本研究要旨在突破紙筆測驗，只重打分數、排名次，以考試成績的「量的評定」，而忽略「質的分析與診斷」。因此，透過電腦化S-P表分析紙筆英語教學評量結果，以量化指標，判斷試題編製的良窳、改進命題與教學的參考及學習輔導的依據。
在教學歷程中，以教學評量活動評定學生的學習成果，可達三項目的：1.教學前的安置性評量－了解起點行為及適當安置學生。2.教學中的形成性、診斷性評量－確認適當教學活動及調整教學步調；診斷學習困難及激勵學習動機。3.教學後的總結性評量－明瞭學習成果及評定成績等定。在日常考查評量中，教師自編成就測驗卷適合教學對象否？符合教學目標否？在評定教學成效達成與否，先行檢視測驗試題品質，如此測驗評量結果呈現的資料才有實際的作用。教學評量在紙筆測驗的方法下，不重在獲悉評量的結果，而應在深入思考「為何要評量」的問題（Kohn, 1994）。利用評分標準客觀且方便獲得大量資料的紙筆測驗數據，本研究的目的：一、利用電腦程式軟體，建立S-P表，進行測驗分析，以量化指標，提供以下功能：1.診斷學習困難，實施個別輔導。2.，確認教學缺失，調整教學策略。3.判定並修改試題的參考。二、運用S-P表於英語教學，提昇教學成效。

The main idea of the research is to break through the emphasis on the rating scale in paper-and-pencil test evaluation, using the scores as "quantitative assessment" and neglecting "the qualitative analysis and diagnosis". Therefore, through the quantitative indexes from the result of the computerized S-P table analysis on teaching evaluation, it can evaluate the quality of the test construction, improve the test items and teaching, furthermore guide learning.                 
In the teaching process, the teaching evaluation activities can attain three purposes:1.The arrangement evaluation prior to teaching is to detect the prior knowledge and arrange students properly. 2.The formative and critical evaluation during the teaching is to identify the practical teaching activities or diagnose the learning difficulties to promote learning motivation. 3.The summative evaluation after teaching is to grasp the learning performance and assess achievement ranks. In the daily test evaluation, are the teacher-made tests appropriate for the teaching audience and teaching goals? It's ideal to check the quality of the test before assessing the achievement of the teaching effects, so that the information from assessing the test evaluation can bring forth its function. The main point of the teaching evaluation under the paper-and-pencil test is not in getting the result but in pondering the question "why to evaluate". (Kohn,1994) By using the objective standardized grade and the obtainable numerous test figures, the research plans to reach the following goals: 1.To found a S-P table by computer programming proceeds the test analysis. Based on the quantitative indexes, it provides the following functions : (1)diagnose the learning difficulties and implement individual guidance. (2)find out the teaching faults and adjust teaching strategies. (3)decide the test quality for correction reference. 2. To apply the computerized S-P table to English teaching promotes the teaching effects.

第一章緒論1
第一節研究背景和動機1
第二節研究目的3
第三節研究問題4
第四節研究範圍與限制4
第五節研究預期貢獻5
第六節名詞界定5
第二章文獻探討6
第一節精緻教學理論與教學設計6
第二節測驗與評量的相關概念14
第三節教學評量理論與相關研究22
第四節S-P表分析理論與應用32
第三章研究設計與實施50
第一節研究架構50
第二節研究對象53
第三節研究工具53
第四節研究方法與步驟53
第四章研究結果與討論56
第一節教學與測驗的實施程序56
第二節S-P表分析測驗資料68
第三節應用S-P表於教學的成效118
第五章結論與建議120
