本研究旨在於藝術與人文學習領域發展具體實作評量策略、評分系統，並探究學習者在實作評量之結果表現。研究者採協同行動研究方式與一位教學者進行協同合作，由兩人共同編擬主題式課程、研究者自編評量計劃，以立意選取方式選取教學者所任教的台北縣育林國小五年級某班，實施自編「愛心樹」實作評量計劃，歷時八週，共21節課。該班男生20人，女生16人，共計36人。
「愛心樹」實作評量計劃發展出四個課程單元、十個實作評量活動。分析評量策略，其中評量活動一、三、五、七為結構性的紙筆或非紙筆評量，評量活動二、四為示範評量，評量活動六-1、六-2、六-3為長期計劃評量，評量活動八為模擬情境評量。學習者之實作表現結果以研究者自編的評分系統進行評分，此十個評分系統可歸納為四種評分類型：評量活動一、四、七為分析型評分系統，評量活動三、八為整體型評分系統，評量活動二為標準化評分，評量活動六-1、六-2、六-3為分析型兼採整體型評分系統。
學習者之實作結果呈現六種實作表現類型：
第一類型：整體能力表現優異型
第二類型：藝術創造與作品製作表現優異型
第三類型：擅長圖文安排與裝訂操作型
第四類型：擅長發想劇情、詮釋主題型
第五類型：創造性寫作表現優異型
第六類型：能力尚待啟發型
最後研究者將研究結果進行歸納、提出結論，並對實作評量的實施、未來藝術與人文領域實作評量相關研究提出建議。
關鍵詞：評量、實作評量、藝術學習評量、評量策略、藝術與人文學習領域。

The study aims to explore specific performance assessment strategies and scoring rubrics and to investigate the students outcomes in performance assessment in Arts and Humanities Area. Through the collaboration action research method, the researcher collaborated and cooperated with an elementary school teacher to explore an issued-curriculum project, and the scoring rubrics was compiled by the researcher individually. A fifith-grade class consisted of 20 boys and 16 girls was selected through purposive sampling and was implemented 8-week, 21-class issued-curriculum project, The Giving Tree.
The Giving Tree performance assessment project included 4 units and 10 performance assessment activities. Analyzing the assessment activities and found that there were 4 types of performance assessment:
1.Structured paper-and-pencil assessment. Assessment activity 1, 3 ,5 and 7 were included.
2. Demonstration. Assessment activity 2 and 4 were included.
3.Longer-term project. Assessment activity 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 were included..
4.Simulations and contrived situations. Assessment activity 8 was included.
Through the scoring rubrics conducted by the researcher, the students’ performance assessment outcomes were scored. The 10 scoring rubrics can be classified into four types:
1. Analytic scoring rubrics. Assessment activity 1, 4 and 7 were
included.
2. Holistic scoring rubrics. Assessment activity 3 and 8 were included.
3. Standardized test scoring rubrics. Assessment activity 2 was included.
4. Both analytic scoring rubrics and holistic scoring rubrics. Assessment activity 6-1,6-2 and 6-2 were included.
The results of performance assessment suggestted that students’ performance can be classified into six types:
1. Excellence in holistic ability.
2. Excellence in art creation and composition making.
3. Good at pictures and words arrangement and bookbinding.
4. Good at plot imagination and issue interpretation.
5. Excellence in creative writing.
6. Naive ability.
At Last, the researcher proposed the conclusion and suggestions for performance assessment application and performance assessment research in Arts and Humanities Area.
Keywords: assessment, performance assessment, art assessment, assessment strategy, art arts and humanities area.

中文部分
王德育 譯（1991）。創造與心智的成長。台北：三友。 Lowenfeld, V.(1957). Creative and mental growth。
江文慈（1998）一個新評量理念的探討：多元智力取向的評量。教育資料與研究雙月刊，20。2001年10月8日，取自：
http://www.syups.tp.edu.tw/teacher/evaluation/content03.htm
余民寧(1997)。教育測驗與評量──成就測驗與教學評量。台北市：心理。
吳益裕、陳英豪（1994）。測驗與評量。台北：復文。
呂廷和 譯（1975）。透過藝術的教育。台北市：雄師圖書。Read, H. (1956). Education Through Art.
