中文摘要
本研究從教學評量發展的經過、傳統評量與新式評量編製的過程、實施的技術等方面，來探討傳統評量與新式評量的差異；並進一步了解國小教師對國民小學實施新式評量對教師教學、學生學習及家長教育觀念影響的看法；最後則探討國內實施新式評量可能遭遇的問題。
為達成此研究目的，本研究首先進行相關文獻的探討，其範圍包括：教學評量發展的過程、心理學的理論依據、傳統評量與新式評量測驗編製的過程、實施的技術、信度與效度、優缺點等。其次，根據文獻分析的結果，編製「國民小學教師實施教學評量方式」調查問卷，對國民小學教師進行調查，研究對象為中部四縣市的國小教師，採叢集取樣的方式，樣本人數為659人。
調查所得的資料，經以獨立樣本t檢定、相依樣本t檢定、卡方檢定、單因子變異數分析、複選題分析程序及意見歸納的方法，共得到下列的結論：
一、教學評量的發展是一個漸進的過程，會因當時時代背景、哲學思潮、心理學對人類心理歷程的了解，而發展出不同的評量方式。
二、大學就讀期間曾修習教學評量課程或教師在職期間參加過教學評量課程研習者，對傳統評量與新式評量的認知都比較好。
三、國小教師對傳統評量的認知情形比新式評量好。
四、國小教師對傳統評量的認知情形除了雙向細目表以外，其餘項目認知情形相當良好。
五、國小教師對新式評量的認知情形不佳，大約有四成的人並不了解，非常了解者極少。
六、多數的國小教師認為新式評量對教師教學的行為有積極正面的影響。
七、多數的國小教師認為新式評量對學生學習的行為有積極正面的影響。
八、約有半數的國小教師認為新式評量對家長教育子女的觀念有積極正面的影響；但也約有三分之一的教師持保留的態度。
九、絕大多數的國小教師認為教學評量是教師一項很重要的能力；其服務學校應常舉辦教學評量課程的研習；目前最常使用的評量方式是「大部分是傳統評量，偶而會使用新式評量」。
十、實施新式評量可能遭遇的困難方面，依次為：學生人數太多，不可能一一有實作的機會；施測費時；教材的份量太多沒有時間讓學生實作；評分主觀；對新式評量的各項實施技術不熟悉；對新式評量的實施過程不熟悉；對新式評量的評分方法不熟悉；教師不願意改變傳統評量的方式。此外，家長注重學業成績的觀念；家長可能質疑教師評分的公正性；學生課堂秩序難以掌握；場地、設施不足；教師心態無法調適；教師工作份量過重，雜務太多等，這些也都是實施新式評量阻礙的來源。
十一、大多數的國小教師願意配合教學評量改革的趨勢，改變他們的評量方式。絕大多數的國小教師認為有必要辦理新式評量的進修研習，且參加意願非常強烈；辦理方式以「各校視需要辦理研習，聘請評量專家擔任講座」為最優先。
十二、開放式意見徵詢結果，國小教師們認為傳統式評量的缺點宜予改進，但傳統評量也有其長處，可予保留，不宜廢除。新式評量固然有優點，但也有一些先天上的限制﹙費時、費力、評分主觀、無法大量施測﹚，兩者正好可以互補，相輔而相成，可視科目與性質，決定採用的評量方式。
最後本研究根據上述的研究結果，對教育行政單位、師資培育機構、國民小學、國小教師、學生家長及未來的研究，提供具體的建議。

The Comparison of Traditional Assessment and New-form Assessment, and the Awareness of Elementary School Teachers to the Implementation of New-form Assessment
ABSTRACT
Yin-Hsin Yang
This study investigated the differences between the traditional assessment and the new-form assessment by means of exploring the history of the assessment, the different developed processes of the assessment and the techniques when the assessments were administrated. Specifically, this study examined the elementary schools teachers’ awareness about how new-form assessments influenced teachers, students and parents. An additional purpose of this study was to attempt to investigate the difficulties when the new-form assessment was used in the Republic of China on Taiwan.
Two major research approaches were conducted for the purposes. One was learning the he history and the psychology foundations about the assessment, the development of the different types of assessment, the techniques of the administration, the reliability and validity of the assessments and their strength and weakness by literature review. Another was to obtain data by means of a self-developed questionnaire which based upon the foregoing literature review. A sample of 659 elementary school teachers was drawn from 3 counties and a city in middle Taiwan. Randomness was obtained by cluster sample. The independent t-test, paired t-test, x2 test, one-way ANOVA, multiple-response item and the analysis of written opinions were done to assess the awareness of the teachers.
