本研究旨在探討多點觸控支援合作設計式學習（Multi-touch Enhanced Collaborative Design-based Learning, M-T CDBL）活動中，學生的數學學習成就、對數學的態度、以及合作技巧是否會因為在組間同儕評量過程有無使用回覆回饋（back-feedback）和不同程度的先備知識（prior knowledge）而有差異，以及於組間同儕評量過程有使用回覆回饋的學生在合作產出成果上是否優於沒有使用回覆回饋的學生。本研究採用準實驗研究法，以新北市某國中117位七年級學生為實驗對象，將學生分為有回覆回饋組與無回覆回饋組兩個組別，進行為期12周的實驗，讓學生以三至四人一組的形式，依照M-T CDBL模式，透過在多點觸控密鋪系統上完成密鋪設計作品來學習數學科幾何主題中的「正多邊形的角度」、「線對稱」、「比例尺」、和「幾何變換」概念，並在過程中進行共計三回合的組間同儕評量。其中，有回覆回饋組進行在同儕評量過程中導入回覆回饋的M-T CDBL活動，無回覆回饋組則進行在同儕評量過程中未導入回覆回饋的M-T CDBL。研究結果發現，在數學學習成就方面，有使用回覆回饋的高先備知識學生在數學學習成就的表現顯著優於沒有使用回覆回饋的高先備知識學生，而中先備知識和低先備知識的學生則不會因為有無使用回覆回饋而在數學學習成就上有顯著的差異；在對數學的態度和合作技能上，有回覆回饋組的學生的表現皆優於無回覆回饋組的學生；在合作產出成果方面，雖然有回覆回饋組和無回覆回饋組的學生在第二階段澄清問題之同儕評量後的小組合作產出成果未達顯著差異，但是在第三階段蒐集資料及第七階段發表作品之同儕評量後的小組合作產出成果方面，有回覆回饋組學生的表現皆顯著優於無回覆回饋組學生。

This study intended to find out if there is any change in students’ math-learning achievements, attitudes towards math, and collaboration skills in Multi-touch Enhanced Collaborative Design-based Learning (M-T CDBL) after back-feedback and different prior knowledge are included into inter-group peer assessment process. Moreover, this study attempted to find out, in the inter-group peer assessment process, whether or not those students who utilize back-feedback and possess prior knowledge have better performance than those who do not utilize back-feedback in terms of collaborative production outcomes. This study adopted the quasi experimental research methods, 117 7th graders of a junior high school in New Taipei City were invited to take part in a 12-week experiment. Students were divided into two categories, namely, back-feedback groups and non-back-feedback groups. Each group consisted of 3 or 4 students. All students were required to complete tessellation design works in compliance with M-T CDBL model through a multi-touch tessellation system and thereby learned the geometric concepts required by the math class, such as regular polygon’s angles, line symmetry, proportional scale, and geometric transformation. Inter-group peers were assessed three times during the learning process. In the assessment process, students of back-feedback groups were required to complete back-feedback process. In the back-feedback process, the students of back-feedback groups were required to send feedback to assessors after they receive their assessment results. After students send their feedback, they were required to review the feedback sent by the groups that were assessed by them. Students of non-back-feedback groups were not required to complete these processes. According to the research results, the math-learning achievements of those students who made use of back-feedback and had a high level of prior knowledge were significantly higher than those who did not make use of back-feedback and had a high level of prior knowledge, whereas the math-learning achievements of those students who had medium level of prior knowledge and low level of prior knowledge did not change significantly no matter those students made use of back-feedback or not. As far as the attitudes towards math and collaboration skills are concerned, the students of back-feedback groups showed a higher level of improvement than the students of non-back-feedback groups. As to the collaborative production outcomes, both students of back-feedback groups and of non-back-feedback groups did not show a significant level of difference after the peer assessment process of “Phase 2: Problem clarification” was completed. Nevertheless, the students of back-feedback groups had better academic performance than those of non-back-feedback groups and their performance had reached a significant level in terms of the collaborative production outcomes after the peer assessment processes of “Phase 3: Data collection” and “Phase 7: Product presentation” were completed.

Agostini, A., Di Biase, E., & Loregian, M. (2010). Stimulating cooperative and participative learning to match digital natives' needs. In Proceedings of Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), 2010 8th IEEE International Conference on (pp. 274-279).
Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small‐group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Ansbacher, T. (1998). John dewey's experience and education: Lessons for museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 41(1), 36-50.
Apedoe, X., Ellefson, M., & Schunn, C. (2012). Learning together while designing: Does group size make a difference? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 83-94.
Apedoe, X., & Ford, M. (2010). The empirical attitude, material practice and design activities. Science & Education, 19(2), 165-186.
Apedoe, X., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454-465.
Baker, D. F. (2008). Peer assessment in small groups: A comparison of methods. Journal of Management Education, 32(2), 183-209.
Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 427-441.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191-215.
Barnett, M. (2005). Engaging inner city students in learning through designing remote operated vehicles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 87-100.
Basheri, M., & Burd, L. (2012, 3-6 Oct. 2012). Exploring the significance of multi-touch tables in enhancing collaborative software design using uml. In Proceedings of Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2012 (pp. 1-5).
Battocchi, A., Esposito, G., Ben-Sasson, A., Gal, E., Pianesi, F., Venuti, P., et al. (2008). Collaborative puzzle game - an interface for studying collaboration and social interaction for children who are typically developed or who have autistic spectrum disorder. In P. Sharkey (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th International conference series on disability, virtual reality and associated technologies (ICDVRAT), Maia, Portugal.
Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474.
Cardelle-Elawar, M. (1995). Effects of metacognitive instruction on low achievers in mathematics problems. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 81-95.
Clarke, T., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 15-24.
Cliftion, C., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1981). Integrating new information with old knowledge. Memory & cognition, 9(2), 142-148.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cramer, S. F. (1994). Assessing effectiveness in the collaborative classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1994(59), 69-81.
Crespo Garcia, R., Román, J. V., & Pardo, A. (2006). Peer review to improve artificial intelligence teaching. In Proceedings of Frontiers in Education Conference, 36th Annual (pp. 3-8). IEEE.
Daniel, R. (2004). Peer assessment in musical performance: The development, trial and evaluation of a methodology for the australian tertiary environment. British Journal of Music Education, 21(1), 89-110.
Davis, M., Hawley, P., McMullan, B., & Spilka, G. (1997). Design as a catalyst for learning (1st ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Deger, K. O., & Deger, A. H. (2012). An application of mathematical tessellation method in interior designing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 249-256.
DeVellis, R. F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications (3 ed.). CA: Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education (1st Free Press Paperback ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan Company.
Dietz, P., & Leigh, D. (2001). Diamondtouch: A multi-user touch technology. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. Orlando, Florida.
Dochy, F. (1994). Prior knowledge and learning. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 4698-4702). Oxford/ New York: Pergamon Press.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Bossche, P. V. D., & Struyven, K. (2005). Students’ perceptions of a problem-based learning environment. Learning environments research, 8(1), 41-66.
Doppelt, Y. (2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 55-65.
Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 22-39.
Ellefson, M. R., Brinker, R. A., Vernacchio, V. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Design-based learning for biology: Genetic engineering experience improves understanding of gene expression. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 292-298.
Elliott, J., & Bruckman, A. (2002). Design of a 3d interactive math learning environment. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 64-74). ACM.
Evans, A. W., Leeson, R., & Petrie, A. (2007). Reliability of peer and self‐assessment scores compared with trainers' scores following third molar surgery. Medical education, 41(9), 866-872.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of educational research, 70(3), 287-322.
Farmer, D. W. (1995). Groups and symmetry : A guide to discovering mathematics. America: American Mathematical Society.
Fellenz, M. R. (2006). Toward fairness in assessing student groupwork: A protocol for peer evaluation of individual contributions. Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 570-591.
Fessakis, G., Tatsis, K., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2008). Supporting "learning by design" activities using group blogs. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 199-212.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110.
Gatfield, T. (1999). Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 365-377.
Gómez Puente, S., Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2012). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: A search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1-16.
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and teaching in higher education, 1(1), 3-31.
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K., & Smeets, S. (2011). Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts. Studies in Higher Education, 36(6), 719-735.
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 143-162.
Gijlers, H., & De Jong, T. (2005). The relation between prior knowledge and students' collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of research in science teaching, 42(3), 264-282.
Glaser, R., & De Corte, E. (1992). Preface to the assessment of prior knowledge as a determinant for future learning. In F. J. R. C. Dochy (Ed.), Assessment of prior knowledge as a determinant for future learning (pp. 1-2). Utrecht/ London: Lemma B.V./ Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Goodlad, S., & Hirst, B. (1989). Peer tutoring: A guide to learning by teaching. New York: Nichold Publishing.
Hammadou, J. (2000). The impact of analogy and content knowledge on reading comprehension: What helps, what hurts. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 38-50.
Han, S., & Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, learning by design, and project based learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Hargreaves, E. (2007). The validity of collaborative assessment for learning. Assessment in Education, 14(2), 185-199.
Harris, A., Rick, J., Bonnett, V., Yuill, N., Fleck, R., Marshall, P., et al. (2009). Around the table: Are multiple-touch surfaces better than single-touch for children's collaborative interactions? In C. O'Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Proceedings of Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Computer supported collaborative learning - Volume 1 (pp. 335-344), Rhodes, Greece. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.
Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247-298.
Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. F. (1961). Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 401-407.
