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。

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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………...i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT.……………………………..………………...iii
CHINESE ABSTRACT….………………………………………………….v
LIST OF TABLES...………………………………………………………x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…..……………………………... 1
Background of the Research……………………………….. 1
Definition of Key Terms………………………………… 3
　 Purpose of the Study………………............. 4
Research Questions…… ……………………………… 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW……………… ………… 7
Teachers’ Beliefs…… ………………………………… 7
　 Definitions of Teachers Beliefs………………….7
　 Factors that Inform Teachers Beliefs…………9
　 Teachers’ Beliefs and Practice………… 11
Research on Teachers’ Beliefs in Taiwan…… … 14
Methodology for Exploring Teachers’ Beliefs… 16
ClassroomAssessment………………………………… …………….17
　 Definitions of Classroom Assessment………… …… ..17
Research on Classroom Assessment….……………… ..20
The Relationship between Classroom Assessment, Teaching,
and Learning ……….24
Research on Classroom Assessment in Taiwan……… … ..27
Research on Teachers’ Beliefs about Assessment……… ..28
Conclusion………………..…………………………………… 29
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.……………………… .31
Participants…….…………………………….…. 31 　
Data Collection ……… ………..…..…………………34
Classroom Observations………………………………….. ..34　
Interviews with the Instructors………………… ………….35
Interview Questions…………………………………… …..37
　 Other Related Documents… …...………………………..39
Procedures of Data Collection.………………………… .39
Data Analysis…………… .………………………………….40
CHAPTER 4: TEACHERS’ ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES AND THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT LANGUAGE, LANGUAGE LEARNING, AND ASSESSMENT………..43
Instructor A’s Beliefs about Language, Language
Learning, and Assessment in General……..............43
Beliefs about Language and Language Learning……43
Beliefs about Assessment in General…………………… 45
Beliefs about Planning and Evaluating Assessment … 46
Beliefs about Planning Assessment......... 46
Beliefs underlying the Requirements of Course
A “Freshman English”………………46
Beliefs underlying the Grading Policies of
Course A “Freshman English”………………… 51
Beliefs underlying the Requirements of Course
B “Guided Writing”………………… ……55
Beliefs underlying the Grading Policies of
Course B “Guided Writing”…………………60
Beliefs about Evaluating Assessment…………….62
Beliefs about Implementing Assessment…………….…63
　Major Assessment Activities Employed by Instructor A….64
Course A “Freshman English”........... .64
Course B “Guided Writing”…………………… .67
Instructor B’s Beliefs about Language, Language
Learning, and Assessment in General……..............43
Beliefs about Language and Language Learning……43
Beliefs about Assessment in General…………………… 45
Beliefs about Planning and Evaluating Assessment … 46
Beliefs about Planning Assessment......... 46
Beliefs underlying the Requirements of Course
A “Freshman English”………………46
Beliefs underlying the Grading Policies of
Course A “Freshman English”………………… 51
Beliefs underlying the Requirements of Course
B “Guided Writing”………………… ……55
Beliefs underlying the Grading Policies of
Course B “Guided Writing”…………………60
Beliefs about Evaluating Assessment…………….62
Beliefs about Implementing Assessment…………….…63
　Major Assessment Activities Employed by Instructor B….64
Course A “Freshman English”........... .64
Course B “Guided Writing”…………………… .67
Summary..……………………………………………………91
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION…………………………………… …..93
The Instructors’ Beliefs and Practices in Assessment… 93　
Effects of Beliefs on Assessment ...…………… .96
Incongruency between Teacher’s Beliefs and Practices
of Assessment..................................…105
Other Factors Influencing the Two Instructors’
Assessment Practices.….106
Constraints on the Implementation of Assessment and the
Coping Strategies..110
The Instructors’ Coping Strategies and Prioritizing
Principles to Solve the
Constraints on the Implementation of Assessment…………110
Instruments of Assessment and Grading Practices………..115
Instruments of Assessment………………………………..115
Grading Practices…………………………………………..117
The Gap between Grading Policies and Grading Practice…118
The Two Instructors’ Follow-ups after Assessment………120
Sharing………………………………………………………121
Re-teaching…………………………………………………121
Taking Remedial Measures…..………………………….121
Offering Feedback...…………………………………….122
The Difference between the Instructors’ Beliefs about Assessment....125
Summary..……………….....………………………………….127
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS…………………………..129
Conclusion……….……………………………………………..129
Implications...………….………….…………………………131
Limitations of the Study………………………………………….132
REFERENCES…...………………………………………………………135
APPENDICES..………………………………………………………….141
APPENDIX A Pre-designed Interview Questions……………..141
APPENDIX B…Interview Questions Concerning Freshman English and Guided Writing Following the Pre-designed Interviews with the instructors.......................................143
APPENDIX C…Documents from the Instructors...………………………………..147
APPENDIX D…Documents from the Students…………………………….………151
　
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3-1 The schedule for classroom observations………………………………35
3-2 Focuses of the formal interviews……………………………………….36
3-3 Focuses of the informal interviews………………………………….….37
4-1 The interconnection between beliefs about language and language
learning and beliefs about assessment within the two
instructors........................................................……….......................…..92
5-1 Congruence between Instructor A’s beliefs and practices………………94
5-2 Congruence between Instructor B’s beliefs and practices…………..… 95
5-3 Incongruency between Instructor A’s belief and practice......................95
5-4 Incongruency between Instructor B’s belief and practice..........……….. 96

REFERENCES
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.