The findings were as follows:
1. Assessment was gradually developed and influenced by times, and the thinking of philosophy and psychology .
2. Teachers who had taken courses or participated workshops about assessment had more new-form assessment knowledge .
3. Teachers knew traditional assessment than new-form assessment.
4. Teachers well knew the content of traditional assessment but “two-way table of specification.”
5. Teachers less knew the new-form assessment.
6. Most of the teachers perceived the new-form assessment improved their teaching.
7. Most of the teachers also perceived the new-form assessment improved students’ learning.
8. Almost half of the sample perceived the new-form assessment changed parents’ value system about their children’s learning, but some didn’t agree with it.
9. Most of the teachers perceived that the skills of assessment is important for them，so their schools must prepare such in-service courses for them.
10. The difficulties of administrating new-form assessment are time-consuming, unfair, the limited facilities and the large bodies of students in a classroom,…etc.
11. Most of the teachers perceived the importance of using new-form assessment for their teaching and were willing to change. For changing their traditional style, they were eager to learn more about new-form assessment from workshop. They prefer participating the workshop in their own school.
12. School teachers expressed their opinions about the traditional assessment and new-form assessment were used concurrently.
According to the aforementioned findings, there were some suggestions for educatuional authorities, teachers’ pre-service programs and institutes, elementary schools and their teachers, parents and the future studies.

參考書目
一、中文部份
王文中、呂金燮、吳毓瑩、張郁雯、張淑慧（民88）：教育測驗與評量：教室學習觀點。台北市：五南圖書出版公司。
王鳳喈（民70）：中國教育史（臺18版）。台北市：正中書局。
王明源（民87）：台灣中部地區國民小學實施教學評量之調查研究。台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
行政院教育改革審議委員會（民85）：教育改革總咨議報告書。台北市：行政院。
余民寧（民86）：教育測驗與評量：成就測驗與教學評量。台北市：心理出版社。
李虎雄、黃長司（民84）：美國馬里蘭州學校實作評量工具在台灣施測的可行性。科學教育月刊，179期，頁41-49。
李虎雄、張雪敏（民87）：由學力評量觀點談實作評量之特性。測驗與輔導，150期，頁3104-3108。
李虎雄、張雪敏（民88）：由學力測驗方法談實作評量之功能。教師天地，99期，頁61-66。
李虹佩、蘇惠華（民87）：國小社會科的多元化評量。測驗與輔導，146期，頁3034-3037。
李坤崇（民88）：多元化教學評量。台北市，心理出版社。
何英奇（民81）：教學評量的基本原則。載於教學評量研究，頁3-30。台北市：五南圖書公司。
沈慶揚（民80）：國民小學實施教學評量之現況與困難問題調查研究。載於屏東師範學院主編：八十學年度師範學院教育學術論文發表會論文集（初等教育組），頁985-1020。
吳進喜（民73）：現行國中地理教學評量之研究。台灣師範大學地理研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
吳毓瑩（民85）：評量的蛻變與突破—從哲學思潮與效度理論思考起。教育資料與研究，13期，頁2-15。
吳毓瑩（民86）：效度意義的變遷—從目標功能的考量到價值及社會後果的反省。載於台南師範學院主編：教育測驗新近發展趨勢學術研討會論文集，頁85-97。
吳璧純（民85）：從變異與選擇建構論的觀點看另類評量。教育研究雙月刊，49期，頁46-61。
周文欽、歐滄和、許擇基、盧欽銘、金樹人、范德鑫（民84）：心理與教育測驗。台北市：心理出版社。
桂怡芬（民85）：紙筆與實作的互補：我的實作評量經驗。教育資料與研究，13期，頁24-35。
桂怡芬（民85）：自然科實作評量的效度探討。台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
莊明貞（民83）：教育測驗與評量發展的新趨勢。國民教育，35卷，1、2期，頁31-37。
莊明貞（民84）：一個新的評量取向—變通性評量在國小開放教室的實施。載於國立台北師範學院主編：開放社會中的教學，頁77-91。台北市：國立台北師範學院。
莊明貞（民85）：國小社會科教學評量的改進途徑—從「真實性評量談起」。教育資料與研究，13期，頁36-44。
郭生玉（民79）：心理與教育測驗。台北縣：精華書局。