Hopkins, K. D. (1998). Educational and psychological measurement and evaluation (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Huang, E. Y., Lin, S. W., & Huang, T. K. (2012). What type of learning style leads to online participation in the mixed-mode e-learning environment? A study of software usage instruction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 338-349.
Ioannou, A., Zaphiris, P., Loizides, F., & Vasiliou, C. (2013). Let's talk about technology for peace: A systematic assessment of problem-based group collaboration around an interactive tabletop. Interacting with Computers, iwt061.
Isenberg, P., Fisher, D., Paul, S. A., Morris, M. R., Inkpen, K., & Czerwinski, M. (2012). Co-located collaborative visual analytics around a tabletop display. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on, 18(5), 689-702.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1017-1044). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference USA.
Kvan, T. (2000). Collaborative design: What is it? Automation in construction, 9(4), 409-415.
Kharrufa, A., Leat, D., & Olivier, P. (2010). Digital mysteries: Designing for learning at the tabletop. Paper presented at the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces. Saarbrücken, Germany.
Kim, M. (2008). Peer assessment as a learning method. saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller e.K.
Kim, M. (2009). The impact of an elaborated assessee’s role in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 105-114.
Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a web-based formative peer assessment system for enhancing students’ metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-structured tasks. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 549-561.
Kobourov, S., Pavlou, K., Cappos, J., Stepp, M., Miles, M., & Wixted, A. (2005). Collaboration with diamondtouch. In M. Costabile & F. Paternò (Eds.), Human-computer interaction - interact 2005 (Vol. 3585, pp. 986-989): Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.
Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design from theory to practice. In A. Bruckman, M. Guzdial, J. L. Kolodner & A. Ram (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 1998) (pp. 16-22). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Kolodner, J. L., & Gray, J. (2002). Understanding the affordances of ritualized activity structures for project-based classrooms. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 222-228). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kolodner, J. L., Gray, J. T., & Fasse, B. B. (2003). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning-by-design classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(2), 119-170.
Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 225-250.
Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Ootes, S. A. (2003). Using sentence openers to foster student interaction in computer-mediated learning environments. Computers & Education, 41(3), 291-308.
Lejk, M., & Wyvill, M. (2001). Peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 61-72.
Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525-536.
Li, L., Liu, X., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Give and take: A re‐analysis of assessor and assessee's roles in technology‐facilitated peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 376-384.
Lim, S., & Chapman, E. (2013). Development of a short form of the attitudes toward mathematics inventory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 145-164.
Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E., & Yuan, S. (2001). Web‐based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking‐styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420-432.
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 66(4), 423-458.
Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012a). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257-275.
Lu, J., & Law, N. W. Y. (2012b). Understanding collaborative learning behavior from moodle log data. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(5), 451-466.
Mamlok, R., Dershimer, C., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2001). Learning Science by Designing Artifacts (LSDA) - A case study of the development of a design-based science curriculum. Paper presented at the 2001 NARST Annual International Conference, St. Louis, MO.
Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravitz, J. (2003). Project based learning handbook: A guide to standards-focused project based learning for middle and high school teachers (2 ed.). Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.
Marshall, P., Hornecker, E., Morris, R., Sheep Dalton, N., & Rogers, Y. (2008). When the fingers do the talking: A study of group participation with varying constraints to a tabletop interface. In Proceedings of Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems, 2008. TABLETOP 2008. 3rd IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 33-40).
Martínez Maldonado, R., Kay, J., & Yacef, K. (2010). Collaborative concept mapping at the tabletop. Paper presented at the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces. Saarbrücken, Germany.
McConnell, D. (2002). The experience of collaborative assessment in e-learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 24(1), 73-92
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71-85.
Mehalik, M. M., & Schunn, C. (2006). What constitutes good design? A review of empirical studies of design processes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 519-532.
Mevarech, Z. R. (1993). Who benefits from cooperative computer-assisted instruction? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(4), 451-464.
Michael, G. A., & Wilson, W. K. (1982). Effect of group heterogeneity on quality of task solutions. Psychological Reports, 50(1), 171-174.
Nelson, D. (2004). Design based learning delivers required standards in all subjects, k-12. Retrieved December 10, 2011, from http://www.csupomona.edu/~dnelson/library.html
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
Nihalani, P. K., & Robinson, D. H. (2012). Collaborative versus individual digital assessments. Technology-based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and practical implications from modern research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Nihalani, P. K., & Robinson, D. H. (2012). Collaborative versus individual digital assessments. In M. C. Mayrath, J. Clarke-Midura, D. H. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Technology-based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and practical implications from modern research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Norcini, J. J. (2003). Peer assessment of competence. Medical Education, 37(6), 539-543.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Patchan, M. M., Hawk, B., Stevens, C. A., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). The effects of skill diversity on commenting and revisions. Instructional Science, 41(2), 381-405.
