108課綱正式實施，首次將「探究與實作」這個具有探究本質且強調實作活動的課程訂為高中必修課程。在以探究為本的課程成為必修課之前，台灣已經有許多關於探究式教學的研究，然而較少研究聚焦在探究式教學中教與學的過程。相較於一般的傳統課堂，探究與實作課程通常以小組活動進行，強調師生互動，因此在教學過程中教師的形成性評量就顯得格外重要。本研究的目的在了解探究與實作課程的教學實踐過程，探討一位公立高中物理教師在探究與實作課程中面對小組時所採用形成性評量的策略，以及其背後考量的因素。本研究採個案研究法，資料收集包含教師課堂綠影與半結構式訪談。資料分析以Dini et al. (2020) 的形成性評量模型為分析架構對課室中教師與小組的對話進行編碼，並以教師訪談了解教師考量的面向。研究結果顯示在擬定研究計畫階段，教師偏向使用對話型的形成性評量，著重澄清學生想法並較常使用響應式方法的推進。在資料收集、數據分析與建模階段，教師則較傾向使用權威型的形成性評量，主要使用指導性的方法推進。綜合而言，除呼應探究階段、探究任務的選擇與教學目標之外，教師當下的教學目的、小組的特性、時間的壓力與學生的學習態度，都會影響教師所採取形成性評量的策略，這也顯現出探究與實作課程中教師形成性評量的複雜性。

The Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education has been fully implemented. For the first time, the course "Inquiry and Practices", which highlights the core ideas of inquiry and practical activities, is made compulsory for senior high school students. Before the “Inquiry and Practices” course, there has been a lot of research related to inquiry-based teaching in Taiwan. However, relatively few studies dig into the process of inquiry teaching and learning. Compared with traditional science course, 'Inquiry and Practices' often has students work in groups and emphasizes teacher-student interactions. Therefore, formative assessment is particularly important. The purpose of the study is to gain a deeper understanding of the teaching and learning process in the Inquiry and Practices course. Specifically, the study adopts a case-study approach to explore a physics teacher’s formative assessments with student groups and the reasons behind her actions. Data collection includes classroom videos and semi-structured teacher interviews. The formative assessment framework by Dini et al. (2020) is used for analyzing teachers' formative assessment practices, and the analysis of teacher interviews provides a window into the hidden reasons. The results show that in the phase of planning a research design, the teachers preferred to use dialogic formative assessment to clarify students' ideas, and adopt responsive approaches to advance students’ thinking. In the phase of data collection, data analysis, and modeling, the teacher is more inclined to use authoritative formative assessments. Also, she mainly took directive approaches to advance students’ learning. In summary, in addition to the consideration of inquiry phases, the nature of inquiry tasks, and instructional objectives, the teacher also contemplates many factors, such as the teaching purpose at that moment, the characteristics of the group, time pressure, and the students' learning attitude. This reflects the complex nature of formative assessments in the course of Inquiry and Practices.

于佳玉(2020)。探究式教學輔以數位教育遊戲對高中生認知與科學探究能力之影響─以Anter螞蟻研究所為例(系統編號：108NCUE5112020)〔碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。

李驥、邱美虹(2019)。NGSS和 12年國民基本教育中探究、實作和建模的比較與分析。科學教育月刊(421)，19-31。

林禹真(2020)。探究式教學是否提升台灣中學生科學表現？ PISA 2015 的實證分析 (系統編號：108NTHU5610004)〔碩士論文，國立清華大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。

邱稚穎(2020)。結合VR科技支援POE探究式教學研究 -以國小五年級自然科「美麗的星空」單元為例(系統編號：108NTHU5007005)〔碩士論文，國立清華大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。

徐詠棠(2021)。運用5E探究式教學與ZUVIO於技術型高中進修部課程活動之研究(系統編號：109TIT00677006)〔碩士論文，國立臺北科技大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。

教育部(2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要綜合型高級中等校-自然科學領域。臺北市：教育部。

陳子辰(2020)。結合VR科技支援POE探究式教學研究 -以國小五年級「觀測太陽」單元為例 (系統編號：108NTHU5007003)〔碩士論文，國立清華大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。

陳俊智(2020)。5E探究式教學結合行動載具之學習成效研究-以國小六年級自然與生活科技防鏽與防腐單元為例 (系統編號：108NTHU5007002)〔碩士論文，國立清華大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。

葉軒均(2020)。使用虛擬實境於5E 探究式教學對國中七年級學生生物科學習成效之影響(系統編號：108NTHU5395024)〔碩士論文，國立清華大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。

鄭嘉惠、楊芳瑩、連筱萍、洪逸文(2019)。科學課室教學之教師提問模式分析：以地球科學課室為例。科學教育學刊，27(3)，167-184。

顏詩潔(2019)。探究式教學法與講述式教學法對國小五年級學生數學學習成效之影響 (系統編號：107NTHU5507005)〔碩士論文，國立清華大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。

Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok‐Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. l. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.

