education, 52, 283-291.
Cheng, K. H., & Hou, H. T. (2013). Exploring students’ behavioural patterns during online peer assessment from the affective, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives: a progressive sequential analysis. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, (ahead-of-print), 1-18.
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328-338.
De Grave, W. S., Boshuizen, H. P. A. & Schmidt, H. G. (1996). Problem based learning: cognitive and metacognitive processes during problem analysis. Instructional Science, 24, 321–341.
Delaney, D. W. (2011). Elementary General Music Teachers’ Reflections on Instruction. Applications of Research in Music Education, 29(2), 41-49.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 331-350.
Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 175-187.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287-322.
Fernandez, C. (2010). Effects of Frequency in Classroom Second Language Learning: Quasi‐Experimental and Stimulated‐Recall Analysis by TODE, TOMOKO. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 352-353.
Gagné, R.M. 1968. Learning hierarchies. Educational Psychologist, 6, 1–9.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness s of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304-315.
Griffiths, R. (2011). Exploring children’s interest in seeing themselves on video: metacognition and didactics in mathematics using ‘Photobooth’. Informal proceedings of the British Society of Research into Learning Mathematics, 31(1), 61.
Hafner, J. C., & Hafner, P. M., (2003). Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: an empirical study of student peer-group rating. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1509-1528.
Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research and Development, 20, 53–70.
Harlen, W. (2007). Holding up a mirror to classroom practice. Primary Science Review, 100, 29–31.
Hou, H. T. (2010). Exploring the behavioural patterns in project-based learning with online discussion: Quantitative content analysis and progressive sequential analysis. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3).
Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2007). An analysis of peer assessment online discussions within a course that uses project-based learning. Interactive learning environments, 15(3), 237-251.
Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2008). Analysis of Problem-Solving-Based Online Asynchronous Discussion Pattern. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(1).
Hou, H. T., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2009). Exploring the behavioral patterns of an online knowledge-sharing discussion activity among teachers with problem-solving strategy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 101-108.
Hou, H. T., & Wu, S. Y. (2011). Analyzing the social knowledge construction behavioral patterns of an online synchronous collaborative discussion instructional activity using an instant messaging tool: A case study. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1459-1468.
Hsu, L. L. (2010). Metacognitive Inventory for nursing students in Taiwan: instrument development and testing. Journal of advanced nursing, 66(11), 2573-2581.
Hsu, C. Y., Tsai, M. J., Hou, H. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Epistemic Beliefs, Online Search Strategies, and Behavioral Patterns While Exploring Socioscientific Issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(3), 471-480.
Johannesson, E., Silén, C., Kvist, J., & Hult, H. (2013). Students’ experiences of learning manual clinical skills through simulation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18(1), 99-114.
Kagima, L. K., & Hausafus, C. O. (2000). Integration of electronic communication in higher education: Contributions of faculty computer self-efficacy. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 221−235.
Kocakülah, M. S. (2010). Development and application of a rubric for evaluating students’ performance on Newton’s laws of motion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 146-164.
Kostopoulou, O. (2010). Diagnosis of difficult cases in primary care. Journal of health Services Research & Policy, 15(1), 71-74.
Liang, J.-C., Tsai, C. C. (2010). Learning through science writing via online peer assessment in a college biology course. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 242–247.
Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 420-432.
Lindsay, C., & Clarke, S. (2001). Enhancing primary science through self– and paired–assessment. Primary Science Review, 68, 15–18.
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290.
Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: a report on its use in naturalistic research,
British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861-878
McDowell, L (1995). The impact of innovative assessment on student learning, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 32 (4), 302–13.
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308.
Muir, T. (2010). Using video-stimulated recall as a tool for reflecting on the teaching of mathematics. Shaping the future of mathematics education, 438-445.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.
Olson, V. L. B. (1990). The revising process of six-grade writers with and without peer feedback. Journal of Educational Research, 84 (1), 22-29.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (1996). The importance of Marking Criteria in the Use of Peer-Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 239-250.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: the science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Russ, R. S., & Luna, M. J. (2013). Inferring teacher epistemological framing from local patterns in teacher noticing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 284-314.
Schneider, C., Pakzad, U., & Schlüter, K. (2013). The Influence of Personal School Experience in Biology Classes on the Beliefs of Students in University Teacher Education. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1(2), 197-210.
Searby, M., & Ewers, T. (1997). An evaluation of the use of peer assessment in higher
education: a case study in the School of Music, Kingston University. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22, 371-383.
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286–306.
Smith, P.L., and T.J. Ragan. (2000). The impact of R.M. Gagné’s work on instructional theory. In The legacy of Robert M. Gagné, ed. R.C. Richey, 147–81. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.
Smith, R. A. (1990). Are peer ratings of student debates valid? Teaching of Psychology, 17(3), 188-189.
Strijbos, J. W., & Sluijsmans, D. M.(2010). Unraveling peer assessment: methodological, functional and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20, 265-269.
Tode, T. (2012). Schematization and sentence processing by foreign language learners: A reading-time experiment and a stimulated-recall analysis.
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.
Topping, K. J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy & E. Cascaller (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: in search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–87). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20-27.
Topping, K. J., Smith, F. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 149-169.
Tsai, C. C., & Liang, J. C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views. Instructional Science, 37(3), 293-310.
Tseng, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-C.(2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49, 1161–1174.
Tseng, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-C.(2010). Taiwan college students' self-efficacy and motivation of learning in online peer assessment environments. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 164–169.
Tsivitanidou, O., Zacharia, Z. C. & Hovardas, A. (2011). High school students’ unmediated potential to assess peers: unstructured and reciprocal peer assessment of web-portfolios in a science course. Learning and Instruction, 21, 506-519.
Turner, S., & Perez-Quinones, M. A. (2009). Exploring peer review in the computer science classroom. arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.3456.
Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A.(2006). Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 341-356.
Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2010). The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction, 20, 316-327.
Van Zundert, M. J., Könings, K. D., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). Teaching domain-specific skills before peer assessment skills is superior to teaching them simultaneously. Educational Studies, 38(5), 541-557.
Van Zundert, M.J., Sluijsmans, D.M.A., Könings, K.D., and Van Merriënboer, J.J.G.. (2012). The differential effects of task complexity on domain-specific and peer assessment skills. Educational Psychology, 32, 137–45.
Van Zundert, M.J., Sluijsmans, D. M.A., & Van Merriënboer, J. J.G.. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270-279.
Venables, A., & Summit, R. (2003). Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40 (3), 281-290.
Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51, 27-44.
Wen, M. L., Tsai, C. C., & Chang, C. Y. (2006). Attitudes toward peer assessment: A comparison of the perspectives of pre-service and in-service teachers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 83-92.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory
mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407−415.
Yang, Y. F., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20, 72−83.
Yu, F. Y. (2011). Multiple peer-assessment modes to augment online student question-generation processes. Computers & Education, 56(2), 484-494.
Yu, F. Y., & Wu, C. P. (2011). Different identity revelation modes in an online peer-assessment learning environment: Effects on perceptions toward assessors, classroom climate and learning activities. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2167-2177.
Yu, F.-Y., & Wu, C.-P. (2013). Predictive effects of Online Peer feedback types on performance quality. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (1), 332–341.
Yu, F.-Y., & Wu, C.-P. (2013). Predictive effects of online peer feedback types on performance quality. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (1), 332–341.