教育部（民64）：國民小學課程標準。台北市：正中書局。
陳文典（民87）：實作評量在學力測驗之應用。測驗與輔導，150期，頁3108-3111。
陳文典、陳義勳、李虎雄、簡茂發（民84）：由馬里蘭州的學習成就評量與其在台灣的測試結果看實作評量的功能與運用。科學教育月刊，185期，頁2-11。
陳怡如、鄭百成（民87）：多元化的數學科評量。測驗與輔導，146期，頁3026-3029。
陳英豪、吳裕益（民71）：測驗的編製與應用。台北市：偉文圖書公司。
陳英豪、吳裕益（民81）：測驗與評量。高雄市：復文圖書出版社。
單文經（民84）：美國加州小學推動「真實情境的教學評量」。台灣教育，534期，頁18-21。
張春興（民83）：教育心理學—三化取向的理論與實踐，台北市：東華書局。
張達田（民73）：國民中學實施教學評量之調查研究。台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
曾嘉琪（民85）：台北市國民小學試辦教學及評量改進班之評鑑研究。政治大學教育研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
黃元齡（民70）：心理與教育測驗的理論與方法（再版）。台北市：大中國圖書公司。
黃光雄（民71）：教學目標與評鑑。高雄市：復文書局。
黃秀文（民85）：從傳統到變通：教學評量的省思。國民教育研究學報，2期，頁1-26。
黃幸美（民85）：國小數學建構教學的評量方法。教育研究雙月刊，49期，頁62-67。
黃鴻博（民85）：改變中的自然科學評量實務。國教輔導，35卷5期，頁42-47。
詹志禹（民82）：教學評量的趨勢。教育研究雙月刊，30期，頁15-23。
詹志禹（民85）：評量改革為什麼要進行—回應吳毓瑩「評量的蛻變與突破」。教育資料與研究，13期，頁45-47。
鄒慧英（民86）：實作評量的品管議題—兼談檔案評量之應用。載於台南師範學院主編：教育測驗新近發展趨勢學術研討會論文集，頁73-84。
葉重新（民81）：心理測驗。台北市：三民書局。
趙汝福（民62）：教育史。台中市：台中師專。
鄭明長（民82）：質的評量—教學評量的新途徑—專訪台灣省國民學校教師研習會歐主任用生。教育研究雙月刊，30期，頁12-14。
鄭富森（民87）：淺談國中基本學力測驗之評鑑原則。測驗與輔導，150期，頁3119-3125。
鄭富森（民88）：目前教學評量之省思與改進之道。教師天地，99期，頁18-24。
歐用生（民78）：質的研究。台北市，師大書苑。
歐滄和（民85）：個人作品選集評量法。測驗統計簡訊，10期，27-38頁。
鄧運林（民84）：台北縣實施開放教育的理念。載於國立台北師範學院主編：開放社會中的教學，頁17-28。台北市：國立台北師範學院。
蔡克容（民86）：學習評鑑。載於黃政傑主編：教學原理，頁255-301。台北市：師大書苑。
薛梨真（民76）：國民小學自編測驗問題之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
賴保禎（民85）：心理與教育測驗。台北縣：國立空中大學。
盧美貴（民88）：幼稚園的真實評量—常被忽略的家長參與。教師天地，99期，頁46-53。
簡茂發（民80）：心理測驗與統計方法。台北市：心理出版社。
簡茂發（民88）：多元化評量之理念與方法。教師天地，99期，頁11-17。
簡茂發、單文經（民84）：制式與非制式評量方法評析。載於黃政傑主編：教育評鑑，頁61-105。台北市：師大書苑。
簡茂發、李琪明、陳碧祥（民84）：心理與教育測驗發展的回顧與展望。測驗年刊，42輯，頁1-12。
二、英文部份
Airasian, P. W. (1996). Assessment in the Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hall.
Baker, E. L., Freeman, M., & Clayton, S.(1990). Cognitive Assessment of Subject Matter: Understanding the Merits of Psychological Theory and Educational Policy in Achievement Testing. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Baxter, G. P., Shavelson, R. J., Goldman, S. R., & Pine, J. (1992). Evaluation of procedure-based scoring for hands-on science assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 1-17.
Baum, S., Herbert, T., & Renzulli, S. (1994). Reversing underachievement: Stories of success. Educational Leadership , 25 (1), 46-47.
Bloom, B. S., Englhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H.,& Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay.
Brown. A. Ash. D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A. and Campione, J. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In Salomom, G. (Ed), Distributed Cognitions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burger, B. S. & Burger, D. L. (1994). Determining the validity of performance based assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice ,13(1), 9-15.
California Assessment Collaborative (1993). Charting the course toward instructionally sound assessment: A report of the alternative assessment pilot project . ERIC ED 373098.
Chase, C. I. (1999). Contemporary Assessment for Educators. New York: Longman.
