設計領域在台灣隨著文化創意產業的興起越來越重視，設計學習的評論成為一種可以增加學生自主學習能力和審視自身學習情況的方法。資訊圖像隨著現在資訊越來越多，運用範圍也擴及政策宣傳、商品行銷、新聞快訊等層面，儼然成為一門專業設計學科，資訊圖像設計分為資料擷取、敘事轉化、視覺設計三個部分，這三個部分對應本研究設計的三個面向的評論題目，分別為主題呈現、資訊統計圖表、視覺設計。本研究收集國立師範大學基本設計的57位學生的資訊圖像作品，觀察整體學生對資訊圖像的認識、同儕評論及自我評論的內容異同，採用內容分析法，將這些資料以Nvivo質性分析軟體進行編碼，分別以「評論階層」、「海報元素」、「元素表現」做編碼依據，建立學生對資訊圖像海報的認識架構。結果發現，學生比較擅長描述和評斷資訊圖像海報，比較不擅長分析海報元素背後的涵義；重視清楚勝過於美感，重視簡化勝過於豐富，只有在資訊統計圖表中更重視豐富；重視元素與元素之間的呼應搭配，是設計領域模型中特別的元素表現。同儕評論與自我評論有相關，整體學生對資訊圖像的認識與自我評論略為相關，整體學生對資訊圖像的認識與評論不直接相關，希望本研究可以了解學生在學習設計上的想法和評論內容。

Design is receiving an increasing amount of attention as Taiwan's cultural and creative fields grow. Peer review in design learning has become a way to increase students' self-learning ability and review their own learning situation. With more and more information nowadays, the scope of application of information images has also expanded to policy publicity, product marketing, news and newsletters, etc. It has become a professional design subject. Information images are divided into three categories: data capture, narrative transformation, and art design. We gathered the information graphics produced by 57 students enrolled in National Normal University's basic design course, and we studied at their peers' review, self-assessment and their own understanding of information images. To establish students' understanding of information image posters, these data are coded using the content analysis method and Nvivo qualitative analysis software, with the coding base being "Feldman's model of art criticism", "Constituents", and "Criteria elements". The results show that students do better while describing and analyzing information graphic posters than when interpreting the significance of the poster's elements. Students favor clarity over aesthetics and simplicity over diversity. They just emphasize diversity more so in information statistics charts. In the design field, the matching of elements and elements, which is a specific element expression, receives more attention from design study students. While students' understanding of information images is only somewhat associated with self-assessment, peer review and self-assessment are unconnected, and there is no correlation between students' understanding of information images and peer review. It is hoped that this results can provide educators with some suggestions on guiding students to design learning.

王澄霞和謝昭賢（1997）。以認知圖評量「酸雨」STS教學的學習成就。師大學報：科學教育類，（42），13-29。 https://doi.org/10.6300/jntnu.1997.42.02
王靜儀和林銘煌（2010）。剖析Jurgen Bey的設計美學。工業設計，（122），96-101。 https://doi.org/10.29918/id.201005.0016
江欣潔（2013）。資訊視覺化觀點之互動展示策略研究（碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/743bkr。
何彥如（2019）。對英語學習的熱情？比較臺北市兩種類型大學生的英語學習動機與自我知覺英語能力。教育心理學報，50（3），529-549。
何淑君、林勢敏和李珮琪（2019）。從使用者觀點分析線上評論及建構行動應用軟體之品質特徵。資訊管理學報，26（1），99-119。
宋長岳（2011）。應用ANP法於視覺傳達設計教育之作品評量研究（碩士論文）。國立雲林科技大學，雲林縣。
巫銘昌、張文龍和陳嬋娟（2012）。台灣設計教育的回顧與展望。台灣教育，（674），77-80。https://doi.org/10.6395/ter.201204.0077
李季儒和韓豐年（2020）。透過資料視覺化的應用提升國小學童對社會領域學習動機之探究－以基隆市某國小為例。中華印刷科技年報，（2020），339-348。
李家成（1999）。論教育活動中他人評價與自我評價的結合。教育評論，（1），36-38。
林美賢（2002）。國小社會科實施多元評量之個案研究（碩士論文）。國立新竹師範學院，新竹縣。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/w62qrt。
林曼麗（1995）。解構視覺藝術教育知識體--探討臺灣視覺藝術教育之主體性（下）。美育月刊，63，37-49。
林睿琳（2006）。色彩計劃課程之實作設計研究。人文暨社會科學期刊，2（2），37-51。
武書敬和房立敏（2007）。自我評價在大學英語寫作教學中的應用與反思。瘋狂英文：教師版，3（9）， 8-10。
倪敏、張芷維、江雅君和楊炫叡（2008）。優異海報設計要素分析。圖文傳播藝術學報，（2008），225-236。https://doi.org/10.29886/ntuadgca.200805.0023
