近幾年來，概念圖（concept maps）被廣泛的應用在教育的訓練、教學、及學生的評量上，且深受肯定。而過去概念圖的評量標準，有的僅考慮概念節點，有的則是以概念節點為主，聯結語為輔的方式來評量，但命題（proposition）是構成知識的最小單位，這對由許多命題彼此相互連結所組成的概念圖而言，以往的評量方式，似乎稍嫌薄弱，因此本文提出一種以命題為主的屬性化概念圖（proposition-based attributed concept maps）的觀念，也就是對概念圖中的每一命題給予一權值代表其重要程度。
電腦化的概念構圖方式雖具有提供互動、立即回饋、修改容易和易於評量的優點，但為評量方便起見，使得學生必須使用由專家事先定義好的概念與聯結語來建構概念圖，而這樣的構圖方式往往會影響學生反省思考的機會，且無法真正反應出學生的學習狀態與學習成績，因此本文提出使用「開放式聯結語」(relation-free)的概念與評分方法，讓學生能用概念圖表達出自己的想法，以增加學生反省思考的機會和真實反應出學生的學習狀態。
到目前為止概念圖的評量結果都只是一個評估值，僅描述學生對某一知識主題的認識程度，學生學到了什麼、未學到什麼、及存在的錯誤概念為何，皆無法得知，因而無法提供適當回饋(feedback)以幫助學生建構概念圖。因此本文提出一種以命題式屬性化概念圖為主的”質”的比對方法，它能記錄專家概念圖與學生概念圖之間的差異情形，並根據這些差異提供回饋以幫助學生建構概念圖及促進學生知識結構專家化。
實驗結果顯示，本文所提出的評量與回饋方法確實能有效預測學生的學習成績並幫助學生建構概念圖及促進學生知識結構專家化，且使用「開放式聯結語」的構圖方式要比使用「固定聯結語」能反應出學生的學習狀態及學習成績。

In recent years, concept maps have widely been applied in education for training, instruction, as well as assessment. In the past, the assessment of concept maps only considered concept nodes or with assisted relation link between the two concepts. However, proposition is the essential element of knowledge, the above assessment are slightly frail. In this thesis, proposition-based attributed concept map is proposed. Each proposition in the attributed concept map is given a weight based on importance in a subject matter.
In the conventional concept mapping system, students construct their concept maps by using the predefined concept nodes and relation links. The use of predefined concept nodes and relation links may reduce the chance of students to reflect by themselves. In this thesis, a computer-based concept mapping with relation-free is proposed. The system provides a mapping environment in which students can construct their concept maps by the use of their own relations and predefined concepts. Keeping students with freedom to use their own relations will increase the chance of students’ self-reflection and get more learning.
In the previous assessment, students’ states, such as what is student learned, what is student unlearned, and what is student’s misconception cannot reported and also cannot provide an appropriate feedback. A qualitative matching method is proposed to diagnose students’ states. This matching method also provides an appropriate feedback based on the diagnosed states.
In order to evaluate the proposed studies, an experiment was conducted. The experimental results revealed that the studies showed a good learning impacts on students, assisted students to efficiently construct their concept maps by using the assessment and feedback functions, and precisely diagnosed the students’ learning states.

宋德忠,陳淑芬,張國恩(1998)：電腦化概念構圖系統在知識結構測量上的應用。中國測驗學會測驗年刊, 45輯, 2期, pp.37-56。
宋德忠,林世華,陳淑芬,張國恩(1998)：知識結構的測量：徑路搜尋法與概念構圖法的比較。教育心理學報, 30卷, 2期, pp.123-142。
林水成,張瑞賓,陳世旺,戴建耘,張國恩(1999)：命題式屬性化概念圖:評量和回饋。第八屆國際電腦輔助教學研究會, pp.219-227。
邱上真(1989)：知識結構的評量:概念構圖技巧的發展與試用。國立台灣師範大學教育學院特殊教育學係暨研究所特殊教育學報, 4期, pp. 215-244。
張國恩,陳淑芬（1997）：概念構圖式學習系統。國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
張國恩,林水成,潘宏明,陳世旺(1998)：屬性化概念圖的模糊評量。科學教育學刊，第六卷第一期，pp. 81-94。
黃台珠(1994)：概念圖在國中生物教學上的成效研究( I )。國科會計劃：NSC83-0111-S-017-015。
黃台珠(1995)：概念圖在國中生物教學上的成效研究( II )。國科會計劃：NSC84-2511-S-017-003。
Acton, W.H., Johnson, P.J., & Goldsmith, T.E. (1994). Structural knowledge assessment: Comparison of referent structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 303-311.
