本研究使用眼動儀來紀錄網頁設計同儕互評的過程，將每一網頁依照框架設計與內容素材設定視覺興趣區(ROI)，共有49位視覺型風格大專生參與本實驗。本研究對所有受試者進行同儕互評態度調查，發現受測者對於同儕互評抱持正面態度與操作理解。從同儕互評量化成績與專家評鑑之間的比較，發現在較簡潔的高評價網頁中，同儕互評與專家評鑑有超過七成以上的一致性，然而在評分素材較多樣化的網頁可能造成專家和學生的評量一致性降低。搭配同儕互評的量化成績與同儕互評的態度進行比對分析，簡潔的網頁設計即清晰度較佳會更有助於對同儕互評抱持較低負面態度，提高視覺型學生同儕互評時的專注度，受測者之專注度與同儕互評的負面態度是呈現顯著負相關。進一步透過分析視覺型學習風格之前27%高評價評分者與後27%之低評價評分者於網頁同儕互評過程之眼動行為序列分析，發現在得到最高評價的網站中，高評價評分者與專家評鑑結果有較多一致及有效的眼動行為出現，顯示在該網站中低評價評分者反而是較不具有效度的同儕互評。反之，在得到最低評價的網站中，低評價評分者與專家評鑑過程有較多有效的眼動行為出現。從熱區圖總結顯示當視覺型學習風格學生有較專注的眼動行為時，同儕互評的結果會與專家評鑑的結果非常接近，因此由同儕互評過程中所測量的眼動數據確實可以為同儕互評結果的信效度提供的第三方的驗證。本研究也從眼動熱區圖分析中發現有規劃設計重點的網站會讓使用者更了解設計者欲傳遞的重點資訊，為網頁設計者提供眼動證據上的回饋。

This study employed eye-tracking machine to record the process of peer assessment. This study divided each web page into several region of interests (ROI) based on the frame design and material in the content. Forty-nine undergraduate students with the visual learning style participated in the experiment. This study investigated the peer assessment attitudes of the participants and found that they possessed highly positive attitudes and understanding toward peer assessment. After comparing the results of peer assessments and the evaluation from experts, high consistency was happened when the design of the web page was concise; however, the consistency was decreased when the web page contained too much diverse material. After comparing the peer assessment attitudes of the participants and the web page design scores marked by them, the study found that the web page with concise design attracted the visual-style students’ attention more, and those students possessed lower negative attitude toward peer assessment, showing a significant negative correlation. In addition, the study further analyzed the visual-style students’ serial behaviors in the process of peer assessment for each web page design. After comparing the evidences of each student’s eye movements and his/her evaluation results, this study found that the students who grade higher or lower scores have different eye movements, and the fixations and behaviors of the assessors grading higher scores was highly consistent with that of the experts in the web site which was scored the best design, implying few assessors grading lower scores were relatively invalid peer assessment. On the contrary, the fixations and behaviors of the assessors grading lower scores were highly consistent with that of the experts in the web site which was scored the worst design. Consequently, from the hot spot evidences of eye fixations, when the students more concentrated on the peer assessment, their evaluated results would be more closed to the evaluated results of the expert. Finally, the study found that the hot spots of eye fixations were the same with the key points planed by the student designers of the website which scored the best, which provided the student designer additional important eye-tracking feedbacks from the peer assessment activities.

一、中文部分
教育部。2008。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要總綱。教育部。
郭重吉。1987。英美各國晚近對學生學習風格之研究。資優教育季刊，22，2-8。

二、外文部分
Aeiad, E., & Meziane, F. (2015). An adaptable and personalised e-learning system based on free web resources Natural Language Processing and Information Systems (pp. 293-299): Springer.
Ariasi, N., & Mason, L. (2011). Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study. Instructional Science, 39(5), 581-601.
Asteriadis, S., Tzouveli, P., Karpouzis, K., & Kollias, S. (2009). Estimation of behavioral user state based on eye gaze and head pose—application in an e-learning environment. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 41(3), 469-493.
