臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究目的在探討電腦化動態評量教學系統對增進綜合高中二年級商業學程學生會計學分錄單元之學習成效，並從測驗歷程記錄歸納出使用評量次數的多寡對學習成效造成的差異，最後透過問卷結果，以瞭解學生使用動態評量系統時的學習態度。
本研究以台南縣某實施綜合高中二年級選讀商業學程學生34位為研究對象，先施予自編會計學分錄單元前測測驗，將研究對象依上學期會計學的學期成績，分為高、中、低三組進行準實驗研究之單組前後測設計，三組均接受電腦化動態評量機制介入處理，實驗後三組均施予自編分錄單元後測測驗，資料分析採用統計軟體paired-t 檢定。
接著分析受測者歷程記錄，依據受試者在連續評量機制中接受評量並通過的次數，分為高次數、中次數、低次數三組別作為自變數，後測成績作為依變數，資料分析採用統計軟體單因子變異數分析（One-Way ANOVA）進行檢驗。
最後使用問卷調查，以統計軟體進行問卷之次數分配分析、平均數及標準差，以分析學生對會計學「後設認知」、「系統設計」、「動態評量系統功能」、「使用滿意度」四部分的看法。
其研究結論如下：
一、電腦化動態評量系統實施於高、中、低三組學生時，發現各組學生在前後測上均呈現顯著差異，有明顯進步。
二、學生運用連續評量機制學習，發現受試者使用評量使用度及完成度越高者，成績進步越顯著。
三、由問卷調查結果發現，學生普遍認為會計學是門困難的學科，但選讀綜高商業學程的學生多半對會計學有興趣、也會主動學習或與同學師長討論；對於系統採連續評量機制及運用專家概念圖設計，並針對受試者錯誤類型給予引導說明，認為有助於分錄知識的建構；雖然有部分學生不熟悉電腦操作或不接受系統引導說明進行學習，而導致進步較少，但仍有85.3%的受試者認為此系統值得推薦給大家。
最後研究者提出教學上及研究上的建議，以供後續研究之參考。

The purpose of this research is to investigate how the computerized dynamic assessment system improves the learning effectiveness of 2nd-grade comprehensive high school students in terms of studying debits and credits. Based on the records kept during the experimental process, it is aimed to generalize how the frequency of using assessments affects the learning effectiveness, and according to the results of questionnaires to finally understood students’ attitudes while they were using the computerized dynamic system.
The 34 subjects of this study were selected from students specializing in the department of accounting affairs, of a comprehensive high school located in Tainan County. All the subject students were given self-made pretests and post-tests. According to their scores of the former semester, subjects were sorted into three groups of low, average, and high levels, and the whole experiment was conducted under the one-group pretest-posttest design. In addition, collected data was examined by paired-t.
On the basis of test records and the frequency of passing the tests conditioned under continuous assessments, subjects were divided into three groups of high frequency, medium frequency and low frequency, which respectively served as independent variables while post-test results served as dependent variables on the other hand. Collected statistics were analyzed by One-Way ANOVA.
Questionnaires were the final step to analyze number of distribution as well as mean and standard deviation in order to figure out students’ reactions toward the following four categories: “Self-knowledge of Accounting,” “Dynamic Assessment System Design,” “Dynamic Assessment System Functionality,” and “User Satisfaction.”
The conclusions of this research were as follows:
1. The application of Computerized Dynamic Assessment System has visibly enhanced performances of subject students of high, average, and low levels.
2. Conditioned under continuous assessments, the more frequently subjects completed the tests, the more they improved on their scores.
3. The results of questionnaires showed that students commonly believed accounting is a difficult subject but those choosing to specialize in accounting in the comprehensive high school were more interested in accounting, more motivated to learn, and more involved in discussions with classmates and teachers. Continuous assessments, integrating concept maps in the accounting course, and error-type notes for guidance, all greatly assisted in building up students’ concepts of debits and credits. However, some of the students were either unfamiliar with using computers or refuse guided instructions for learning, which accordingly led to little improvement in their performance. Apart from that, up to 85.3% of the subjects considered this system worth to recommending to others.
Last, it is hoped to offer some suggestions for teaching as well as for further research.

