因應2017年《師資培育法》調整先考試後實習，讓教育實習成績成為取得教師證書的重要依據。本研究基於國際趨勢與相關研究，建構以表現為本的實習成績評量制度，並蒐集利害關係人意見，以瞭解制度試辦的成效。本研究建構評量制度後經過試辦，回收實習學生330份、實習輔導教師255份、實習指導教師41份問卷後，運用SPSS 22軟體進行統計描述分析與質化編碼。本研究發現在表現評量任務的設計上，能讓利害關係人對教育實習歷程有整體性認識、促使實習輔導教師瞭解幫助實習學生方法、促進互動並增進實習輔導教師自我反思，以及減輕革新成績評量負擔的效果；在表現評量任務設計上，能精進實習學生專業教學能力，但任務表單的設計仍有調整的空間；在表現評量方法上，能讓評量實習學生表現更為客觀與具有共識。

» 展開更多

1. 丁志權（2004）。落實以學校為基地的實習輔導制度。載於國立教育資料館（主編），現代教育論壇十三卷（頁15-28）。國立教育資料館。【Tim, C.-C. (2004). Implement a school-based internship mentoring system. In Bulletin of the National Institute of Education Materials (Ed.), Modern educational forum, 13 (pp. 15-28). Bulletin of the National Institute of Education Materials.】
2. 王素芸、賴光真（2004）。教育實習的概念分析─論我國教育實習制度及其改革。國立編譯館館刊，32（1），48-59。【Wang, S.-Y., & Lai, K.-J. (2004). Discussion of the educational internship policy and it’s reform from analyzing concepts of educational practicum and internship. Journal of the National Institute for Compilation and Translation, 32(1), 48-59.】
3. 朱苑瑜、葉玉珠（2003）。實習教師信念改變的影響因素之探討。師大學報：教育類，48（1），41-65。https://doi.org/10.29882/JTNUE.200304.0003【Chu, Y.-Y., & Yeh, Y.-C. (2003). A study of influential factors to student teachers’ belief change. Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Education, 48(1), 41-65. https://doi.org/10.29882/JTNUE.200304.0003】
4. 吳清山（2006）。臺灣教育改革的檢討與策進：1994～2006年。教育資料集刊，32，1-21。【Wu, C.-S. (2006). Examination and improvement on educational reform in Taiwan: 1994-2006. Bulletin of Educational Resources and Research, 32, 1-21.】
5. 李麗玲、陳益興、郭淑芳、陳盛賢、楊思偉、連啟瑞、黃坤龍（2009）。師資培育政策回顧與展望（NAER-97-08-C-01-07-2-07）。國家教育研究院籌備處。【Ling, L.-L., Chen, Y.-H., Kuo, S.-F., Chen, S.-H., Yang, S.-W., Lien, C.-J., & Hung, K.-L. (2009). Prospects for teacher education reform in Taiwan (NAER-97-08-C-01-07-2-07). National Academy for Educational Research Preparatory Office.】
6. 林明地（2009）。近年來我國教育政策的關鍵問題與可能對策。學校行政，60，1-9。https://doi.org/10.6423/HHHC.200903.0001【Lin, M.-D. (2009). Critical questions of recent educational policies and possible coping strategies. School Administrators, 60, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.6423/HHHC.200903.0001】
7. 林凱胤、王國華（2007）。實習教師經由觀摩與反思途徑擷取輔導教師內隱知識之研究。屏東教育大學學報：教育類，27，31-50。【Lin, K.-Y., & Wang, K.-H. (2007). Practice teacher capture tacit knowledge through the interplay between observation and reflection. Journal of Pingtung University of Education: Education, 27, 31-50.】
8. 洪志成（2005）。教師檢定測驗不是教師專業最後防線。現代教育論壇，12，462-477。【Hung, C.-C. (2005). Teacher qualification exam is not the last line of defense for teachers. Modern Education Forum, 12, 462-477.】
9. 張芬芬（1995）。我國師範教育發展現況與評估研究。載於教育部（主編），第七次全國教育會議實錄（頁518-529）。教育部。【Chang, F.-F. (1995). A study on the status quo and evaluation of normal education development of R.O.C.. In Ministry of Education (Ed.), Record of the seventh national education conference (pp. 518-529). Ministry of Education.】
10. 張佳琳（2013）。美國公布第一套全國性師資培育標準本位表現評量─edTPA。取自https://fepaper.naer.edu.tw/edm.php?edm_no=41&content_no=2180【Chang, C.-L. (2013) The United States announced the first set of national performance evaluation standards for teacher education－edTPA. https://fepaper.naer.edu.tw/edm.php?edm_no=41&content_no=2180】
11. 符碧真（2018）。素養導向國教新課綱的師資培育：國立臺灣大學「探究式─素養導向的師資培育」理想芻議。教育科學研究期刊，63（4），59-87。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201812_63(4).0003【Fwu, B.-J. (2018). Teacher preparation in response to competence-based curriculum reform for K-12 education: National Taiwan University’s proposal of inquiry-based and competence-based teacher education. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 63(4), 59-87. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201812_63(4).0003】
12. 符碧真、黃源河（2016）。實地學習：銜接師資培育理論與實務的藥方？。教育科學研究期刊，61（2），57-84。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(2).03【Fwu, B.-J., & Hwang, Y.-R. (2016). Field-based experience: A solution for the theory-practice divide in teacher education? Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 61(2), 57-84. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(2).03】
13. 黃凱旻、金鈐（2003）。一個輔導中學數學實習教師教學概念轉變的行動研究。師大學報：科學教育類，48（1），23-46。https://doi.org/10.6300/JNTNU.2003.48(1).02【Huang, K.-M., & Chin, C. (2003). The effect of mentoring on the development of a secondary mathematics probationary teacher’s conception(s) of mathematics teaching: An action research. Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Mathematics & Science Education, 48(1), 23-46. https://doi.org/10.6300/JNTNU.2003.48(1).02】