第一節結論120
第二節建議122
參考文獻124
[中文部分]124
[英文部分]125
附錄130
附錄一130
附錄二141
附錄三154
附錄四165
附錄五174
附錄六180
附錄七187
附錄八195
附錄九202
附錄十210
附錄十一214

圖目次
圖2-1　教學活動六要素7
圖2-2　記憶系統的架構9
圖2-3　教學設計過程模型19
圖2-4　簡化的教學過程模式21
圖2-5　教學過程中的評量27
圖2-6　Glaser基本教學模式28
圖2-7　S曲線與P曲線的定義36
圖2-8　S曲線的形狀與試題間的相互關係圖37
圖2-9　注意係數與得分的對照42
圖2-10　注意係數與答對率的對照43
圖2-11　教學管理流程圖43
圖3-1　S-P表於英語教學評量之研究架構51
圖3-2　研究架構概念圖52
圖3-3　研究架構流程圖53
圖3-4　研究進行的流程55
圖4-1　綜一乙 BK.II L.1 Test1的S-P表70
圖4-2　綜一乙 BK.II L.1 Test1 學生-問題注意係數分析圖71
圖4-3　綜一乙 BK.II L.1 Test2的S-P表77
圖4-4　綜一乙 BK.II L.1 Test2 學生-問題注意係數分析圖78
圖4-5　綜一丁 BK.II L.1 Test1的S-P表83
圖4-6　綜一丁 BK.II L.1 Test1 學生-問題注意係數的分析圖84
圖4-7　綜一丁 BK.II L.1 Test2的S-P表93
圖4-8　綜一丁 BK.II L.1 Test2 學生-問題注意係數的分析圖94
圖4-9  BKII L.1 Test1綜一乙、丁 S-P表之比較103
圖4-10　兩班學生學習類型之比較104
圖4-11　各班試題異質性之比較106
圖4-12　BKII L.1 Test2 綜一乙、丁 S-P表之比較109
圖4-13　兩班學生學習類型之比較110
圖4-14　各班級試題異質性之比較112
圖4-15　綜一乙S-P表的學生追蹤調查116
圖4-16　綜一丁S-P表的學生追蹤調查117
圖4-17　綜一乙 BKII. L.1 Test1與Test2的S-P表比較119
圖4-18　綜一丁 BKII. L.1 Test1與Test2的S-P表比較119

表目次
表2-1　傳統與現代的評量理論23
表2-2　S-P表符號表示35
表2-3　DB (M)的查表值39
表4-1　綜一乙、丁L.1 Test1學生學習類型之診斷104
表4-2　綜一乙、丁L.1 Test1各問題按答對率的高低順序之排列104
表4-3　綜一乙、丁L.1 Test1試題類型區分之教學細項的達成度105
表4-4　綜一乙、丁L.1 Test1各班的問題注意係數105
表4-5　綜一乙、丁L.1 Test1試題類型之統計105
表4-6　綜一乙 BK.2 L.1 Test1按問題類型區分的S-P表107
表4-7　綜一丁 BK.2 L.1 Test1按問題類型區分的S-P表108
表4-8　綜一乙、丁L.1 Test2學生學習類型之診斷110
表4-9　綜一乙、丁L.1 Test2問題按答對率的高低順序排列110
表4-10　綜一乙、丁L.1 Test2試題類型區分之教學細項的達成度111
表4-11　綜一乙、丁L.1 Test2各班的問題注意係數111
表4-12　綜一乙、丁L.1 Test2試題類型之統計111
表4-13　綜一乙 BK.2 L.1 Test2按問題類型區分的S-P表113
表4-14　綜一丁 BK2 L.1 Test2按問題類型區分的S-P表114
表4-15  學習類型的注意係數116
表4-16  注意係數與下回成績的關係116
表4-17  學習類型的注意係數117
表4-18  注意係數與下回成績的關係117
表4-19  各班段考成績的比較118

丁鋐鎰（民90）。國中氧化還原概念之精熟學習研究。國立台灣師範大學化學研究所89年度碩士論文。
丁香如（民90）。高一學生氧化還原概念之精熟學習研究。國立台灣師範大學化學研究所89年度碩士論文。
王文中、呂金燮、吳毓瑩、張郁雯、張淑慧（民88）。教育測驗與評量：教育學習的觀點。台北：五南。
呂文秋（民76）。S-P表在高級中學數學科教學上之研究。國立政治大學學報第56期，61-92頁。
吳裕益、黃桂君（民84）。能力診斷分析模式之建立與效度驗證。測驗年刊，43輯，33-52頁。
李咏吟，單文經（民87）。教育原理（三版），台北：遠流。
李咏吟 (民76) 如何應用教學策略以促進國民小學的各科教學，國立台灣教育學院輔導學系編輯，國民教育輔導論叢。台北：教育部國教司。
何英奇（民78）。精熟學習策略配合微電腦化S-P表分析診斷對學生學習效果的實驗研究。師大教育心理學報，22期，191-214頁。
何景國 （民81）。電腦化設計改進S-P圖的研究（含S-P圖表的原理及其電腦程式操作）。台北市教師研習中心教育專題研究（三十）。
余民寧（民80）。測驗編製與分析技術在學習診斷上的應用。教育研究雙月刊。28期，頁44-59
余民寧（民84）。成就測驗的編製原理。心理：台北
余民寧 (民86) 有意義的學習－概念構圖之研究，台北：商鼎文化
余民寧（民87）。S-P表分析在教學評量上的應用。載於高雄市政府公教人力資源發展中心主編：多元教學評量（29-43頁）。高雄：高雄市政府公教人力資源發展中心。
余民寧（民87）。S-P表分析在教學評量上的應用。載於高雄市政府公教人力資源發展中心。學術教育叢書，第六輯。29-33頁。
余民寧（民91）。教育測驗與評量：成就測驗與教學評量。台北：心理。
岳美群、蔡長添（民82）。高中生物科環境教材概念分析與學生學習成果評量之研究。科學教育，83-129頁。
陳漢瑛（民80）。精熟學習策略配合微電腦化S-P表分析試題與回饋對護專學生藥理學學習成效之實驗研究。技術學刊，6卷，2期，99-107頁。
單文經（民90）。教學引論。台北市：學富。
郭玉生（民79）。心理與教育測驗（五版）。台北：精華。
黃光雄（民71）。教學目標與評鑑。高雄市：復文。
Airasian, P. W. （1991）. Classroom Assessment. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Airasian, P. W. （1996）. Assessment in the Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hall.