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... II
誌謝......................................................................................................................................... IV
目錄.......................................................................................................................................... V
表目錄....................................................................................................................................VII
圖目錄..................................................................................................................................... IX
一、緒論................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 研究動機與目的.......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 研究問題與假設.......................................................................................................... 4
1.3 名詞釋義...................................................................................................................... 5
二、文獻探討............................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 動態評量...................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 概念構圖.................................................................................................................... 18
2.3 會計教育簡介............................................................................................................ 22
三、研究設計.......................................................................................................................... 26
3.1 研究對象.................................................................................................................... 26
3.2 研究設計.................................................................................................................... 27
3.3 研究預試.................................................................................................................... 31
3.4 資料蒐集與分析........................................................................................................ 37
四、電腦化動態評量系統建置.............................................................................................. 39
4.1 內容分析.................................................................................................................... 39
4.2 會計分錄之專家概念圖............................................................................................ 43
4.3 系統架構.................................................................................................................... 46
4.4 系統介面.................................................................................................................... 48
4.5 系統評論.................................................................................................................... 57
五、研究結果.......................................................................................................................... 58
5.1 電腦化動態評量系統對學生的學習成效分析........................................................ 58
5.2 運用電腦化動態評量系統不同使用度及完成度的學生學習成效分析................ 65
5.3 學生使用電腦化動態評量系統的學習態度分析.................................................... 75
六、結論與建議...................................................................................................................... 85
VI
6.1 結論............................................................................................................................ 85
6.2 建議............................................................................................................................ 87
參考文獻................................................................................................................................. 89
附錄一、「分錄單元成就測驗」前測試題............................................................................ 97
附錄二、「分錄單元成就測驗」後測試題............................................................................ 99
附錄三、學生的學習態度問卷............................................................................................ 100
附錄四、學生依上學期學期成績分組及前測、後測成績................................................ 102
附錄五、學生的前後測成績及使用度................................................................................ 103
附錄六、學生的學習歷程記錄............................................................................................ 104

●英文部分
Allan, A. G. (2003). Cooperative chemistry – Concept Mapping in the Organic Chemistry Lab. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32(5), 311-315.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Beckmann, N., Beckmann, J. F., & Elliott, J. G. (2009). Self-confidence and performance goal orientation interactively predict performance in a reasoning test with accuracy feedback. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 277-282.
Berman, J., & Graham, L. (2002). School counsellor use of curriculum-based dynamic assessment. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 12, 21-40.
Buckingham, B. R. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 271-275.
Buddoff, M. (1974). Learning potential and educability among the educable mentally retarded. Final Report Project No.312312. Cambridge. MA: Research Istitute for Education Problem. Cambridge Mental Health Association.
Budoff, M., & Corman, L. (1974). Demographic and psychometric factors related to improved performance on the Kohs learning potential procedure. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 78, 578-585.
Burns, M. S., Vye, N. J., & Bransford, J. D. (1987).Static and dynamic measures of learning in young handicapped children. Diagnostique, 12(2), 59-73.
Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). The Predictive Validity of Dynamic Assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 254-270.
Campione, J. C. (1989). Assisted assessment: A taxonomy of approaches and an outline of strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Learning Desabilities, 22(3), 151-165.
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz(ED.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluation learning potential(pp. 82-115). New York: Guiford Press.
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1990). Guided learning and transfer: Implications for approaches to assessment. In N. Frederiksen, R. Glaser, A. Lesgold, & M. G. Shafto (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Carlson, J. S. & Wiedl, K. H. (1978). Use of testing-the limits procedures in the assessment of intellectual capabilities in children with learning difficulties. American Journal of Deficiency, 82, 559-564.
Carlson, J. S. & Wiedl, K. H. (1979). Toward a differential testing approach: Testing-the limits employing the Raven matrices. Intelligence, 3, 323-344.
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (1979). Towards a differential testing approach: Testing the limits employing the Raven Matrices. Intelligence, 3, 323-344.
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (1980). Applications of a dynamic testing approach in intelligence assessment: Empirical results and theoretical formulations. Zeitschrift fur Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 1, 303-318.
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (2000). The validity of dynamic assessment. In Lidz, C. S., & Elliott, J. G. (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications. Vol. 6 (pp.681-712). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Carlson, J. S., & Wield, K. H. (1978). Use of testing-the limits procedures in the assessment of intellectual capabilities in children with learning difficulties. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 82, 559-564.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
Carroll, J. B. (1989). The Carroll model - A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Research, 18(1), 26-31.
Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., Chang, R.-B., & Lin, S.-C. (2005). A New Assessment for Computer-based Concept Mapping. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (3), 138-148.
Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., Chang, R.-B., & Lin, S.-C. (2005). A New Assessment for Computer-based Concept Mapping. Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), 138-148.
Dearborn, W. F. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 210-212.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale Development Theory and Applications. London: SAGE.
Donald, S., & Barbara, Y. (2003). Using concept mapping to aid African American students’ understanding in middle grade science. The Journal of Negro Education, 72(3), 333-337.
Donovan. (1983). Using concept mapping in the biology classroom. ERIC Document ReproductionService NO ED260925.
Dörfler T., Golke S., Artelt C. (2009). Dynamic assessment and its potential for the assessment of reading competence. Studies in Educational Evalustion, 35, 77-82.
Ebel, R. L. (1979). Essentials of educational measurement (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Embretson, S.E. (1987). Toward development of a psychometric approach. In C. S. Lidz(Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluation learning potential, 141-170. New York: Guiford Press.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
Ferretiti, R. P., & Butterfield, E. C. (1992). Intelligence-related differences in the learning, maintenance, and transfer of problem-solving strategies. Intelligence, 16, 207-224.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). The Dynamic Assessment of retarded performers：The learning potential assessment device theory, instruments, and techniques. Glenview, IL：Scott, Foresman and Company.
Frayer, D. A., & Klausmeier, H. J. (1971). Variables in concept learning: Task variables (No. 28). Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 057 402)
Gay, L.G. (1992). Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application, New York: Macmillan.
Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson. P. J. & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 88-96.
Haeussermann, E. (1958). Developmental potential of preschool children. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Haywood, H. C., Brown, A. L., &Wingenfeld, S.（1990）. Dynamic approaches to psychoeducational assessment. School Psychology Review, 19(4), 411-422.
Heather, J. Q., Joel, J. M., & Richard, A. L. (2003). Successive concept mapping. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(3), 12-16.
Heim, A. W. & Watts, K. P.（1957）. An experiment on practice, coaching, and discussion of errors in mental testing. British Journal of Education Psychology, 27, 199-210.
Hessels, M. G. P. (2009). Estimation of the predictive validity of the HART by means of a dynamic test of geography. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 8, 5-21.
Hsu, L., & Hsieh, S. (2005). Concept maps as an assessment tool in a nursing course. Journal of Professional Nursing, 21, 141-149.
Huer, M. B., & Saenz, T. I. (2003). Challenges and Strategies for Conducting Survey and Focus Group Research with Culturally Diverse Groups. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 209-220.
Hwang, G.-J. (2003). A conceptual map model for developing intelligent tutoring systems. Computers & Education, 40, 217-235.
Jensen, A. R. (1961). Learning abilities in Mexican-American and Anglo-American children. California Journal of Education Research, 12(4), 147-159.
Jensen, A. R. (1963). Learning ability in retarded, average, and gifted children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 9(2), 123-140.
Jensen, A. R. (1966). Verbal mediation and educational potential. Psychology in the Schools, 3, 99-109.
Jensen, A. R. (1969). Intelligence, learning ability and socioeconomic status. Journal of Special Education, 3(1), 23-33.
Jitendra, A. K., & Kameenui, E. J. (1993). An exploratory study of dynamic assessment involving two instructional strategies on experts and novices‘ performance in solving part-whole mathematical word problems. Diagnostique, 18(4), 305-25.
Kuder, G. F. & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151-160.
Lidz, C. S. (1987). Historical perspectives. In C. S. Lidzs(Ed.), Dynamic Assessment：An Interact ional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp.3-34). New York： The Guildford Press.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practioner’s guide of dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
Liu P.-L., Chen C.-J., & Chang Y.-J. (2010). Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college student’ English reading comrehension. Computers & Education, 54, 436-445.
Markham, K. M., Mintzes, J. J., & Jones, M. G. (1994). The concept as a research and evaluation tool: further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 91-101.
McPherson, M. W. (1948). a survey of experimental studies of learning in individuals who achieve subnormal ratings on standardized psychometric measures. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 152, 232-254.
Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J., & Novak, J. (2000). Assessing Science Understanding. San Diego: Academic Press.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1994). Chemical education research in the laboratory environment. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(3), 201-207.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1991). The effect of level of information as presented by different technologies on students’ understanding of acid, base, and pH concepts. (ERIC document reproduction service, ED347062)
Narciss, S. & Huth, K. (2006). Fostering achievement and motivation with bug-related tutoring feedback in a computer-based training on written subtraction. Learning and Instruction, 16, 310-322.