Brown, G., Bull, J. & Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing student learning in higher education. NY: Routledge.
Brookhart, S. M. (1997). A theoretical framework for the role of classroom assessment in motivation student effort and achievement. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 161-180.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teacher thinking. Educational Researcher, 17, 2, 5-12.
Cizek, G. J., Fitzgerald, S., & Rachor, R. E. (1995). Teachers’ assessment practices: Preparation, isolation and the kitchen sink. Educational Assessment, 3, 2, 159-179.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: beliefs and knowledge. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp.709-725). New York: Macmillan.
Duffy, G. (1981). Theory to practice: How does it work in real classrooms? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED204715)
Dobson, R. L., & Dobson, J. E. (1983). Teacher belief-practice congruency. Viewpoints in Teaching and Learning, 5, 20-27.
Duffy, G. G. & Anderson, L. (1989). Editorial comment: guest commentary teachers’ theoretical orientations and the real classroom. Reading Psychology, 10, 97-104.
Eisenbach, R. Golich, V., & Curry, R. (1998). Classroom assessment across the disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 75, 3, 59-67.
Goodman, F. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of preservice teachers’ professional perspectives. Teaching & Teacher Education, 49, 121-137.
Graden, E. C. (1996). How language teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction are mediated by their beliefs about students. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 3, 387-395.
Genesee, F. and Upshur, J. (1996). Classroom-based evaluation in second language education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gredler, M. E. (1999). Classroom assessment and learning. MA: Longman.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60, 5, 6-10.
Impara, J. C., Plake, B. S.,& Fager, J. J. (1993). Teachers’ assessment background and attitude toward testing. Theory into Practice, 32, 2, 113-117.
Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R. & Winters. L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, Va: ASCD.
Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education, 4, 3, 365-37.
Hounsell, D. (Ed.) 1997. Rethinking assessment. London: Kogan Page.
Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 1, 83-108.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27, 1, 65-90.
Lee, C. B. (李鈞璧) (1996). 二位中學生物教師信念之詮釋性研究 [An interpretive research of the two elementary school biology teachers'' belief]. Master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
Marcelo, C., (1978). A study of implicit theories and beliefs about teaching in the elementary school teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED281835)
Munby, H. (1984). A qualitative approach to the study of a teacher’s beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 27-38.
Mayer, R. (1985). Recent research on teacher beliefs and its use in the improvement of instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED259457).
McDermott, P., Gormley, K., Rothenberg, J., & Hammer, J. (1995). Journal of Teacher Education, 46, 3, 184-191.
Mavrommatis, Y. (1997). Understanding assessment in the classroom: Phases of the assessment process --The assessment episode. Assessment in Education, 4, 3, 381-399.
McMillan J. H. (1997). Classroom assessment: Principle and practice for effective instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
McMillan, J. H., Myran, S., & Workman, D. (2002). Elementary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 4, 203-213.
Nien, Y-H. (粘玉秀) (2002). 教師信念及其對教學行為的影響：一位高中英文教師的個案研究 [Teacher beliefs and their influence on classroom practice: A case study of a senior high school English teacher]. Master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Ory, J. C., & Ryan, K. E. (1993). Tips for improving testing and grading. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 3, 307-332.
Phye, G. D. (Ed.), (1995). Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning adjustment and achievement. Iowa State University: Academic Press.
Rueda, R. & Garcia, E. (1994). Teachers’ beliefs about reading assessment with Latino language minority students. Paper presented from the Office of Educational Research an Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED376721)
Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training: perspectives on language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rea-Dickins, P. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: identifying processes of classroom assessment. Language Testing, 18, 4, 429-462.
Shavelson, R. J., & Borko, H. (1979). Research on teachers’ decisions in planning instruction. Educational Horizons, 57, 183-189.
Salmon-cox, L. (1981). Teachers and standardized achievement tests: What’s really happening? Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 631-634.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 4, 455-498.
Stiggins, R. J. (1985). Improving assessment where it means the most: in the classroom. Education Leadership, 43, 2, 69-75.
Stiggins, R. J., & N. J. Bridgeford. (1985). The ecology of classroom assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 271-286.
Stiggins, R. J., Conklin, N. F., & Bridgeford, N. J. (1986). Classroom assessment: A key to effective education. Educational Measurement: Issues and practice, 5, 2, 5-17.
Stiggins, R. J. (1988). Revitalizing classroom assessment: The highest instructional priority. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 5, 363-368.
Stiggins, R. J. (1991). Relevant classroom assessment training for teachers. Educational measurement, 10, 1, 7-12.
Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeicher, K. M. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience on the development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 6, 28-36.
Wu, K. B. (吳崑檳) (1999). 評量課中的評量：一位師資培育者評量信念的詮釋研究 [The assessment practices in the assessment courses: an interpretative study of beliefs about assessment of a teachers’ educator]. Master’s thesis, National Taipei Teachers College, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Wu, C. F. (吳瓊鳳) (2002). 國高中實習教師英語閱讀教學信念及閱讀教學研究 [The Study on High School Trainees’ Theoretical Orientations Toward Reading Instruction and Reading Instructional Practices]. Master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1990). The contextual nature of teaching: Mathematics and reading instruction in one second-grade classroom. Elementary School Journal, 90, 497-513.