Axelsson, A. (2012). Consistency in Web Design from a User Perspective.
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.
Barrios, V. M. G., Gütl, C., Preis, A. M., Andrews, K., Pivec, M., Mödritscher, F., & Trummer, C. (2004). AdELE: A framework for adaptive e-learning through eye tracking. Proceedings of IKNOW, 609-616.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413-426.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). The effects of noise on behaviour.
Calvi, C., Porta, M., & Sacchi, D. (2008). e5Learning, an e-learning environment based on eye tracking. Paper presented at the Advanced Learning Technologies, 2008. ICALT'08. Eighth IEEE International Conference on.
Cassidy, S. (2006). Developing employability skills: Peer assessment in higher education. Education+ Training, 48(7), 508-517.
Charoenpit, S., & Ohkura, M. (2014). Exploring emotion in an e-learning system using eye tracking. Paper presented at the Computational Intelligence in Healthcare and e-health (CICARE), 2014 IEEE Symposium on.
Chen, J., Luo, N., Liu, Y., Liu, L., Zhang, K., & Kolodziej, J. (2016). A hybrid intelligence-aided approach to affect-sensitive e-learning. Computing, 98(1-2), 215-233.
Chen, Y. L., Liu, Z. F., Shih, R. C., Wu, C. T., & Yuan, S. M. (2011). Use of peer feedback to enhance elementary students' writing through blogging. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), E1-E4.
Chen, Y. P., & Tsai, M. J. (2015). Eye-hand coordination strategies during active video game playing: An eye-tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 8-14.
Cheng, K. H., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Examining the role of feedback messages in undergraduate students’ writing performance during an online peer assessment activity. The Internet and Higher Education, 25(2015), 78-84.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233-239.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2000). Making a difference: Using peers to assess individual students' contributions to a group project. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(2), 243-255.
Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629-643.
Claxton, C. S., & Murrell, P. H. (1987). Learning Styles: Implications for Improving Educational Practices. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1987: ERIC.
Dodge, R., & Cline, T. S. (1901). The angle velocity of eye movements. Psychological Review, 8(2), 145.
Dunn, K., & Dunn, R. (1987). Dispelling outmoded beliefs about student learning. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 55-63.
Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. Individual differences and instructed language learning, 2, 181.
Eivazi, S., Bednarik, R., Tukiainen, M., von und zu Fraunberg, M., Leinonen, V., & Jääskeläinen, J. E. (2012). Gaze behaviour of expert and novice microneurosurgeons differs during observations of tumor removal recordings. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications.
Eraslan, S., Yesilada, Y., & Harper, S. (2015). Eye tracking scanpath analysis techniques on web pages: A survey, evaluation and comparison. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 9(1).
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.
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.
Fatahi, S., Moradi, H., & Kashani-Vahid, L. (2016). A survey of personality and learning styles models applied in virtual environments with emphasis on e-learning environments. Artificial Intelligence Review, 1-17.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering education, 78(7), 674-681.
Fleming, J., & Koman, R. (1998). Web navigation: designing the user experience: O'reilly Sebastopol, CA.
Fleming, N., & Baume, D. (2006). Learning Styles Again: VARKing up the right tree! Educational Developments, 7(4), 4.
Gütl, C., Pivec, M., Trummer, C., García-Barrios, V. M., Mödritscher, F., Pripfl, J., & Umgeher, M. (2005). Adele (adaptive e-learning with eye-tracking): Theoretical background, system architecture and application scenarios. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 8(2).
Godfroid, A., Housen, A., & Boers, F. (2010). A procedure for testing the Noticing Hypothesis in the context of vocabulary acquisition. Cognitive processing in second language acquisition, 169-197.
Hawk, T. F., & Shah, A. J. (2007). Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 1-19.
Hewig, J., Trippe, R. H., Hecht, H., Straube, T., & Miltner, W. H. (2008). Gender differences for specific body regions when looking at men and women. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32(2), 67-78.