Narciss, S., & Hutha, K. (2006). Fostering achievement and motivation with bug-related tutoring feedback in a computer-based training for written subtraction. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 310-322.
Ｎovak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D. (1991). Clarify with concept maps. The Science Teacher, 58, 45-49.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ortar, G. R.（1959）. Improving test validity with coaching. Educational Research, 2, 137-142.
Penrose, L. S. (1934). Mental Defect. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.
Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. US: Springer.
Roark, Brian, & Demuth, Katherine. (2000). Prosodic constraints and the learner''s environment: A corpus study. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, S. Catherine Howell, Sarah A. Fish, and Thea Keith-Lucas (eds.), 597-608. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavlson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps on science assessment. Journal of research in science teaching, 33(6), 569-600.
Schucman, H. (1960). Evaluating the educability of the severely mentally retarded child. Psychological Monographs, 74(14, Whole NO. 501).
Semler, I. J. & Iscoe, I. (1963). Comparative and developmental study of the learning abilities of black and white chilred under four conditions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 38-44.
Simrall, D. (1947). Intelligence and the ability to learn. Journal of Psychology, 23, 27-43.
Skuy, M. et al(1988). Dynamic assessment of intellectually superior Israeli children in a low socio-economic status community. Gifted Education International, 5(2), 90-96.
Stanley, N. V., Siegel, J., Cooper, L., & Marshall, K. (1995). Identification of gifted with the dynamic assessment procedure. Gifted Education Internation, 10, 85-87.
Swanson, H. L. & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 321-363.
Tobias,S. (1982), When Do Instructional Methods. Educational Researcher 11, 4-9.
Tsai, C. C., Lin, S. S. J., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Students’ use of web-based concept map testing and strategies for learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learrning, 17, 72-84.
Tzuriel, D., & Feuerstein, R. (1992). Dynamic group assessment for prescriptive teaching: Differential effects of treatments. In H. C. Haywood, & D. Tzuriel (Eds.), Interactive assessment(pp. 187-206). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2002). The Effects of Mediation in Computer Assisted Dynamic Assessment. Journal of computer assisted Learning, 18, 21-32.
Volle, F. O. (1957). A proposal for “testing the limits” with mental defectives for the purpose of subtest analysis of the WISC verbal scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13(1), 64-67.
Vye, N. J., Burns, M. S., Delclos, V. R., & Bransford, J. D. (1985). Dynamic assessment of intellectually handicapped children: Alternative assessment of handicapped children. John F. Kennedy Center for Research on Education and Human Development.
Vye, N. J., Burns, M. S., Delclos, V. R., & Bransford, J. D. (1987). A comprehensive approach to assesssing intellectually handicapped children. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 479-496). New York: The Guilford Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waeytens, K., Lens, W., & Vandenberghe, R. (2002). ‘Learning to learn’: teachers’ conceptions of their supporting role. Learning and Instruction, 12, 305-322.
Wang, T.-H. (2010). Web-based dynamic assessment: Taking assessment as teaching and learning strategy for improving students’ e-Learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 54, 1157-1166.
Wiseman, S. & Wrigley, J. (1953). The comparative effects of coaching and practice on the results of verbal intelligence tests. British Journal of Education Psychology, 44, 83-94.
Woodrow, H. (1946). The ability to learn. Psychology Review, 53, 147-158.
Yates, A.（1953）. Symposium on the effects of coaching and practice in intelligence tests. I. An analysis of some recent investigations. British Journal of Education Psychology, 23, 47-162.
Zeilik, M., Schau, C., Mattern, N., Hall, S., Tregue, K. W., & Bisard, W. (1997). Conceptual astronomy: A novel model for teaching postsecondary science courses. American Journal of Physics, 65(10), 987-996.