Allal, L., & Mottier Lopez, L. (2005). L’évaluation formative de l’apprentissage: revue de publications en langue française. [Formative Assessment: Review of publications in French].In L’évaluation formative: pour un meilleur apprentissage dans les classes secondaires [Formative assessment, improving learning in secondary classrooms].OCDE 265-290.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1994). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of science teacher education, 13(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982

Bell, B., Bell, N., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment and science education (Vol. 12). Springer Science & Business Media.

Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2010.513678

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). ‘In praise of educational research’: Formative assessment. British educational research journal, 29(5), 623-637. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192032000133721

Cech, S. J. (2008). Test Industry Split over. Education Week, 28(4), 1-17.

Colestock, A. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2015). What teachers notice when they notice student thinking. Responsive teaching in science and mathematics, 126-144. In A. Robertson, R. Scherr & D. Hammer (Eds.), Responsive science teaching (pp. 126–144). Routledge.

Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695949993026

Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<916::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2

Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613-642. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20157

Dini, V., Sevian, H., Caushi, K., & Orduña Picón, R. (2020). Characterizing the formative assessment enactment of experienced science teachers. Science Education, 104(2), 290-325. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21559

Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of research in education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371

Furtak, E. M. (2011). Flying Blind’: An exploration of beginning science teachers’ enactment of formative assessment practices. annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA,

Furtak, E. M., & Ruiz‐Primo, M. A. (2008). Making students' thinking explicit in writing and discussion: An analysis of formative assessment prompts. Science Education, 92(5), 799-824.

Harlen, W. (2013). Assessment and inquiry-based science education: Issues in policy and practice. InterAcademy Partnership.

Harrison, C., Constantinou, C. P., Correia, C. F., Grangeat, M., Hähkiöniemi, M., Livitzis, M., Nieminen, P., Papadouris, N., Rached, E., & Serret, N. (2018). Assessment on-the-fly: Promoting and collecting evidence of learning through dialogue. Transforming assessment: Through an interplay between practice, research and policy, 83-107. http://doi.10.1007/978-3-319-63248-3_4

Haug, B. S., & Ødegaard, M. (2015). Formative assessment and teachers' sensitivity to student responses. International Journal of Science Education, 37(4), 629-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.1003262

Heritage, M. (2010). Formative Assessment and Next-Generation Assessment Systems: Are We Losing an Opportunity?. Council of Chief State School Officers. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed543063

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educational psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

Kang, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting preservice science teachers' ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design. Science Education, 99(5), 863-895. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21182

Kelly, G. J. (2014). Inquiry teaching and learning: Philosophical considerations. In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1363-1380). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_42

Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108330245

McComas, W. F. (Ed.).(2013). The language of science education: An expanded glossary of key terms and concepts in science teaching and learning. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-497-0_7

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106

Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in philosophy and education, 27(4), 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1

Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning Making In Secondary Science Classroomsaa. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203985472-44

Murray, S. A., Huie, R., Lewis, R., Balicki, S., Clinchot, M., Banks, G., Talanquer, V., & Sevian, H. (2020). Teachers’ Noticing, Interpreting, and Acting on Students’ Chemical Ideas in Written Work. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(10), 3478-3489. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b01198

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9847

Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The journal of the learning sciences, 13(3), 337-386. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4

Rached, E., & Grangeat, M. (2020). French teachers’ informal formative assessment in the context of inquiry-based learning. International Journal of Science Education, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1740818

Ramnarain, U., Dlamini, T., Bansal, G., & Dhurumraj, T. (2022). Life Sciences teachers’ practices of informal formative assessment in inquiry-based teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 44(18), 2745-2762. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2150986

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers' informal formative assessment practices and students' understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20163

Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269808560127

Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation, American Educational Research Association.

Talanquer, V., Bolger, M., & Tomanek, D. (2015). Exploring prospective teachers' assessment practices: Noticing and interpreting student understanding in the assessment of written work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 585-609.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21209

Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571-596.

Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2021). Expanding on prior conceptualizations of teacher noticing. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01211-4

Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203423721-16

Wiliam, D; Thompson, M. (2008) Integrating Assessment with Learning: What Will It Take to Make It Work? In: Dwyer, CA, (ed.) The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning. (pp. 53-82). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315086545-3