夏綠荷、黃意雯、黃國禎和魏正（2015）。註記式線上舞蹈學習評論模式對同儕回饋之影響。大專體育學刊，17（2），169-188。https://doi.org/10.5297/ser.1702.005
孫志誠和嚴貞（2002）。設計作品評量模式之相關論述。設計研究，（2），91-102。https://doi.org/10.30178/sjyj.200207.0009
孫皓瓊（2011）。圖形對話：什麼是信息設計。新竹：清華大學出版社。
張麗麗（2002）。藝術與人文學習領域的教學評量。藝術教育研究，579-636。
許子凡（2020）。資訊圖像—資訊與圖解的設計表現。科技發展，（570），60-66。
許子凡、楊朝明和王聖文（2017）。網頁資訊圖像的表現形式與主題內容之關聯分析。設計學研究，20（1），1-22。
郭筱晴和張岳豐（2018）。探討國中學生英語學習背景和學習動機對英語學習成效之影響。語文與國際研究，（19），173-196。https://doi.org/10.3966/181147172018060019009
陳子芸、湯家穎、林湘慈和何采瑾（2020）。行政法條懶人包資訊最佳表現形式之探討。圖文傳播藝術學報，（2020），255-263。
陳美芳、謝佳男和黃楷茹（2007）。影響高中優秀學生寫作表現的因素分析。特殊教育研究學刊，32（3），63-86。
陳美芳、黃楷茹、謝佳男和林宜駿（2010）。高中同儕寫作回饋的效度與效果探析。教育科學研究期刊，55（1），63-89。
陳淳迪、黃佳音和翁註重（2012）。工業設計專案學習的評量項目意涵及意涵說明：教師觀點。藝術教育研究，（23），71-100。
陳瀅（2020）。台灣觀光手冊封面之設計要素研究。中華印刷科技年報，（2020）， 359-368。
楊敏英（2007）。設計基礎．基礎設計—大學基本設計課程的教學理念與實踐。美育期刊，14-21。
楊連生和譚曉斐（2021）。大學生自我評價的内涵、特點及教育對策。教育科學，37（4），76-81。
楊朝明（2010）。隱喻式平面廣告之視覺圖像與標題對廣告效果的影響—探討消費者之廣告態度、品牌態度、廣告記憶與購買意願（博士論文）。國立臺灣科技大學，臺北市。
楊朝明和周郁軒（2013）。不同認知需求層級與雙關修辭品質對於平面廣告記憶的影響。設計學報，18（1），1-24。
楊馥如（2009）。國一階段生命教育多媒體遊戲學習教材研發與評鑑研究。藝術學報，（85），479 - 503。 doi: 10。6793/JNTCA。200910。0479
楊馥如（2009）。從主觀到客觀－視覺藝術如何進行評量。美育期刊，88-96。
廖翊廷、蔡馨誼（2015）。海報視覺設計要素分析—以影史排行前十大賣座電影為例。圖文傳播藝術學報，（2015），87-111。
劉光夏（2021）。跨越主觀：網路同儕互評應用於大學藝術設計課堂。設計學報，26（2），67-92。
劉晉宏（2011）。國中學生數學學習動機之研究（碩士論文）。國立中興大學，臺中市。
劉晏志和黃綝怡（2007）。設計教育學。設計研究，（7），97-106.。https://doi.org/10.30178/sjyj.200707.0013
蔡倖培（2018）。視覺資訊圖表與資訊傳遞之研究—以Re-lab設計個案為例研究，中華印刷科技年報，（2018），162-180。
蔡雅玲、黃文宏、王靖雯和高婷婷（2021）。線上社群評論人及論點說服力之研究。管理資訊計算，1（10），1-10。
賴建都（2002）。我國視覺傳達設計博士教育之理念與模式—以教育行政組織與與效能上探討，廣告學研究，19，35-53。
謝金枝（2019）。翻轉高等教育的學習評量。台灣教育評論期刊，8（1）， 157-161。
譚祥安和劉仲嚴（2010）。高中生在考試情境下的藝術評論模式。藝術教育研究，（20），1-31。
嚴竹蓮（2016）。同儕審查的評審標準、信度與公平性研究：以台灣出版之社會暨人文科學期刊為例（博士論文）。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。
蘇億晉（2020）。國中自然科學圖表閱讀策略教學之成效研究。臺灣教育評論月刊，9（2），135-155。
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting Learning and Achievement Through Self-Assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577544
Av-Shalom, N. Y., El-Moslimany, H., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. (2018). Changes in Students’ Use of Epistemic Criteria in Model Evaluation. In Kay, J. and Luckin, R. (Eds.) Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age: Making the Learning Sciences Count, 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018. London, UK: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The Instructional Effect of Feedback in Test-Like Events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213-238. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002213
Bartuseviciene, I. (2014). Self-evaluation as an Attribute of Formative Assessment of Students’ Achievements in Maritime Studies. TransNav: International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 8, 239-244.
Barzilai, S., & Eilam, B. (2018). Learners’ epistemic criteria and strategies for evaluating scientific visual representations. Learning and Instruction, 58, 137-147. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.06.002
Bateman, S., Mandryk, R. L., Gutwin, C., Genest, A., McDine, D. & Brooks, C., (2010). Useful junk?: the effects of visual embellishment on comprehension and memorability of charts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2573–2582. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753716
