自108課綱實施至今，生活科技課程已落實於國高中教育，而實作在科技教育更是非常重要且必要的一環。然而，對於生活科技實作中關於操作技能的評量方式，雖有許多專家建議，卻較少有實際評量工具可以參考與使用，故本研究旨在發展一份「國中生活科技操作技能學習評量工具」，據此瞭解學生在生活科技實作活動中的操作技能表現。為了達到前述研究目的，本研究參考邱皓政（2006）所提出的評量工具發展流程，並針對雙北地區國民中學八至九年級學生進行立意取樣抽取研究樣本，有效樣本共359份。本研究使用難度與鑑別度分析、探索性與驗證性因素分析、獨立樣本t檢定等方法檢驗研究數據，結果顯示：(1) 本研究發展的國中生活科技操作技能學習評量工具，具有適當的信效度；(2) 國中生在操作技能學習評量工具的結果分析顯示，操作機具的速度快慢與技術面向的表現沒有顯著差異；(3) 不同性別國中生在國中生活科技操作技能概念性知識、態度、技術等面向的表現有差異，顯示教師在進行機具教學活動設計與實作活動分組時，可將性別納入考量；(4) 不同年級國中生在國中生活科技操作技能的表現相近，顯示本研究之學習評量工具適用於各年級。

Since the implementation of the 2019 Curriculum Guidelines, the Living Technology course has been integrated into junior and senior high school education, while practical implementation in technology education is both crucial and necessary. However, despite many expert recommendations on the assessment methods for hands-on skills in Living Technology, there are few practical assessment tools available for reference and use. Therefore, this study aims to develop a "Junior High School Living Technology Hands-on Skills Learning Assessment Tool" to understand students' performance in hands-on activities in Living Technology. To achieve the aforementioned research objectives, this study refers to the assessment tool development process proposed by Chiu Hao-Cheng (2006) and conducts purposive sampling of eighth and ninth-grade students from junior high schools in the Taipei and New Taipei areas, with a total of 359 valid samples. This study uses difficulty and discrimination analysis, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and independent sample t-tests to examine the research data. The results show that: (1) The Junior High School Living Technology Hands-on Skills Learning Assessment Tool developed in this study has appropriate reliability and validity. (2) The analysis of junior high school students' performance in hands-on skills using the assessment tool indicates that the speed of machine operation does not affect the performance of hands-on skills. (3) There are differences in the performance of conceptual knowledge, usage attitude, and hands-on skills in Living Technology between male and female junior high school students, suggesting that teachers can consider gender when designing machine teaching activities and grouping for practical activities. (4) The performance of hands-on skills in Living Technology is similar across different grades, indicating that the learning assessment tool developed in this study is applicable to all grades.

一、中文部份
陳之藩、林松亭、顧柏岩（譯）（1984）。工場與相關科目教學法（原作者：D. M. Kidd, G. B. Leighbody）。中國工業職業教育學會。
羅夢彬（譯）（1983）。木工與家具製造。（原作者：J. L. Feirer）。徐式基金會。
王光復（2003）。科技能力評量要素之分析。生活科技教育月刊，36（1），2-8。
王雪娥（2018）。高中新課綱生活科技操作技能與統合能力素養量表之發展。技術及職業教育學報，8（2），1-23。
余民寧（2022）。教育測驗與評量：成就測驗與教學評量（第四版）。心理。
李坤崇（2011）。認知情意技能教育目標分類及其在評量的應用。高等教育。
李坤崇（2004）。修訂Bloom認知分類及命題實例。教育研究月刊，122，98-127。
李松霖、黃天麒、柯志坤（2017）。STEAM暨經驗學習為基礎之創客教育課程發展與其學習成效之性別差異。工程與科技教育學術研討會論文集，6，309-318。社團法人台灣工程教育與管理學會。
李怡穎（2019）。探討技能領域教育目標分類在實作能力評量之運用。臺灣教育評論月刊，8（9），42-45。
吳明隆、涂金堂（2006）。SPSS 與統計應用分析。五南。
林坤誼、游光昭、洪國峰（2011）。操作技能對思考與實作表現影響之研究。課程與教學，14（4），161-185。
邱皓政（2006）。量化研究與統計分析。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
柳金佑、朱益賢（2010）。國中生與高中生在班級科技競賽中之參賽表現與問題解決能力差異之研究。臺東大學教育學報，21（1），31-55。
孫仲山、趙育玄、劉金泉（2004）。科技工具知覺、態度、及使用行為意圖分析。高雄師大學報，17，21-35。
許維純（2019）。實作能力與實作評量。臺灣教育評論月刊，8（9），51-53。
張基成、吳明芳（2011）。網路化檔案評量環境下教學者評、學生自評與同儕互評之信效度比較。教育資料與圖書館學，49（1），135-170。
張玉山、游光昭、蕭佩如（2010）。科技教學評量策略之規劃研究-以水陸兩用車活動為例。工業科技教育學刊，3，53-60。
郭生玉（2012）。心理與教育研究法。精華。
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基垏教育課程綱要國民中學暨普通型高級中等學校：科技領域。教育部。
教育部國民及學前教育署（2019）。國民小學及國民中學設施設備基準。取自https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/Tw/Law/LawDetail?filter=CCE6B166-542B-4923-A20C-4612EE02AF28&id=36127c14-775a-4d35-b882-f96ae7c95587
國立臺灣師範大學心理與教育測驗研究發展中心（2023）。十二年國教課綱國民中小學素養導向標準本位評量。取自https://sbasa.rcpet.edu.tw/SBASA/Subject/SubjectTechLiving_4.aspx
馮忠良（1981）。智育心理學。教育科學。
莊坤遠、李聯雄、賴嘉祥、楊崒苑、劉丞斌（2013）。中部地區裝潢木工作業調查與暴露評估研究。勞工安全衛生研究季刊，21（2），201-202。
游光昭、林坤誼、洪國峰（2010）。從反思與實踐看國中生在科技實作活動中的學習歷程表現。課程與教學，13（3），219-250。
游光昭、韓豐年、徐毅穎、林坤誼（2005）。國中學生科技態度量表之發展。高雄師大學報，19，69-83。
游光昭、林坤誼、范斯淳、楊雅茹（2020）。素養導向系列叢書：中學生活科技教材教法。五南。