呂金燮（1999）。實作評量理論。載於王文中、呂金燮、吳毓瑩、張郁雯、張淑慧（合著），教育測驗與評量：教室學習觀點（頁169-203）。台北市：五南。
呂金燮（1999）。實作評量應用。載於王文中、呂金燮、吳毓瑩、張郁雯、張淑慧（合著），教育測驗與評量：教室學習觀點（頁205-229）。台北市：五南。
呂燕卿（1999）。藝術與人文學習領域綱要與統整性互融式課程設計之觀念。美育，106，頁29-38。
李坤崇（1999）。多元化教學評量。台北市：心理。
李堅萍（1998）。美勞科學習成效評量問題與對策。國教月刊，44：7-8，頁19-21。
林曼麗（2000）。台灣視覺藝術教育研究。台北市：雄獅圖書。
林彩岫譯（1997）。建構主義者的博物館學習理論。博物館學季刊14：2。頁27—35。Hein, G. E. (1996). Constructivist learning theoty developing museum exhibition for longlife learning。
袁汝儀（1994）。由戰後台灣的五種視覺藝術教育趨勢探討視覺藝術教師自主性之重要性與培養。美育，54，頁39-52。
國立台灣師範大學（1994）。教育部八十三年度國民教育階段學生基本學習成就評量研究報告。台北市：國立台灣師範大學中等學校教師研習中心。
國立台灣師範大學（1999）。教育部八十六、八十七年度國民教育階段學生基本學習成就評量研究報告。台北市：國立台灣師範大學科學教育中心。
張文軍（1999）。後現代教育。台北市：揚智文化。
張春興、林清山（1989）。教育心理學。台北：東華書局。
張敏雪（1998）。教室內的實作評量。教育資料與研究雙月刊，20。2001年10月8日，取自：
http://www.syups.tp.edu.tw/teacher/evaluation/content04.htm
教育部（2001）。多元入學方案。2001年11月8日，取自http://www.edu.tw/high-school/bbs/one-1/one-1.htm
莊明貞（1997）。國小課程的改進與發展—真實性的評量。載於道德教學評量—多元文化教育觀點（頁189-198）。台北市：師大書苑。
莊明貞（1998）。真實評量在教育改革中的相論題。教育資料與研究雙月刊，20。2001年10月8日，取自：
http://www.syups.tp.edu.tw/teacher/evaluation/content01.htm
連德仁（1990）。國民小學美勞科教學與學習相關之研究。國立台灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
郭生玉（2000）。心理與教育測驗。台北市：精華書局。
郭有遹（1999）。創造性的問題解決法。台北市：心理。
郭重吉（1996）。建構論：科學哲學的省思。教育研究雙月刊 49。頁16-24
郭禎祥 譯（1991）。視覺藝術的教育。台北市：文景書局。Eisner, E. W. (1972). Ecucating artistic vision。
郭禎祥（1992）。中美兩國藝術教育比較。台北市：文景書局。
郭禎祥（2001，9月）。新世紀藝術教育的變動。論文發表於國立台灣師範大學美術學系主辦之「新世紀藝術教育理論與實務」國際學術研討會，台北市。
陳明哲等（2000）。完整建構主義下的教學評量新派點。教育實習輔導季刊， 5：4，頁32-37。
單文經（1998）。評介兩種多元評量：真實評量與實作評量。北縣教育雙月刊，25，頁46-52。
彭森明（1996）。實作評量(Performance Assessment)理論與實際。教育資料與研究，9，頁44-48。
馮朝霖（1996）。建構主義之哲學觀點與啟示（吳振賢採訪）。教育研究雙月刊 49。頁39-45。
黃光雄、簡茂發（1991）。教育研究法。台北市：師大書苑。
黃政傑（1997）課程評鑑。台北：師大書苑。
詹志禹（1996）。認識與知識：建構論與接受觀。教育研究雙月刊，49。頁25-37。
蔡清田（2000）。行動研究及其在教育上的應用。載於中正大學教育研究所（主編），質的研究方法（頁307-333）。高雄市：麗文文化。
蔡清田（2000）。教育行動研究。台北市：五南圖書。
鄭祥福（2000）。後現代主義。台北市：揚智。
盧雪梅（1997）。實作評量的應許、難題和挑戰。教育資料與研究雙月刊，20。2001年10月8日，取自：
http://teach.eje.edu.tw/data/paper/kunda/20017271026/盧雪梅.doc
戴文雄、陳明哲、蕭瑜涓（2000）。完整建構主義下的教育評量新派典。教育實習輔導季刊5：40，頁32-37。
西文部分
Airasian P. W.(1999). Classroom assessment. New york, NY: MacGraw Hill.
Armstrong, C. (1994). Designing assessment in art. Reston, VA: National Art education Association.