Airasion,P.W. ,Madaus,G.F. （1972） . Functional types of student evaluation . Measurement and Evaaluations in Guidance, 4, 221-233.
Airasino, P. W. （1994）. Classroom assessment（2nd. ed.）. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Anastasi,A.&Urbina,S. （1997）.Psychological testing （7th ed.） NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Anastasi, A. （1988）. Psychological testing（6th ed.）. New York: Macmillan.
Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. （1980）. A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3, 2-16.
Atkison,R.L.,Atkison,R.C.,Smith,E.E.,&Hllgard,E.R.(1990).Introduction to psychology. Floreda:Harcount Brace Jovanovich.
Black, P. （1998）. Testing: Friend or foe? The theory and practice of assessment and testing. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Bloom, B. S. （1961）. Quality control in education. Tomorrow's Teaching.
Oklahoma City: Frontiers of Science Foundation, 54-61.
Bloom, B. S etal（1965）.Taxonomy of educational objectives:Handbook 1:cognitive Domain.New York:David Mckay
Bloom （1971）. Itastings and Madaus "Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning", Me Gvaw-Hill
Best,J.B.（1986）.Cognitive psychology. N.Y:West Publishing Company
Brown F. G.（1981）. Measuring Classroom Achievement. N. Y.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. pp.168-191.
Brown, H. D. （1994）. Principle of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
Calfee,R. ,&Hiebert,E.（1991）.Ciaddroom Assessmwnt of Reading.In R.Barr,M.L.kami,P.Mosenthal,&P.O.Pearson（Eds）,The handbook of reading research（Vol 2, pp.281-309）.New York,NY:Longman.
Chase, C. I. （1999）. Contemporary Assessment for Educator. New York: Longman.
Cohen, R. J., Montague, P., Nathanson, L. S., & Swerdlik, M. E.（1988）. Pschological testing: An introduction to tests and measurement. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Crocker, L. & Algina, J. （1986）. Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: CBS College Publishing.
Cronbach, L. J.（1990）. Essentials of psychological testing（5th ed.）. New York: Harper & Row.
Cunningham, G. K. （1998）. Assessment in the Classroom: Constructing and Interpreting Texts. London: Falmer Press.
Davis, R. H., Alexander, L. T. & Yelon, S. L. （1974）. Learning system design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dick, W., & Carey, L. （1985）. The systematic design of instruction. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. （1991）. Essentials of educational measurement（5th ed.）. Engewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Feldhusen, J. F. （1964）. Student perceptions of frequent quizzes and postmortem discussions of tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1（1）, 51-54
Findley, W. G. （1963）. Purpose of school testing programs and their efficient development. In W. G. Findley, ed., Sixty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1-27.
Glaser, R. （1990）. Toward new models for assessment. International Journal of Educational Research, 14（5）, 475-483.
Glaser, R. （1962）. Psychology and instructional technology. In R.Glaser （Ed）,Training  research and education. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Gredler, M. G. （1999）. Classroom Assessment and Learning. New York: Longman.
Gronlund, N. E. （1993）. How to make achievement tests and assessments（5th ed.）. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Haladyna, T. M. （1994）. Developing and validating multiple-choice test items.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harnisch, D. L.（1984）. Relationships among S-P Based person and item fit statistics at the classroom level. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Harnisch, D. L. （1983）. Item response patterns: Applications for educational practice. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 191-206.
Harnisch, D. L. & Linn R. L. （1981）. Analysis of item response patterns. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 133~146, 1981.
Harrow, A. J. （1972）. A Taxonomy of Psychomotor Domain. New York: David Mckay.
Hinofotis, F. B. （1981）. Perspectives on language testing: Past, present and future. Nagoya Gakuin Daigaku Gaikokugo kyoiku kiyo, 4, 51-59.
Hopkins, K. D. （1998）. Educational and Psychological Measurement and Evaluation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hopkins, K. D., Stanley, J. C., & Hopkins, B. R. （1990）. Educational and  psychological measurement and evaluation（7th ed.）. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
James, D. B. （1996）. Testing in Language Programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kohn, A. （1994）. Grading: The Issue Is Not How but Why. Educational Leasership, 52（2）,38-41.