Berner-Rodoreda, A., Bärnighausen, T., Kennedy, C., Brinkmann, S., Sarker, M., Wikler, D., Eyal, N., & McMahon, S. A. (2020). From Doxastic to Epistemic: A Typology and Critique of Qualitative Interview Styles. Qual Inq, 26(3-4), 291-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418810724
Boud, D. (1989). The role of self-assessment in student grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education - ASSESS EVAL HIGH EDUC, 14, 20-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293890140103
Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing Learning Through Self-assessment (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315041520
Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011). The Role of Epistemic Beliefs in the Comprehension of Multiple Expository Texts: Toward an Integrated Model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 48-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538647
Britt, M. A., Richter, T., & Rouet, J. F. (2014). Scientific Literacy: The Role of Goal-Directed Reading and Evaluation in Understanding Scientific Information. Educational Psychologist, 49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916217
Byrne, L., Angus, D., & Wiles, J. (2019). Figurative frames: A critical vocabulary for images in information visualization. Information Visualization, 18(1), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473871617724212
Carroll, D. (2020). Observations of student accuracy in criteria-based self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(8), 1088-1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1727411
Chang, H. Y., & Chang, H. C. (2012). Scaffolding Students’ Online Critiquing of Expert- and Peer-generated Molecular Models of Chemical Reactions. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.733978
Chen, Z., & Zhang, B. (2018). People-oriented Information Visualization Design. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1004(1), 012036. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1004/1/012036
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of Data: A Theory of How People Evaluate Data. Cognition and Instruction, 19(3), 323-393. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1903_3
Cohen, J. (1960) A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
Colin, W., (2004). Information Visualization: Perception for Design ( 2 ). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Covill, A. E. (2010). Comparing Peer Review and Self-Review as Ways to Improve College Students' Writing. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(2), 199-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862961003796207
Cui, Y., Schunn, C. D., Gai, X., Jiang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2021). Effects of Trained Peer vs. Teacher Feedback on EFL Students’ Writing Performance, Self-Efficacy, and Internalization of Motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.788474
Damsa, C., Kirschner, P., Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. (2010). Shared Epistemic Agency: An Empirical Study of an Emergent Construct. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508401003708381
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331379935
Feldman, E.B. (1994). Practical art criticism. NJ:Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: Australian Journal of E.S.L.
Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K. & Arfstrom, K. M., (2012). A white paper base on the literature review titled a review of flipped learning. Research gate, 1-17.