Anderson, J.R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Beyerbach, B. A. (1988). Developing a technical vocabulary: preservice teachers’ concept maps. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(4), 339-347.
Beyerbach, B.A. & Smith, J.M. (1990). Using computerized concept mapping program to assess teacher's thinking about effective teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), pp. 961-971.
Brown, A. L. & Campione, J. C. (1993). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.) Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. Cambridge:MIT press.
Chang, K. E., Chen, S. F., & Sung, T. C. (1998). Concept mapping with scaffolding learning and assessment. Paper submitted to Computer & Education.
Edmondson, K. (1995). Concept mapping for the development of medical curricular. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, pp.777-793.
Goldsmith, T.E., Johnson, P.J. & Acton, W.H. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge, Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1) , pp. 88-96.
Herl, H., Baker, E. & Niemi, D. (1996). Construct validation of an approach to modeling cognitive structure of U.S. history knowledge. Journal of Education Research, 89, pp. 213-230.
Hoz, R., Tomer, Ytzak., & Tamir, P. (1990). The relations between disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge and the length of teaching experience of biology and geography teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 27, No. 10, pp. 973-985.
Johnson, P.J., Goldsmith, T.E., Teague, K.W. (1994). Locus of the predictive advantage in pathfinder-based representations of classroom knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 617-626.
Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen, D.H., Reeves, T.C., Hong, N., Harvey, D., & Peters, K. (1997).Concept mapping as cognitive learning and assessment tools. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8 (3/4), 289-308.
Laffey, J.M., & Singer, J. (1997). Using mapping for cognitive assessment in project-based science. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3/4), 363-387.
Lambiotte, J.G., Dansereau, D.F., Cross, D.R., & Reynolds, S.B. (1989). Multirelational semantic maps. Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 1, No. 4, 331-367.
Lemke, J. L. (1989). Using language in the classroom, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Markham, K.P., Mintzes, J.J. & Jones, M.G. (1994). The concepts as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 , pp. 91-104.
Mislevy, R.J. & Gitomer, D.H. (1996). The role of probability-based inference in an intelligent tutoring system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 5, pp. 253-282.
Novak, J.D. & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning How to Learn, Cambridge London : Cambridge University Press.
Rafferty, C.D., & Fleschner L.K. (1993). Concept mapping: A viable alternative to objective and essay exams. Reading Research and Instruction, 32, (3), pp. 25-34.
Roth, W.F., & Roychoudury, A. (1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76(5), pp. 531-557.
Ruiz-Primo, M.A., & Shavelson, R.J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), pp. 569-600.
Schmid, R. E., & Telaro, G.(1990). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high school biology. Journal of Educational Research, 84, pp.78-85.
Schau, C., Mattern, N., Weber, R.W., Minnick, K., & Witt, C. (1997). Use of fill-in concept maps to assess middle school students’ connected understanding of science. Paper presented at the 1997 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Starr, M. L., & Krajcik, J. S.(1990). Concept maps as heuristic for science curriculum development: Toward improvement in process and product. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, pp.987-1000.
Stuart, H.A. (1985). Should concept maps be scored numerically? European Journal of Science Education, 7, 73-81.
Sung, T. C., Chen, S. F., Lin, S. C., Chang, K. E. (1998). Concept mapping system with scaffold learning. Proceeding of ICCE’98, vol. 1. pp. 692-700.