楊雅茹（2017）。生活科技實作教學中的概念性與程序性知識：以機構玩具為例。科技與人力教育季刊，4（2），49-68。
二、外文部份
Al Busaidi, R. S., Allsop, R. T., & Lock, R. J. (1992). Assessment of science practical skills in Omani 12th-grade students. International Journal of Science Education, 14(3), 319-330.
Bame, E., Dugger, W., de Vries, M., & McBee, J. (1993). Pupils’ attitudes toward technology: USA. Journal of Technology Studies, 19(1), 40-48.
Besterfield-Sacre, M., Moreno, M., Shuman, L. J., & Atman, C. J. (2001). Gender and ethnicity differences in freshmen engineering student attitudes: A cross-institutional study. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(4), 477-489.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1997). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS for Windows: A guide for social scientists. Routledge.
Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Longmans, Green.
Bowen, N. K., & Guo, S. (2011). Structural equation modeling. Oxford University Press.
Bouzidi, L., & Jaillet, A. (2009). Can online peer assessment be trusted? Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 257-268.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.
Chang, C. C. (2008). Enhancing self-perceived effects using web-based portfolio assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1753-1771.
Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 36(4), 462-494.
Cheruvalath, R. (2018). Engineering, technology and science disciplines and gender difference: A case study among Indian students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(1), 99-111.
Combs, A. W. (1973). Affective education-or none at all. In R. B. Sund & R. W. Bybee (Eds.), Becoming a better elementary science teacher: A reader (pp. 41-50). Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.
Cho, K., Schunn, C., & Wilson, R. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 891-901.
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475-487.
Dewey, J. (1952). Experience and nature (2nd ed.). Open Court Publishing Company.
Ebel, L. R. (1979). The role of testing in basic education. Journal Indexing and Metrics, 63, 89-93.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Harrow, A. J. (1972). A taxonomy of psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. David McKay.
Kaarakainen, M. T., Saikkonen, L., & Savela, J. (2019). Information skills of Finnish basic and secondary education students: The role of age, gender, education level, self-efficacy and technology usage. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 13(4), 56-72.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21-44.
Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.
International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2017). Scroll saw resources. Safety in technology and engineering education. https://www.iteea-safety.org/Scroll_Saw.htm
Petrina, S. (2007). Advanced teaching methods for the technology classroom. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Rogers, G. E. (1995). Nebraska industrial technology education teachers identify the equipment their students use.
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-337.
Scherer, R., Greiff, S., & Hautamäki, J. (2015). Exploring the relation between time on task and ability in complex problem solving. Intelligence, 48, 37-50.
Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., Croker, S., & Härtig, H. (2016). What students learn from hands‐on activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 980-1002.
Simpson, E. J. (1966). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain.
Staddon, R. V. (2020). Bringing technology to the mature classroom: Age differences in use and attitudes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1-20.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Voke, K. S., & Yip, W. M. (1999). Gender and technology in Hong Kong: A study of pupils’ attitudes toward technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 57-71.
Wills, V. L. (1969). An assessment of the implementation of the speed of performance factor in industrial education classes. The Journal of Educational Research, 62(6), 259-262.