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. （1964）. Taxonomy of educational objectives: Affective domain. New York: David Mckay.
Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G.（1987）. Educational testing and measurement: Classroom: application and practice （2nd ed.）. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.
Linn, R. L .& Gronlund, N. E. （1995）. Measurement and Assessment in Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Lerner, R. M. （1991）. Changing organism-context relations as the basic process of development: A developmental contextual perspective. Developmental psychology, 27, 27-32.
Mayer, R. E. （1987）. Educational psychology: A cognitive approach. HarperCollins Publisher.
McArthur, D. L.（1987）. Alternative Approaches to the Assessment of Achievement.
    Boston: Klumer Academic Publishing Co.,
McGhee, T. J. （1998）. Utilization of Authentic Assessment in Georgia's Elementary  Schools. The University of Georgia, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis.
Messick, S. （1984）. The Psychology of Educational Measurement, Journal of Educational Measurement, 21(3), PP. 215-238
Nichols, P. D.（1994）. A Framework for Developing Cognitively Diagnostic Assessments. Review of Educational Research, 64(4). PP. 575-603.
Oosterhof, A. （2001）. Classroom applications of educational measurement（3rd ed.）. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ory, J. C., & Ryan, K. E. （1993）. Tips for improving testing and grading. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Osterlind, S. J. （1998）. Constructing test items: Multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance, and other formats（2nd ed.）. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
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.
Resnick, L. B. （1989）. Knowing, Learning and Instruction. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roid, G. H. & Haladyna, T. M. （1982）. A technology for test-item writing. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Sax, G. （1989）. Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation（3rd ed.）. CA: Wadsworth.
Sato, T.（1975）. The construction and interpretation of S-P tables. Tokyo: Meiji Tosho. （In Japanese）
Sato, T. （1980b）. The S-P chart and the caution index. NEC Educational Information Bulletin, 80-1.
Sato, T.（1981）. Practical Uses of S-P Chart (Elementary school ed.)
    Tokyo: Meiji Tosho. (in Japanese)
Sato, T. （1982）. Practical uses of S-P Chart [Elementary, Junior high, and High school ed.]. Tokyo: Meiji Tosho. （In Japanese）
Sato, T. （1985）. Introduction to student-problem curve theory analysis and evaluation. Tokyo: Meiji Tosho. （In Japanese）
Sato, T., & Kurata, M. （1977）. Basic S-P scoreable characteristics. NEC Research and Development, 47, 64-71.
Snow, R. E. & Lohman, D. F. （1989）, Implications of Cognitive Psychology for Education Measurement. In R. L. Linn(Ed.). Educational Measurement (3rded., PP. 263-332) New York: Macmillan.
Shepard, L. A. （2000）. The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29（7）, 4-14.
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, pp. 234-258. London: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Stiggins, R. J. （1992）. Student centered classroom assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tatsuoka, K. K. （1983）. Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345-354.
Tatsuoka, K. K. （1984a）. Caution indices based on item response theory. Psychometrika, 49, 95-110.
Tatsuoka, K. K. （1984b）. Changes in error types over learning stages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 120-129.
Tatsuoka, K. K. （1985）. A probabilistic model for diagnosing misconceptions in the pattern classification approach. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 55-73.
Tatsuoka, K. K. （1986）. Diagnosing cognitive errors: Statistical pattern classification and recognition approach. Behaviormetrika, 19, 73-86.
Tatsuoka, K. K. （1987）. Validation of cognitive sensitivity for item response curves. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 233-245.
Tatsuoka, K. K., & Linn, R. L. （1983）. Indices for detecting unusual patterns: Links between two general approaches and potential applications. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 81-96.
Tatsuoka, K. K., & Tatsuoka, M. M. （1982）. Detection of aberrant response patterns. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 215-231.
Tatsuoka, K. K., & Tatsuoka, M. M. （1983）. Spotting erroneous rules of operation by the individual consistency index. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 221-230.
Tatsuoka, K. K., & Tatsuoka, M. M. （1987）. Bug distribution and pattern classification. Psychometrika, 52, 193-206.
Tatsuoka, M. M., & Tatsuoka, K. K. （1988）. Rule space. In S. Kotz, & N. L. Johnson（Eds.）, Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, 8, 217-220. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Vygotsky, L. S. （1934/1987）. Thinking and speech. In the collected works of L. S. Vol 1. Problems of general psychology（N. Minick, Trans.）. New York: Plenum Press.
White, H. B.（1932）. Testing as an aid to learning. Educational Administration and Supervision, 18, 41-46.
Whitehead, A. N. （1929）. The Aims of Education and Other Essays. New York: Macmillan.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. （1998）. Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.