要推行新的評核制度，必定會遇到很多困難，因此要解決的問題是改變教師 的態度及信念（Black & Wiliam, 1998）。本研究結果揭示，改革的幅度愈大，教師 需要更多時間去調適（Fullan, 2001）。不少教師依然持有傳統的觀念，認為評核就 等同筆試，可以評核的只有學生的學業成績（Biggs, 1998; Fan, 2005），加以香港 的教育富競爭性，公開考試的篩選功能根深蒂固，而教師的職責是幫助學生應付 考試（Cheng, 1998），因此，考評局推動校本評核的措施宜循序漸進，讓教師有 充足的時間適應。而其中較可行的方法是，在發展教師專業課程中，加入重組教 師信念的課程（譚彩鳳，2005），換言之，教師需要從傳統總結性評核模式釋放出 來，改變對評核的信念（Black & Wiliam, 1998; Torrance, 1995），理解政策制定者 的意圖，才能把校本評核的理念實踐出來（Stillman, 2001）。
校本評核是學習評估的一項突破，考評局引入校本評核旨在打破公開考試的 侷限，原意是好的，然而，考試及評核的改革是必要但非充分條件（Torrance, 1995），因為教師的投入才是達致改革的最大動力。
參考文獻
香港考試及評核局（2005）。2007 香港中學會考中國語文課試題舉例。香港：作者。
香港教育統籌局（2004）。改革高中及高等教育學制──對未來的投資。香港：作者。
修訂中國語文及英國語文科校本評核（2006）。2006 年 4 月 11 日，取自 http://eant01.
hkeaa.edu.hk/hkea/redirector.asp?p_direction=body&p_clickurl=tas%5Fcorner%2Easp 陳向明（2001）。教師如何作質的研究。北京：教育科學。
馮偉華（2007）。促請考評局實現校本評核的三項必要條件：實驗成功、民主自決、小班 教學。教協報，521。2007 年 5 月 10 日，取自 http://www.hkptu.org/ptu/director/pubdep/
ptunews/521/521p01b.htm
黃毅英、林智中（1997）。目標為本課程的學習評估。載於林智中（主編），目標為本課程：
設計與實施（頁 135-158）。香港：天地圖書。
歐用生（2003）。課程典範再建構。高雄市：麗文文化。
盧乃桂（2002）。基礎教育課程改革對中國內地和香港教師的挑戰。教育發展研究，4，
22-29。
譚彩鳳（2005）。中文教師的教學信念及其對課程實施的影響。香港中文大學課程與教學 學系博士論文，未出版，香港。
Biggs, J. B. (1995). Assumptions underlying new approaches to educational assessment: Impli-cations for Hong Kong. Curriculum Forum, 4(2), 1-22.
Biggs, J. B. (1998). The assessment scene in Hong Kong. In P. Stimpson & P. Morris (Eds.), Curriculum and assessment for Hong Kong: Two components, one system (pp. 315-324).
Hong Kong : Open University of Hong Kong Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom as-sessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
Board of Studies (1998). A review of the HSC assessment program. New South Wales, Australia:
Author.
Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Retrieved May 3, 2007, from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9
Cheng, K. M., Lai, Y. W., Lam, C. C., Leung, K. S., & Tsoi, H. S. (1996). POSTE: Preparation of students for tertiary education. Hong Kong: University Grants Committee.
Cheng, L. Y. (1998). How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong. In P.
Stimpson & P. Morris (Eds.), Curriculum and assessment for Hong Kong: Two components, one system (pp. 325-350). Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press.
Cheung, D. (2001). School-based assessment in public examinations: Identifying the concerns of teachers. Education Journal, 29(2), 105-123.
Cheung, D., & Yip, D. Y. (2004). How science teachers’ concerns about school-based assess-ment of practical work vary with time: The Hong Kong experience. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 22(2), 153-169.
Choi, C. C. (1999). Public examinations in Hong Kong. Assessment in Education, 6(3), 405-417.
Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (1992). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. Review of Research in Education, 18, 3-49.
Cumming, J. J., & Maxwell, G. S. (2004). Assessment in Australian schools: Current practice and trends. Assessment in Education, 11(1), 89-108.
Education Commission (1997). Education Commission report no. 7: Quality school education.
Hong Kong: Printed by Printing Department.
Fan, L. (2005). Improving mathematics teaching and learning through effective classroom as-sessment: Experiences and perspectives from Singapore schools. In N.Y. Wong (Ed.), Re-visiting mathematics education in Hong Kong for the new millennium (pp. 359-376). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Association for Mathematics Education.