14. 黃嘉莉（2012a）。美國師資培育認證制度之研究。載於楊深坑、王秋絨、李奉儒（主編），各國師資培育認證制度之比較（頁33-81）。高等教育。【Huang, J.-L. (2012a). A study on international comparison on the system of American teacher education accreditation. In S.-K. Yang, C.-J. Wang, & F.-J. Li (Eds.), International comparison on the system of teacher education accreditation (pp. 33-81). Higher Education.】
15. 黃嘉莉（2012b）。美國加州檢核職前教師表現制度之研究。教育研究與發展期刊，8（1），93-123。https://doi.org/10.6925/SCJ.201203_8(1).0004【Huang, J.-L. (2012b). A study on the system for examining pre-service teachers’ performance in California. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 8(1), 93-123. https://doi.org/10.6925/SCJ.201203_8(1).0004】
16. 黃嘉莉（2013）。我國教育實習制度設計之結構邏輯分析。教育研究與發展，9（3），115-142。https://doi.org/10.3966/181665042013090903005【Huang, J.-L. (2013). Structual logic analysis on the education practicum institution design in Taiwan. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 9(3), 115-142. https://doi.org/10.3966/181665042013090903005】
17. 黃嘉莉（2015）。從美國edTPA表現評量檢視我國師資職前培育的發展。臺灣教育評論月刊，4（4），87-92。【Huang, J.-L. (2015). Review the development of pre-service teacher education based on edTPA of the United States. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 4(4), 87-92.】
18. 黃嘉莉（2019）。師資養成公費制度之歷史探究。教育科學研究期刊，64（2），99-129。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201906_64(2).0004【Huang, J.-L. (2019). A historical approach on the government-funded system for teacher preparation. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(2), 99-129. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201906_64(2).0004】
19. 黃嘉莉、武佳瀅（2015）。我國教育實習學生知覺教師專業知能習得、運用與重要之研究。教育科學研究期刊，60（2），1-32。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2015.60(2).01【Huang, J.-L., & Wu, C.-Y. (2015). Student teacher perception of teacher education and professional knowledge acquisition, use, and importance in Taiwan. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 60(2), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2015.60(2).01】
20. 黃嘉莉、陳學志、王俊斌、洪仁進（2020）。師資職前教師專業素養與課程基準之建構及其運用。教育科學研究期刊，65（2），1-35。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202006_65(2).0001【Huang, J.-L., Chen, H.-C., Wang, C.-P., & Hung, J.-C. (2020). Construction and application of teacher professional standards and curriculum baseline for preservice teacher education. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 65(2), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202006_65(2).0001】
21. 楊深坑、黃嘉莉（2011）。各國師資培育制度與教師素質比較分析。載於楊深坑、黃嘉莉（主編），各國師資培育制度與教師素質之現況（頁353-401）。教育部。【Yang, S.-K., & Huang, J.-L. (2011). A comparative analysis on teacher education system and teacher quality in different countries. In S.-K. Yang & J.-L. Huang (Eds.), Teacher education system and teacher quality in different countries (pp. 353-401). Ministry of Education.】
22. 葉連祺（2004）。中小學教師檢定方法相關課題之分析。載於國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所（主編），教師檢定之理論與實務會議論文集（頁29-43）。國立教育資料館。【Yeh, L.-C. (2004). A comparative analysis on the test method for elementary and junior high school teachers. In Department of Education of National Hualien Teachers College (Ed.), Bulletin of the Symposium of “Teacher Certification of Theory of Practice” (pp. 29-43). National Institute of Education Materials.】
23. 歐用生、黃嘉雄（1997）。落實高級中等以下學校暨幼稚園實習教師教育實習之研究。教育研究資訊，5（5），15-30。【Ou, Y.-S., & Huang, C.-H. (1997). A study on implementing internship for student teachers of secondary, elementary schools and kindergartens. Educational Research & Information, 5(5), 15-30.】
24. 鄭聖襦、靳知勤（2007）。國中科學實習輔導教師之輔導策略、輔導障礙來源及其專業成長。科學教育學刊，15（2），145-168。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2007.1502.02【Cheng, S.-R., & Chin, C.-C. (2007). Investigation of the strategies, barriers, and professional growth of science mentor teachers. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 15(2), 145-168. https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2007.1502.02】
25. 薛梨真、朱潤康（2007）。半年全時實習問題探究。教育研究與發展期刊，3（1），209-238。【Hsueh, L.-C., & Chu, J.-K. (2007). The problems of 6-month full time internship program. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 3(1), 209-238.】
26. 謝寶梅（1997）。教育實習的基本認識。載於賴清標（主編），教育實習（頁1-21）。五南。【Hsieh, P.-M. (1997). Basic understanding of educational practicum. In C.-P. Lai (Ed.), Educational practicum (pp. 1-21). Wu-Nan.】
27. Bartell, C. A. (1995). Shaping teacher induction policy in California. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(4), 27-43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23475818