Haroz, S., Kosara, R., & Franconeri, S. L., (2015). Isotype visualization: working memory, performance, and engagement with pictographs. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). Association for Computing Machinery, NY, USA, 1191–1200. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702275
Kelly, T. (2007). Epistemic Rationality as Instrumental Rationality: A Critique. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 66, 612-640. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2003.tb00281.x
Kibler, R. J.,Cegala, D. J., Barker, L. L.,& Miles, D.T.(1974). Objectives for instruction and evaluation. Boston：Allyn and Bacon.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
Li, H., & Moacdieh, N. (2014). Is “chart junk” useful? An extended examination of visual embellishment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58(1), 1516–1520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581316
McDonald, J. K., Rich, P. J., & Gubler, N. B. (2019). The Perceived Value of Informal, Peer Critique in the Instructional Design Studio. TechTrends, 63(2), 149-159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0302-9
Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D. & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Research in Science Teaching, 55(5), 1-23. doi:10.1002/tea.21459
Min, H. T. (2007). Writer Perceptions of Reviewer Stances: A Qualitative Study.
Min, J. Y. (2020). Korean university students’ perceptions of feedback activities on English composition: Self-review, peer feedback, and computer feedback. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 20, 335-362.
Moere, A. V., Purchase, H. (2011). On the role of design in information visualization. Information Visualization, 10(4), 356-371.
Morris, J. E., & Kidd, J. (2016). Teaching Students to Give and To Receive: Improving Disciplinary Writing Through Peer Review. EDM, 2016.
Naccarato, J. L., & Neuendorf, K. A. (1998). Content analysis as a predictive methodology: Recall, readership, and evaluations of business-to-business print advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(3), 19–33.
Panofsky, E. (1955). Meaning in the visual arts: Papers in and on art history. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Peter, F., & Allan, L. (1990). Literacies programs: debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: an Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(3), 7-16.
Pieschl, S., & Sivyer, D. (2021). Secondary students’ epistemic thinking and year as predictors of Internet blogs. Computers & Education, 160, 1-16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104038
Ping, C. (2019). Application research of information graphics design in web site design based on visual communication. Proceedings - 2019 International Conference on Smart Grid and Electrical Automation, ICSGEA 2019.
Pluta, W., Chinn, C., & Duncan, R. (2011). Learners' Epistemic Criteria for Good Scientific Models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 486-511. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20415
Shaffer, D. W., Collier, W., & Ruis, A. R. (2016). A Tutorial on Epistemic Network Analysis: Analyzing the Structure of Connections in Cognitive, Social, and Interaction Data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3), 9-45. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.33.3
Shieh, J. J. (2015).Power, Privilege and Textbooks: A Content Analysis of General Studies Textbooks in Primary Schools in Macao. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 209-234.
Smiciklas, M. (2012). The power of infographics: Using pictures to communicate and connect with your audiences. Indianapolis, IN: Que Biz-Tech.
Subramaniam, M., Hanafi, J., & Putih, A. T. B. (2016). Teaching For Art Criticism: Incorporating Feldman’s Critical Analysis Learning Model In Students’ Studio Practice. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4, 57-67.
Taylor, A. C., & Pulford, S. (2015). Visual communication learning through peer design critiques: engineering communication across divisions. In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,26-1707.
Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative in formation (2nd ed.) Cheshire, CT: Graphic Press.
Vande Moere, A., & Purchase, H. (2011). On the role of design in information visualization. Information Visualization, 10, 356-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473871611415996
Ware, C. (2004) Information Visualization. Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.
Wei, Y. J., (2006). Recent progress in high-entropy alloys. European Journal of Control, 31(6), 633-648.
Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V.L., & Murray, B. (2004). Transformational leadership, goal difficulty, and job design: independent and interactive effects on employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(15), 593-606.
Whittington, J., (2004). The process of effective critiques. Computers & Graphics, 3(28), 401-407. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2004.03.007
William J. , Pluta, A. C. , Golan, R. & Clark, D. (2011). Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 5(48), 486-511.
Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 13–73). Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis.
Yeh, J. W. (2006). Recent progress in high-entropy alloys. European Journal of Control - EUR J CONTROL, 31, 633-648. https://doi.org/10.3166/acsm.31.633-648