Ho, H. F. (2014). The effects of controlling visual attention to handbags for women in online shops: Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 146-152.
Hoffman, J. E., & Subramaniam, B. (1995). The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Perception & psychophysics, 57(6), 787-795.
Holsanova, J., Rahm, H., & Holmqvist, K. (2006). Entry points and reading paths on newspaper spreads: comparing a semiotic analysis with eye-tracking measurements. Visual communication, 5(1), 65-93.
Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2010). Development of a reading material recommendation system based on a knowledge engineering approach. Computers & Education, 55(1), 76-83.
Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2014). An Automatic Caption Filtering and Partial Hiding Approach to Improving the English Listening Comprehension of EFL Students. Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 270-283.
Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., Chang, Y. T., & Chang, C. K. (2013). Effects of Video Caption Modes on English Listening Comprehension and Vocabulary Acquisition Using Handheld Devices. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 403-414.
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.
Iqbal, Z., & Mahmood, N. (2008). Compatibility of peer assessment and teacher assessment in observational situations: An emerging assessment tool in higher education. Bulletin of Education and Research, 30(2), 61-77.
Jacob, R., & Karn, K. S. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises. Mind, 2(3), 4.
Johnston, L., & Miles, L. (2004). Assessing contributions to group assignments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 751-768.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive psychology, 8(4), 441-480.
Kane, J. S., & Lawler, E. E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological bulletin, 85(3), 555.
Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387-406.
Kelley, T. L. (1939). The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(1), 17.
Klašnja-Milićević, A., Vesin, B., Ivanović, M., & Budimac, Z. (2011). E-Learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification. Computers & Education, 56(3), 885-899.
Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344-348.
Lai, M. L., Tsai, M. J., Yang, F. Y., Hsu, C. Y., Liu, T. C., Lee, S. W. Y., . . . Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educational Research Review, 10, 90-115.
Lawrence, J., & Zollinger, S. W. (2015). Assessment Matters: Enriching Design Education Through Online Peer Critique. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 78.
Lin, S. J., Liu, Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001a). Web‐based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking‐styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420-432.
Lin, S. J., Liu, Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001b). Web based peer assessment: attitude and achievement. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 44(2), 13 pp.
Lindblom-ylänne, S., Pihlajamäki, H., & Kotkas, T. (2006). Self-, peer-and teacher-assessment of student essays. Active learning in higher education, 7(1), 51-62.
Liu, C. H., Chang, P. Y., & Huang, C. Y. (2013). Using Eye-Tracking and Support Vector Machine to Measure Learning Attention in eLearning. Paper presented at the Applied Mechanics and Materials.
Liu, Z. F., & Lin, S. J. (2007). Relationship between peer feedback, cognitive and metacognitive strategies and achievement in networked peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1122-1125.
Liu, Z. F., Lin, S. J., & Yuan, S. M. (2002). Alternatives to instructor assessment: A case study of comparing self and peer assessment with instructor assessment under a networked innovative assessment procedures. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 395.
Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257-275.
Lui, A., & Andrade, H. (2015). Student peer assessment. Encyclopedia of Science Education, 1003-1005.
Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2006). First-year medical students prefer multiple learning styles. Advances in Physiology Education, 30(1), 13-16.
Luo, H., Robinson, A. C., & Park, J.-Y. (2014). Peer Grading in a MOOC: Reliability, Validity, and Perceived Effects. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2), n2.
Mason, L., Pluchino, P., & Tornatora, M. C. (2015). Using eye‐tracking technology as an indirect instruction tool to improve text and picture processing and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
McLeay, F., & Wesson, D. (2014). Chinese versus UK marketing students' perceptions of peer feedback and peer assessment. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(2), 142-150.
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H. A., Gay, G. K., Granka, L. A., Feusner, M. K., & Newman, J. K. (2004). The determinants of web page viewing behavior: an eye-tracking study. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2004 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications.
Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195-203.