Cizek, G. J. (1991). Innovation or enervation? Performance assessment in perspective. Phi Delta Kappan,73(3) 695-699.
Cronbach,, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validation argument. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test Validity, 3-17. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cole, D. J., Ryan, C. W., & Kick, F (1995). Portfolios across the curriculum and beyond. California: Corlin Press.
Cunningham, G. K. (1998). Assessment in the Classroom : Constructing and Interpreting Texts. London: Falmer Press.
Darling-Hammond L. (1993). Setting standards for students: The case for authentic assessment. NASSP Bulletin, 77(5), 18-26.
Fennessy, D. (1982). Primary Teachers’ assessment Practices: Some Implications for Teacher Training. ERIC ED229346.
Foster, J. D. (1991). The role of accountability in Kentucky’s Education Reform Act of 1990. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 34-36.
Frechtling, J. (1991). Performance assessment : Moonstruck or the real thing? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice ,10(4), 23-25.
Fredericksen, N. (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning. Amercian Psychologist, 39(3), 193-202.
Fredericksen, J. R., Collins, A.(1989). A system approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 189, 27-32.
Fullan, M.G.(1991). The new meaning of educational change. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gaustad, J. (1996). Assessment and Evaluation in the Multiage Classroom . Special issue . Oregon School Study Council Bulletin series. Eugene, Oregon: Oregon School Study Council. ERIC Ed392149 .
Gipps, C. V. (1994). Beyond Testing :Towards a Theory of Educational Assessment. Washington , DC: The Falmer Press.
Glaser, R. (1990). Toward new models for assessment. International Journal of Educational Research, 14(5) , 475-483.
Goess, K. V. (1993). Portfolio assessment: A work in progress . Middle School Journal, 25 (2), 20-24.
Goldstein, H. (1994). Recontextualising mental measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice ,13(1) , 23-25.
Gredler, M. G. (1999). Classroom Assessment and Learning. New York: Longman.
Gullickson, A. R. (1982). The Practice of Testing in Elementary and Secondary Schools. ERIC ED229391.
Harrow, A. J. (1972). A Taxonomy of Psychomotor Domain. New York:McKay.
Henderson, P. & Karr-Kidwell, P. J. (1998). Authentic Assessment: An Extensive Literary Review and Recommendations for Administrators. ERIC ED418140.
Hodgkinson, H.(1991). Reform versus reality. Phi Delta Kappan , September, 540-545.
Hopkins, K. D. (1998). Educational and Psychological Measurement and Evaluation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Howe, M. E., Thames, D., & Ward, C. (1995). Teacher Perceptions toward the Interpretation of Results from the New Norm-Referenced Portion of the Mississippi Assessment System. A Pilot Study. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Biloxi, Mississippi. ERIC ED393846.
Howe, M. E., & Thames, D. (1996). Mississippi Reading Teachers’ Perceptions toward the Interpretation of Results from Reformed Standardized Assessment in Mississippi. ERIC ED406423.
Howell, K. W., Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based Evaluation: Teaching and Decision Making. CA: Wadsworth /Thomson Learning.
Hu, C. T. (1984). The historic background : Examination and control in pre-modern China. Comparative Education, 20 (1), 7-26.
Hymes, D. (1991). The changing face of testing and assessment :problems and solutions. Arlington, VA:American Association of School Administrators.
Khattri, N., Kane, M. B., & Reeve, A. L. (1995). How performance assessments affect teaching and learning. Educational Leadership, 53(3), 80-83.
Khattri, N. & Sweet, D. (1996). Assessment reform: Promises and challenges. In M. B. Kane & R. Michell (Eds.), Implementing Performance Assessment: Promises, Problems, and Challenges, pp1-21. N.J.: Elrsbaum.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masian, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York:McKay.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago , IL:University of Chicago Press.
Latting, J. (1992). Assessment in Education: A Search for Clarity in the Growing Debate. ERIC ED361630.
Linn, R. L. (1994). Performance assessment: Policy promises and technical measurement standards. Educational Researcher, 23(9), 4-14.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.
Linn, R. L., & Burton, E. B. (1994). Performance-based assessment :Implications of task specificity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 13(1), 5-15.
Linn, R. L. & Gronlund, N. E. (1995). Measurement and Assessment in Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Lockwood, A. T. (1991). From telling to coaching. Focus in Change, 3(1), 3-7.
Marzano, R. J. & Costa, A. L. (1988). Question: Do standardized tests measure cognitive skills ? Answer: No. Educational Leadership, 45(8),66-73.