28. Bastian, K. C., Lys, D., & Pan, Y. (2018). A framework for improvement: Analyzing performance-assessment scores for evidence-based teacher preparation program reforms. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(5), 448-462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118755700
29. Boursicot, K., Etheridge, L., Setna, Z., Sturrock, A., Ker, J., Smee, S., & Sambandam, E. (2011). Performance in assessment: Consensus statement and recommendation from the Ottawa conference. Medical Teacher, 33(5), 370-383. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.565831
30. Brookhart, S. M. (1999). Response to Delandshere and Petrosky’s “Assessment of complex performances: Limitations of key measurement assumptions”. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 25-28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028003025
31. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
32. Brownstein, E. M., & Horvath, L. (2016). Next generation science standards and edTPA: Evidence of science and engineering practices. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 44-62.
33. Burton, A. (1977). Competency-based teacher education in the U.S.A.. Compare, 7(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305792760060104b
34. Chizhik, E. W., Chizhik, A. W., Close, C., & Gallego, M. (2017). SMILE (shared mentoring in instructional learning environments): Effectiveness of a lesson-study approach to student-teaching supervision on a teacher-education performance assessment. Teacher Education Quarterly, 44(2), 27-47.
35. Cobb, P., McClain, K., de Silva Lamberg, T., & Dean, C. (2003). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032006013
36. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 249-305. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X024001249
37. Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Performance-based assessment and educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.64.1.j57n353226536276
38. Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Teacher testing and the improvement of practice. Teaching Education, 12(1), 11-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210123029
39. Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Reshaping teaching policy, preparation, and practice: Influences of the national board for professional teaching standards. In R. E. Stake, S. Kushner, L. Ingvarson, & J. Hattie (Eds.), Assessing teachers for professional certification: The first decade of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, Advanced in Program Evaluation (Vol. 11, pp. 25-53). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-7863(07)11002-4
40. Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 523-545. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00015-9
41. Educative Teacher Performance Assessment. (2018). Educative assessment & meaningful support: 2017 edTPA administrative report. https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=4271&ref=edtpa
42. Elam, S. (1972). Performance-based teacher education: What is the state of the art? Quest, 18(1), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1972.10519731
43. Epstein, R. M., & Hundert, E. M. (2002). Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA, 287(2), 226-235. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.2.226
44. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49(8), 725-747. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.725
45. Ginsburg, L. R., Tregunno, D., Norton, P. G., Smee, S., de Vries, I., Sebok, S. S., VanDenKerkhof, E. G., Luctkar-Flude, M., & Medves, J. (2015). Development and testing of an objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) to assess socio-cultural dimensions of patient safety competency. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24(3), 188-194. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003277
46. Grossman, P., & Pupik Dean, C. G. (2019). Negotiating a common language and shared understanding about core practices: The case of discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 80, 157-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.01.009
47. Guaglianone, C. L., Payne, M., Kinsey, G. W., & Chiero, R. (2009). Teaching performance assessment: A comparative study of implementation and impact amongst California State University Campuses. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 129-148.