Arter, J. A. & Bond, L. (1996). Why is assessment changing ? In R. E. Blum & J. A. Arter (Eds.), Student performance assessment in an era of restructuring(pp.I-3:1-4). The Association for Arter Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Arter, J. A. (1996). Aligning assessment with curriculum and instruction. In R. E. Blum & J. A. Arter (Eds.), Student performance assessment in an era of restructuring (pp.IV-1:1-4). The Association for Arter Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Arter, J. A. (1996). Designing performance assessment tasks. In R. E. Blum & J. A. Arter (Eds.), Student performance assessment in an era of restructuring (pp.V-1:1-3). The Association for Arter Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Arter,J. A. (1996). Performance criteria: The heart of the matter. In R. E. Blum & J. A. Arter (Eds.), Student performance assessment in an era of restructuring (pp.VI-2:1-8). The Association for Arter Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Barken, M. (1955). A Foundation for art education. New York: Ronald Press.
Beattie, D. K. (1997). Assessment in Art Education. Worcester, Massachusetts：Davis Publication.
Beattie, D. K. (1997). Visual arts criteria objectives, and standards: a revisit. Studies in Art Education,38(4),217-231.
Boston, C. & Rudner, L. M. (1994). A look at performance assessment of art education. VA: NAEA.
Boughton, D. (1997). Reconsidering issues of assessment and achievement standards in art education. Studies in Art Education,38(4),199-213.
Conley, D. T. (1996). Assessment. In R. E. Blum & J. A. Arter (Eds.), Student performance assessment in an era of restructuring (pp.I-4:1-8). The Association for Arter Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dake D. & Weinkein J.(1993). A User-frienly guide ro assessment in visral arts. In Phye G. D.(Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment. (pp.417-479). San Diego, California: Academic Press.
Davis, D. J. (1993). Art education in the 1990s: meeting the challenges of accountability. Studies in art education, 34(2), 82-90.
Educators in Connecticut’s Pomperaug Regional School District 15.(1966). Performance-based learning and assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Efland A. D.(1990). A history of art education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Eisner, E. W. (1972).Educating artistic vision. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.
Eisner, E. W. (2000). The role of the arts in cognition and currculum.Unpublished manuscript.
FIAE（1992）. Faith Ringgold’s Tar Beach. Florida: FIAE.
Gardner, H. (1989). Zero-based arts education: An introduction to ART PROPEL. Studies in art education,30(21), 71-83.
Herman, J. L., Aschbacker, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.
Husen, T.,& Postlethwa, T. N.(Eds.).(1994).The international encyclopedia of education.London: Elsevier Science.
Lambert L., Walker D., Zimmerman, D. P., Cooper J. E., Lambert M. D., Gardner M. D. & Slack P. J. F.(1995). The Constructivist Leader. Columbia Un.
Larochelle N., Bednarz N. & Garrison J. (1998). Constructivism and education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lazear, D. G.(1994). Multiple intelligence approaches to assessment: solving the assessment conundrum. Tucson, Arizona: Zephyr Press.
Linn, R. & Gronlund N. E(2000). Measurement and assessment in teaching. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prerice-Hall.
Lowenfeld, V. & Brittain W. L. (1987). Creative and mental growth. New York, NY : The MacMillan Company.
Lowenfeld, V.(1957). Creative and mental growth. New York, NY : The MacMillan Company.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering D., & Mctighe, J.(1993). Assessing student outcomes: performance assessment using the dimensions of learning model. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McMillan, j. H.(1997). Classroom assessment principle and practice for effective instruction. Nedddham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon A Viacom Company.
Mctighe, J. & Ferrara S.(1996).Perfomance-based assessment in the classroom: a planning framework. In R. E. Blum & J. A. Arter (Eds.), Student performance assessment in an era of restructuring(pp.I-5:1-9). The Association for Arter Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Nitko, A. J.(2001). Educattional assessment of students. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prerice- Hall.
Oosterrhof A. (1999). Developing and using classroom assessments. Upper Saddle river, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Palmer, J. (1996). Integration assessment and instruction: continuous monitoring. In R. E. Blum & J. A. Arter,(Eds.), Student performance assessment in an era of restructuring (pp.IV-6:1-12). The Association for Arter Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Payne D. A.(1997). Applied educational assessment. A Division of International Thomson Publishing Inc.: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Popham, W.J.(1995). Classroom sssessment-what teachers need to know. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Stiggins, R. J. (1991), Facing the Challenges of a new era of educational assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 263-273.
Tombari, M. L. & Borich, G. D. (1999), Authentic assessment in the classroom. Upper Saddle river, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Von Glasersfeld, El (1995). Radical constructivism : A way of knowing and learning. Washington, D. C. The Falmer Press.
Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance. San Francisco, California：Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.
Wiggins, G. P. (1998). Educative assessment：designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, California：Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.
Zimmerman E. (1997). Authentic assessment research in art education. In Pierre S. D. & Zimmerman E.(Ed.), Research methods and methodologies for art education. (pp. 149-169).Reston, VA: National art education association.