Magnusson, K. & Osborne, J. (1990). The rise of competency-based education: A deconstructionist analysis. The Journal of Educational Thought. 24 (1), 5-13.
Mayer, C. A. (1992). What’s the difference between authentic and performance assessment ? Educational Leadership, May ,39-40.
McGhee, T. J. (1998). Utilization of Authentic Assessment in Georgia’s Elementary Schools. The University of Georgia, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis.
McLaughlin, M.W.& Marsh, D.D.(1978). Staff development and school change. Teachers College Record, 80,70-94.
Mehrens, W. A.(1992). Using performance assessment for accountability purposes: some problems. Educational Measurement :Issues and Practices, 11(1), 3-9.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement, 13 –104. New York: Macmillan.
Mitchell, R.(1992). Testing for Learning: How New Approaches to Evaluation can Improve American Schools. New York: Free Press.
Moss, P. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 229-258.
Neill, D. M., & Medina, N. J. (1989). Standardized Testing: Harmful to Educational Health. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9), 688-697.
Newman, D. C. & Stalling, W. M. (1982). Teacher Competency in Classroom testing. ERIC ED 220491.
Popham, W. J.(1987). The merits of measurement-driven instruction. Phi Delta Kappan 70(3) ,679-682.
Popham, W. J.(1993). Circumventing the high costs of authentic assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 76(6) ,470-473.
Popham, W. J. (1995). Classroom Assessment: What Teachers Need to Know. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Price, J. W. (1998). An Authentic Unit and Its Results in a Middle School Classroom. Pacific Lutheran University, Unpublished doctoral thesis.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20.
Resnick, L. B.(1989). Knowing, Learning and Instruction. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Resnick, L. B., Resnick, D. P.(1992). ‘Assessing the thinking curriculum:New tools for educational reform。 In Gifford, B. and O’Connor, M. (Eds), Changing Assessments: Aptitude, Achievement and Instruction. London: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Baxter, G. P. & Shavelson, R. J. (1993). On the stability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement，30(1), 41-53.
Sanborn, J., & Sanborn, E. (1994). A conversation on portfolios. Middle School Journal , 26 (1) 26-29.
Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(3), 57-63.
Shepard, L. (1991). Psychometricians’ beliefs about learning. Educational Research, 20(7), 2-16.
Shepard, L. (1992). What policy makers who mandate tests should know about the new psychology of intellectual ability and learning. In Gifford, B. and O’Connor, M. (Eds), Changing Assessments: Alternatives Views of Aptitude, Achievement and Instruction, p234-258. London: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Terwilliger, J.(1997). Semantic, psychometrics, and assessment reform : A close look at “Authentic” assessment. Educational Researcher, 26, 24-27.
Testing. (1992, March 18). Education Weekly, 11(26), 10.
Tombari, M., & Borich, G. (1999). Authentic Assessment in the Classroom: Application and Practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Vitali,G. J.(1993). Factors influencing teachers’ assessment and instructional practices in assessment-driven educational reform. University of Kentucky, Unpublished doctoral thesis.
White, R. T.(1992). Implications of recent research on learning for curriculum and assessment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 153-164.
Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9), 703-713.
Wiggins, G. (1991). Standard, not standardization: Evoking quality student work. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 18-25.
Wiggins, G. (1993).Assessment: Authenticity, context, Validity, Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3), 200-214.
Wiggins, G. (1996). Assessment at a crossroads. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 638.
Willis, D. (1992). Educational assessment and accountability: A New Zealand case study. Journal of Educational Policy, 7(2), 213-244.
Wilson, M. (1992). Educational leverage from a political necessity: Implications of new perspectives on students assessment for chapter I evaluation. Educational Evaluation and policy Analysis, 14(2) , 123-144.
Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J. & Gardner, H. (1990). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education, 17, 31-74.
Wolf, A., Kelson, M. and Silver, R. (1990). Learning in Context: Pattern of Skills Transfer and Training Implications. Sheffield: The Training Agency.
Wood, R. (1986). The agenda for educational measurement. In Nutall, D.（Ed）, Assessing Educational Achievement, p213-231. London: Falmer Press.
Worthen, B. R.(1993). Critical issues that will determine the future of alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 444-454.
Worthen, B. R., White, K. R., & Sudweeks, R. R. (1999). Measurement and Assessment in Schools. New York:Longman.
Yeh, J. P. (1980). A Reanalysis Test Use Data Test Use Project. ERIC ED205590.
Yeh, J. P. (1981). Teachers and Testing: A Survey of test use. ERIC ED218336 .