48. Hafner, A. L., & Maxie, A. (2006). Looking at answers about reform: Findings from the SB 2042 implementation study. Issues in Teacher Education, 15(1), 85-102.
49. Hager, P., & Gonczi, A. (1996). What is competence? Medical Teacher, 18(1), 15-18. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599609040255
50. Hertzberg, H. W. (1976). Competency based teacher education: Does it have a past or a future? Teachers College Record, 78(1), 1-21.
51. Khan, K., & Ramachandran, S. (2012). Conceptual framework for performance assessment: Competency, competence and performance in the context of assessments in healthcare－Deciphering the terminology. Medical Teacher, 34(11), 920-928. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.722707
52. Kohler, F., Henning, J. E., & Usma-Wilches, J. (2008). Preparing preservice teachers to make instructional decisions: An examination of data from the teacher work sample. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2108-2117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.04.002
53. Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean?. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347321
54. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
55. Lawrence, J. E. S., & Cook, T. J. (1982). Designing program evaluations with the help of stakeholders. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2(1), 120-123. https://doi.org/10.2307/3323657
56. Lindsey, M. (1973). Performance-based teacher education: Examination of a slogan. Journal for Teacher Education, 24(3), 180-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248717302400303
57. Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2000). Measurement and assessment in teaching (8th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
58. Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 917-946. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00052-5
59. Lunsford, A., Warner, W. J., Park, T. D., & Morgan, J. E. (2016). Agricultural education teacher candidates’ perceptions of the edTPA. Career and Technical Education Research, 41(3), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.5328/cter41.3.213
60. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176219
61. Meuwissen, K. W., & Choppin, J. M. (2015). Preservice teachers’ adaptations to tensions associated with the edTPA during its early implementation in New York and Washington States. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(103), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2078
62. Miller, G. E. (1990). The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic Medicine, 65(9), S63-S67. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045
63. Miller, R. L., Brickman, P., & Bolen, D. (1975). Attribution versus persuasion as a means for modifying behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(3), 430-441. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076539
64. Orey, M. A., & Nelson, W. A. (1997). The impact of situated cognition: Instructional design paradigms in Transition. In C. R. Dills & A. J. Romisaowaki (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 269-282). Educational Technology.
65. Panzarella, K. J., & Manyon, A. T. (2007). A model for integrated assessment of clinical competence. Journal of Allied Health, 36(3), 157-164.
66. Parkes, K. A., & Powell, S. R. (2015). Is the edTPA the right choice for evaluating teacher readiness? Arts Education Policy Review, 116(2), 103-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2014.944964
67. Patton, J. Q. (2005). Meat sharing for coalitional support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 137-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.008
68. Pring, R. (2004). Teaching and the good teacher. In F. Inglis (Ed.), Education and the good society (pp. 75-87). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523449_7
69. Rennert-Ariev, P. (2005). A theoretical model for the authentic assessment of teaching. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950596.n433
70. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. National Academy Press.
71. Rethans, J.-J., Norcini, J. J., Barón-Maldonado, M., Blackmore, D., Jolly, B. C., LaDuca, T., Lew, S., Page, G. G., & Southgate, L. H. (2002). The relationship between competence and performance: Implications for assessing practice performance. Medical Education, 36(10), 901-909. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01316.x
72. Rozelle, J. J., & Wilson, S. M. (2012). Opening the black box of field experiences: How cooperating teachers’ beliefs and practices shape student teachers’ beliefs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1196-1205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.07.008
73. Sandholtz, J. H., & Shea, L. M. (2015). Examining the extremes: High and low performance on a teaching performance assessment for licensure. Teacher Education Quarterly, 42(2), 17-42.