Pedersen, S., & Williams, D. (2004). A comparison of assessment practices and their effects on learning and motivation in a student-centered learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(3), 283-306.
Perkins, D. N. (1986). Knowledge as design (1st ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Awareness of group performance in a cscl-environment: Effects of peer feedback and reflection. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 151-161.
Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a cscl environment: A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417-444.
Ras, E., Plichart, P., & Latour, T. (2010). Addressing the needs of today’s e-learning environments via an open and versatile architecture for assessment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Interactive Computer Aided Learning (ICL2010). Hasselt, Belgium.
Piaget, J. (1967). Cognitions and conservations: Two views. PsycCRITIQUES, 12(11), 532-533.
Rick, J., Rogers, Y., Haig, C., & Yuill, N. (2009). Learning by doing with shareable interfaces. Children, Youth and Environments, 19(1), 321-342.
Risemberg, R., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1992). Self‐regulated learning in gifted students. Roeper Review, 15(2), 98-101.
Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2005). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation. Instructional Science, 33(2), 105-119.
Serrentino, R. H. (1999). Modular architectural groupings from escher periodic tessellations. In Proceedings of AVOCAAD Second International Conference (pp. 205-219), Brussels, Belgium.
Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 159-189.
Silk, E., Schunn, C., & Strand Cary, M. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209-223.
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Moerkerke, G., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Dochy, F. (2001). Peer assessment in problem based learning. Studies in educational evaluation, 27(2), 153-173.
Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291-303.
Sultanum, N., Sharlin, E., Sousa, M. C., Miranda-Filho, D. N., & Eastick, R. (2010). Touching the depths: Introducing tabletop interaction to reservoir engineering. Paper presented at the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces. Saarbrücken, Germany.
Tapia, M., & Marsh II, G. E. (2004). An instrument to measure mathematics attitudes. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(2), 16-21.
Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 37-54.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20-27.
Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149-169.
Tsai, C. C., & Liang, J. C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views. Instructional Science, 37(3), 293-310.
Tseng, S. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1161-1174.
Tsuei, M. (2012). Using synchronous peer tutoring system to promote elementary students’ learning in mathematics. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1171-1182.
Van Blankenstein, F. M., Dolmans, D. H., Van der Vleuten, C. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2013). Relevant prior knowledge moderates the effect of elaboration during small group discussion on academic achievement. Instructional Science, 41(4), 729-744.
van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 280-290.
Vattam, S. S., Kramer, C. W., Kim, H., & Kolodner, J. L. (2007). Effects of technology-based support for explanation construction on learners' discourse during design-based learning in science. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th iternational conference on Computer supported collaborative learning. New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 943-989.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving*. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students' performance and satisfaction within a wiki environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 186-193.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a chinese efl writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179-200.
Yu, F.-Y. (2011). Multiple peer-assessment modes to augment online student question-generation processes. Computers & Education, 56(2), 484-494.
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。南師學報: 教育類，37（2），1-21。
王佑鎂、李璐（2009）。設計型學習──一種正在興起的學習範式。中國電化教育，10，12-16。
吳百興、吳心楷（2010）。八年級原住民學生在設計導向活動的科學學習。科學教育學刊，18（4），277-304。
邱瓊慧、陳三億、王海秀（2006）。網路合作學習中發展合作技巧之研究（第八章）。在黃政傑、吳俊憲編著，合作學習：發展與實踐（頁385-426）。臺北：五南。
邱瓊慧、喬祺、許智超（2002）。網路科技輔助國小學童發展合作技巧之可行性。臺南師院學報，35，17-34。
邱瓊慧、黃森山、楊凱翔（2013）。多點觸控增進合作設計式創新學習模式之發展與評估：以平面幾何為主題（1/3）。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫期中成果報告（nsc 101-2511-s-003-033-my3）。臺北：行政院國家科學委員會。
施月麗（2012）。英倫小學教學現場見聞錄。庶民研究文化期刊（6），76-89。
徐慶宏、林惠文（2007）。創新地圖教學─社區綠活圖課程的實踐。在全球化衝擊下的課程與教學學術研討會。
教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要數學習領域。臺北：教育部。
郭生玉（2001）。心理與教育研究法（17版）。臺北市：精華。
陳銹陵、陳明溥、韓宜娣（2011）。鷹架類型與先備知識對高職電腦軟體應用課程之成效探討 。數位學習科技期刊 ，3（1），101-120。
黃政傑、林佩璇（1996）。合作學習（初版）。臺北：五南。
劉旨峰（2009）。同儕評量於學習評量與教學評鑑之運用。教育資料與研究雙月刊，89，119-140。
鄭蕙如、林世華（2004）。Bloom 認知領域教育目標分類修訂版理論與實務之探討－以九年一貫課程數學領域分段能力指標為例。台東大學教育學報，15（2），247-274。