本研究運用Moodle平台設計結構化的微型教學輔助模組，探討微型教學活動中採用不同網路同儕評量方式對同儕評分效度、評分結果、教學表現以及評論品質的影響，並以問卷調查方式了解實施成效，以作為日後改進之參考。
　　本研究採等組後測實驗設計，以臺北市某大學四年級修讀國民小學教學實習的29位學生為受試者，隨機分派至實驗組「協同評量組」及控制組「個別評量組」，兩組同學皆需將試教與正式教學二個階段的教學錄影上傳至Moodle網路學習平台，並依所屬組別進行同儕評分與評論。
　　實驗後以敘述統計、皮爾森積差相關、t檢定與卡方檢定分析二組同儕互評的結果，研究發現如下：
一、二組的評分結果皆與教師評分結果達顯著的中度正相關，同儕評分具效度。
二、正式教學的同儕評分結果協同評量組顯著高於個別評量組，教師評分結果協同評量組雖高於個別評量組，但未達顯著差異。
三、協同評量組撰寫評論的投入程度較高且評論屬性多為具體的肯定與建議類別，評論品質較佳，而二組的評論項目皆集中於表達呈現類別。
四、二組受試者皆肯定系統的功能以及對改進教學的幫助，並願意推薦學弟妹使用。

The purpose of this study was to design a structured microteaching module on Moodle to examine the effects of validity and results of peer assessment, teaching performance and comment quality by using different web-based peer assessment methods in microteaching activities. Furthermore, questionnaires were used to understand the effects of its implementation which also can do as references for future improvements.
A posttest-only control group experimental design was used in this study. The subjects were 29 fourth grade undergraduates in Taipei City. They were randomly assigned to experimental group "collaborative assessment group (CAG)" and control group "individual assessment group (IAG)". All of participants were asked to upload their trial and formal teaching videos to Moodle, and then scored peers’ performance and comment according their group.
After the experiment, descriptive statistics, Pearson's product-moment correlation, t-test, and chi-square test were used to analyze the datum. Results of this study were concluded as following:
1.Both groups’ rating results had validity.
2.In formal teaching period, CAG get significantly higher scores than IAG, but the supervisors' rating results released that there was no significant difference.
3.CAG had better comment quality than IAG, while both groups focused on presentation factor.
4.Most of participants recognized the function of this system and agreed it’s helpful to improving teaching. They were also willing to recommend it to juniors.

于富雲、鄭守杰、杜明璋、陳德懷（2003）。網路同儕互評與評量標準來源對批判思考能力之影響。國立臺南師範學院學報，37(2)，1-21。
王曉璿（2003）。網路同儕互評學習模式在師院生電腦動畫課程學習效益之探究。第11屆國際電腦輔助教學研討會ICCAI2003暨第16屆中華民國電腦輔助教學研討會論文集。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學。
江健豪（2009）。國中教師寫作評量回饋品質及其有效性之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
李咏吟（1997）。應用微型教學以加強師資訓練效果。收於李咏吟、單文經著，教學原理（39-50頁）。臺北：遠流。
沈慶珩、黃信義（2006）。網路同儕互評在Moodle系統上的應用。教育資料與圖書館，43(3)，267-284。
周春美、沈健華（2004）。教育學程學生發展教學專業化概念之行動研究-以微試教為例。教育科學，4(1)，52-77。
林蘭芬（2006）。華語職前教師於微型教學中的實踐：師資培訓課程之個案研究。淡江大學教育科技學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
高慧君（2004）。網路同儕互評於教學實習之成效分析。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
張德銳、蔡秀媛、許籐繼、江啟昱、李俊達、蔡美錦、李柏佳、陳順和、馮清皇、賴志鋒（2000）。發展性教學輔導系統-理論與實務。臺北：五南。
許志逸、陳錦章（2001）。微試教與教學觀摩活動對物理職前教師教學觀念之影響。科學教育，11，77-95。
陳彥廷、傅清雪、洪明全（2006）。同儕互評情境中職前幼兒教師科學教學知識轉化之研究。科學教育研究與發展季刊，45，1-20。
單文經（2001）。教學引論。台北：學富。
黃永和（2004）。微縮教學的再思及其實施成效初探。國立臺北師範學院學報，17（1），135-166。
廖偉良（2004）。線上同儕評量系統之設計與研究。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
劉旨峰（2009）。同儕評量於學習評量與教學評鑑之運用。教育資料與研究，89，119-140。
謝寶梅（2003，12月)。師資培育的主要問題：師資生專業知識的建構。發表於我國小學師資培育的回顧與前瞻研討會，國立臺中師範學院。
簡紅珠（1991）。培養職前教師反省思考能力的幾種途徑。國教世紀，27（1），10-13。
Allen, D., & Ryan, K. (1969). Microteaching. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Bell, N. D. (2007). Microteaching: What is it that is going on here? Linguistics and Education, 18, 24-40.
Benton-Kupper, J. (2001). The microteaching experience: Student perspectives. Education, 121(4), 830-835.
Brew, C., Riley, P., & Walta, C. (2009). Education students and their teachers: Comparing views on participative assessment practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(6), 641-657.
Cruickshank, D. R., & Metcalf, K. K. (1993). Improving preservice teacher assessment through on-campus laboratory experiences. Theory Into Practice, 32(2), 86-92.
Fallows, S., & Chandramohan, B. (2001). Multiple approaches to assessment: Reflections on use of tutor, peer and self-assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 229-246.
Farris, R. A. (1991). Micro-peer teaching: Organization and benefits. Education, 111(2), 559-562.
Fernández, M. L., & Robinson, M. (2006). Prospective teachers' perspectives on microteaching lesson study. Education, 127(2), 203-215.
Francis, D. (1997). Reconceptualising microteaching as critical inquiry. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 25(3), 207-223.
Higgins, A., & Nicholl, H. (2003). The experiences of lecturers and students in the use of microteaching as a teaching strategy. Nurse Education in Practice, 3(4), 220-227.
Jacques, D. (2000). Learning in groups: A handbook for improving group work. (3rd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Kpanja, E. (2001). A study of the effects of video tape recording in microteaching training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 483-486.
Lee, G., & Wu, C. (2006). Enhancing the teaching experience of pre-service teachers through the use of videos in web-based computer-mediated communication (CMC). Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 43(4), 369-380.
Long, J. (1994). Teaching strategies through microteaching. South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 22 (2), 129-137.
MacAlpine, J. (1999). Improving and encouraging peer assessment of student presentations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(1), 15-25.
MacLeod, G. (1987). Microteaching: Conceptual and theoretical bases. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 720-722). New York: Pergamon.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2000). The use of student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(1), 23-38.
Painter, R. (2008). Microteaching Labs. (pp. 1-1). Great Neck Publishing. Retrieved September 5, 2009, from Research Starters - Education database.
Patri, M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 19 (2), 109-131
Perlberg, A. (1987). Microteaching: Conceptual and theoretical bases. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 715-720). New York: Pergamon.
Subramaniam, K. (2006). Creating a microteaching evaluation form: The needed evaluation criteria. Education, 126(4), 666-677.
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Zakaria, E., & Daud, Md. Y. (2008). Using MOODLE in a mathematical methods course: Pre-service teachers’ perspective. The International Journal of Learning, 15(4), 293-298.