●中文部分
丁振豐（2002）。平衡桿問題認知能力發展之連續性動態評量研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫編號：89-2413-H-024-034。
古明鋒（1998a）。加減法應用題語文知識對問題難度之影響暨動態評量在應用問題之學習與遷移歷程上研究。新竹師院學報，11，391-420。
古明鋒（1998b）：動態評量在加、減法文字題學習與遷移歷程之應用研究。新竹師院「初等教育學報」，6，1-32 。
朱經明（2000）。國小數學障礙兒童在動態評量中學習潛能與錯誤類型之分析。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫編號：88-2614-S-142-003。
何峻誠（2008）。社會發展過程技能檢定所扮演角色。網路社會學通訊，70。
何榮桂（1995）。數位化題庫之概念架構。國家菁英季刊，1(4)，149-157。
何榮桂（2001）。電腦化動態評量系統之設計與評估。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫編號：89-2520-S-003-005。
余民寧、陳嘉成（1996）。概念構圖：另一種評量方法。政大學報，73，161-200。
吳明隆（2000）。SPSS統計應用實務。台北市，松崗。
吳明鋗（2001）。二十一世紀的會計教學挑戰。技術及職業教育，61，13-16。
吳國銘、洪碧霞、邱上真（1995）。國小學童在動態評量中數學解題學習歷程與遷移效益之探討。測驗年刊，42，61-84。
呂文惠（2004）。動態評量於國小數學學習困難學童補救教學模式之應用。國科會專題研究成果報告編號： NSC 92-2521-S-126-001。
李建億、陳俊源（2003）。概念導引式網際網路學習環境對認知結構影響之研究。南師學報，37，19-37。
林秀娟（1993）。動態評量結合試題反應理論在空間視覺學習潛能評量之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理及輔導研究所碩士論文。
林素微（1996）。國小六年級學童數學解題彈性思考動態測驗之研究。台南市：國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
林素微、洪碧霞、林世華（2004）。國小高年級電腦化數感動態評量發展之探討。科技化測驗與能力指標評量國際學術研討會，台南市：國立臺南師範學院。
林達森（2004）。運用「概念構圖科學教學模式」在高中生物科生物能量教學的實徵研究。南大學報，38(2)，45-67。
張春興（1999）。教育心理學。台北：東華
張國恩（1998）。電腦化概念構圖在科學學習上的應用研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫編號：87-2511-S-003-042。
張新仁（1992）。認知心理學對教學的影響。教育研究雙月刊，28，13-50。
莊麗娟（1996）。Campione和Brown的漸進提示動態評量。高市文教，56，49-51。
莊麗娟（2001）。「多媒體動態評量」低獲益受試者之認知缺陷與協助策略分析。特殊教育研究學刊，21，109-133。
許家驊（2004）。多階段動態評量在現行國小課程數學文字題單元教學中之應用效益探析。 教育與心理研究，27(4)。國科會專題研究成果報告編號： NSC 91-2413-H-415-009。
許家驊（2005）。動態評量在發展國民小學解題補救教學系統上之應用效益分析研究。國科會專題研究成果報告編號： NSC 93-2413-H-415-006。
許家驊（2008）：不同策略教學及鷹架中介設計對國小學生解題學習潛能開展效益影響之動態評量研究。教育心理學報，39(4)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫編號：NSC 94-2413-H-415-005。
許家驊、邱上真、張新仁（2003）。多階段動態評量對國小學生數學學習促進與補救效益之分析研究。 教育心理學報，35(2)，141-166。
陳光谷（1994）。慎選有效的教學方法介紹會計。商業職業教育季刊，56，47-49。
陳桂霞、陳惠謙（2007）。電腦化動態評量在學習與遷移效益分析-以國小數學時間的計算單元為例。Journal of Information Technology and Applications, 2(2), 85-92。
曾千虹、耿正屏（民82）。國小、國中及高中學生之細胞概念發展。教育學刊，4，157-182。
黃光雄、簡茂發主編（1991）。教育研究法。台北市，師大書苑。
黃美珠（1997）。電腦輔助教學軟體設計原則之探討。視聽教育雙月刊, 38(5), 17-24。
楊坤堂（1998）。低成就學生的學習輔導策略。教育實習輔導季刊，3(2)，53-60。
楊坤堂（2004）。書寫語文學習障礙。台北市：心理，2004。
劉芳文（2006）。動態評量之初探。網路社會學通訊期刊，54。
賴阿福、陳志鴻（2006）。多媒體動態評量應用於國小自然與生活科技領域之學習成效。科學教育研究與發展季刊，專刊，91-113。
羅希哲、溫漢儒、曾國鴻（2007）。概念構圖融入電腦輔助教學法應用於綜合高中學生化學科之學習成效及態度之研究。科學教育學刊，15(2)，169-194。