74. Selvester, P. M., Summers, D., & Williams, E. F. (2006). Costs and benefits of accountability: A case study of credential candidates’ performance assessment. Issues in Teacher Education, 15(1), 21-36.
75. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004
76. Shulman, L. S. (1975). Teaching as clinical information processing. NIE Conference on studies in teaching (Panel 6). National Institute of Education.
77. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
78. Shulman, L. S. (1988). A union of insufficiencies: Strategies for teacher assessment in a period of education reform. Educational Leadership, 46(3), 36-41.
79. Shulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1-30). Teacher College Press.
80. Shulman, L. S., & Elstein, A. S. (1975). Studies of problem solving, judgment, and decision making: Implications for educational research. Review of Research in Education, 3(1), 3-42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X003001003
81. Talvitie, U., Peltokallio, L., & Mannisto, P. (2000). Student teachers’ views about their relationships with university supervisors, cooperating teachers and peer student teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Education Research, 44(1), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696662
82. Tellez, K. (1996). Authentic assessment. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 704-721). Macmillan.
83. Trent, J., & Lim, J. (2010). Teacher identity construction in school-university partnerships: Discourse and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1609-1618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.012
84. Ulvik, M., & Smith, K. (2011). What characterises a good practicum in teacher education? Education Inquiry, 2(3), 517-536. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v2i3.21997
85. Valli, L., & Rennert-Ariev, P. (2002). New standards and assessments? Curriculum transformation in teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(2), 201-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270110093625
86. Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling for quality (executive summary). https://abell.org/sites/default/files/publications/ed_cert_rejoinder_1101.pdf
87. Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction on beginning teachers’ teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 132-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107314002
88. Wass, V., der Vleuten, C. V., Shatzer, J., & Jones, R. (2001). Assessment of clinical competence. The Lancet, 357(9260), 945-949. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04221-5
89. Wei, R. C., & Pecheone, R. L. (2010). Assessment for learning in preservice teacher education: Performance-based assessments. In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 69-132). John Wiley & Sons.
90. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
91. Whitty, G., & Willmott, E. (1991). Competence-based teacher education: Approaches and issues. Cambridge Journal of Education, 21(3), 309-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764910210305
92. Wolf, K. (1991). The school teacher’s portfolio: Issues in design, implementation, and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(2), 129-136.
93. Yarbrough, D. B. (1995). Theoretical foundations of preservice teacher evaluation. In S. W. Soled (Ed.), Assessment, testing, and evaluation in teacher education (pp. 41-80). Ablex.
94. Youngs, P., Pogodzinski, B., & Low, M. (2010). The role of formative assessment in new teacher induction. In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality (pp. 165-199). John Wiley & Sons.
95. Zaltman, G., & Burger, P. (1975). Marketing research: Fundamentals and dynamics. Dryden Press.

中文APA引文格式	黃嘉莉、武佳瀅（2021）。表現本位教育實習成績評量制度之建構及其試辦成果分析。教育科學研究期刊，66（1），1-38。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202103_66(1).0001
APA Format	Huang, J.-L., & Wu, C.-Y. (2021). Outcomes of the application of performance-based assessment system for educational practicums. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 66(1), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202103_66(1).0001

This study aimed to design a new performance-based assessment system for educational practicums to replace the high-risk assessment included in the Teacher Education Act, amended in 2017. Data were collected from stakeholders’ opinions, including 330 student teachers, 255 cooperating teachers, and 41 teacher educators through descriptive statistics. The results demonstrated that the newly developed system allows stakeholders to understand the whole educational practicum process, allows participating teachers to better understand the ways they can help student teachers, facilitates stakeholder interactions, stimulates participating teachers’ reflections, and reduces the burden due to previous reforms to the education practicum assessment system. Second, the tasks can promote student teachers’ professional competence, but must be adjusted for tasks that are too cumbersome. Third, the use of performance-based assessment methods can make the outcome of assessments more objective and reach a consensus. This research developed an original performance evaluation system that parallels international trends and conforms to the characteristics of educational practicum situated learning. This research also provides additional design ideas and evidence for the transformation of the educational practicum system in Taiwan as a basis for granting teacher certificates.