Pantho, O., & Tiantong, M. (2015). Conceptual Framework of a Synthesized Adaptive e-Learning and e-Mentoring System Using VARK Learning Styles with Data Mining Methodology. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, 7(4), 316.
Pivec, M., Trummer, C., & Pripfl, J. (2006). Eye-tracking adaptable e-learning and content authoring support. Informatica, 30(1).
Pope, N. (2001). An examination of the use of peer rating for formative assessment in the context of the theory of consumption values. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(3), 235-246.
Rakoczi, G., Duchowski, A., Casas-Tost, H., & Pohl, M. (2013). Visual perception of international traffic signs: influence of e-learning and culture on eye movements. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Eye Tracking South Africa.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological bulletin, 124(3), 372.
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language learning, 45(2), 283-331.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning1. Applied linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. Interlanguage pragmatics, 21, 42.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, 9, 1-63.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32): Cambridge University Press.
Seng, M. G. J., & Hill, M. (2014). Using a dialogical approach to examine peer feedback during chemistry investigative task discussion. Research in Science Education, 44(5), 727-749.
Seyal, A. H., & Rahman, M. N. A. (2015). Understanding Learning Styles, Attitudes and Intentions in Using e-Learning System: Evidence from Brunei. World Journal of Education, 5(3), 61.
Soloman, B. A., & Felder, R. M. (2005). Index of learning styles questionnaire. NC State University. Available online at: http://www. engr. ncsu. edu/learningstyles/ilsweb. html (last visited on 14.05. 2010).
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American psychologist, 52(7), 700.
Tayem, Y. I., James, H., Al-Khaja, K. A., Razzak, R. L., Potu, B. K., & Sequeira, R. P. (2015). Medical Students’ Perceptions of Peer Assessment in a Problem-based Learning Curriculum. Sultan Qaboos University medical journal, 15(3), e376.
Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition, 16(02), 183-203.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Treisman, A. (1964). Monitoring and storage of irrelevant messages in selective attention. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3(6), 449-459.
Truong, H. M. (2016). Integrating learning styles and adaptive e-learning system: current developments, problems and opportunities. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1185-1193.
Tsai, C. C., Lin, S. J., & Yuan, S. M. (2002). Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system. Computers & Education, 38(1), 241-252.
Tsai, C. C., Liu, Z. F., Lin, S. J., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). A networked peer assessment system based on a Vee heuristic. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(3), 220-230.
Tsai, M.-J., Huang, L.-J., Hou, H.-T., Hsu, C.-Y., & Chiou, G.-L. (2016). Visual behavior, flow and achievement in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 98, 115-129.
Tsai, M. J., Hou, H. T., Lai, M. L., Liu, W. Y., & Yang, F. Y. (2012). Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis. Computers & Education, 58(1), 375-385.
van Gennip, N. A., Segers, M. S., & 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.
Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270-279.
Verroen, S., Gutteling, J. M., & Vries, P. W. (2013). Enhancing Self‐Protective Behavior: Efficacy Beliefs and Peer Feedback in Risk Communication. Risk analysis, 33(7), 1252-1264.
Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51(1), 27-44.
White, E. (2009). Student perspectives of peer assessment for learning in a public speaking course. Asian EFL Journal, 33(1), 1-36.
Woo, M. M., Chu, S. K. W., & Li, X. (2013). Peer-feedback and revision process in a wiki mediated collaborative writing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(2), 279-309.
Xie, K. (2013). What do the numbers say? The influence of motivation and peer feedback on students’ behaviour in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 288-301.
Yu, F. Y. (2011). Multiple peer-assessment modes to augment online student question-generation processes. Computers & Education, 56(2), 484-494.
Yu, F. Y., Liu, Y. H., & Chan, T. W. (2005). A web‐based learning system for question‐posing and peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(4), 337-348.
Yu, F. Y., & Wu, C. P. (2013). Predictive effects of online peer feedback types on performance quality. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 332-341.