Fullan, M. G. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teacher Col-lege Press.
Fung, A., Broadfoot, P., & Cheung, D. (1998). Review of public examination system in Hong Kong: Final report. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Baptist University.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.).
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 8 (3/4), 381-391.
Hargreaves, A. (1989). Curriculum and assessment reform. Milton Keynes, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational factors in teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 967-983.
Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships be-tween formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education, 4(3), 365-379.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65-90.
Lim, E. P. Y., & Tan, A. (1999). Educational assessment in Singapore. Assessment in Education, 6(3), 391-404.
Llewellyn, J., Hancock, J. G., Kirst, M., & Roeloffs, Y. K. (1982). A perspective on education in Hong Kong: Report by a visiting panel. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moon, B., & Mortimore, P. (1989). The national curriculum, straightjacket or safetynet? Lon-don: Education Reform Group.
Morris, P. (1985). Teachers' perceptions of the implementation of a pedagogic innovation: A South East Asia case study. International Review of Education, 31, 3-18.
Morris, P. (1987). Curriculum innovation and implementation: A cautionary note. Educational Research Journal, 2, 49-54.
Morris, P. (1992). Identifying the strategies of curriculum development within a highly central-ized education system. In P. Morris (Ed.), Curriculum development in Hong Kong (2nd ed.) (pp. 61-76). Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong.
Morris, P. (1996). The Hong Kong school curriculum: Development, issues and policies (2nd ed.). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Morris, P., Lo, M. L., & Adamson, B. (2000). Improving schools in Hong Kong-Lessons from the past. In T. Adamson, T. Kwan & K. K. Chan (Eds.), Changing the curriculum: The im-pact of reform on primary schooling in Hong Kong (pp. 245-262). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' belief and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Rokeach, M. (1968). A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77-84.
Sebatane, E. M. (1994). Enhancement of teacher capacities and capabilities in school-based as-sessment: Lesotho experience. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 1(2), 223-234.
Stillman, G. (2001). The impact of school-based assessment on the implementation of a model-ing/applications-based curriculum: An Australian example. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 20(3), 101-107.
Torrance, H. (1995). Evaluating authentic assessment. Buckingham, UK: Open University
Press.
Yip, D. Y., & Cheung, D. (2005). Teachers’ concerns on school-based assessment of practical work. Journal of Biological Education, 39(4), 156-162.
Yung, B. H. W. (2001a). Three views of fairness in a school-based assessment scheme of practi-cal work in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 985-1005.
Yung, B. H. W. (2001b). Examiner, policeman or students’ companion: Teachers’ perceptions of their role in an assessment reform. Educational Review, 53(3), 251-260.
Yung, B. H. W. (2002). Same assessment, different practice: Professional consciousness as a de-terminant of teachers’ practice in a school-based assessment scheme. Assessment in Educa-tion, 19(1), 97-117.
附錄一
附錄二：半結構訪談指引
一、對校本評核的態度及公開考試的看法 1. 你認為評核（測驗或考試）有什麼功能？
2. 你對公開考試有什麼評價？
3. 你對公開考試的考核模式（例如筆試）有什麼評價？
4. 你認為公開考試有什麼優點及缺點？
5. 你是否支持校本評核？為什麼？
6. 你認為校本評核是否能減少一試定生死的壓力？
7. 你認為校本評核能否客觀地評核學生各方面的能力？
8. 你認為校本評核能否改進學生的學習呢？
9. 校本評核能否提升學生的語文水平？
10. 校本評核能否拓寬考核範圍至知識以外的範疇？
11. 你認為校本評核的公平性、信度及效度如何？
12. 校本評核能否有助於提升學生的學能、態度及動機？
13. 校本評核對哪類型學生得益？
14. 學生的學習是否比以前積極或有所改善？
15. 你認為促進學生學習僅靠評核改革是否奏效？
二、教師的角色
1. 你怎樣形容你的角色？
2. 你喜歡這些角色嗎？
3. 這些角色會否有衝突？
三、實施校本評核遇到的困難 1. 你對校本評核有多少認識？
2. 有沒有參加師資培訓課程以了解校本評核的操作？
3. 校本評核加給你的工作量有多少？
4. 你是如何計劃校本評核的工作呢？計分及評分方法如何？
5. 你怎樣安排要評核的項目：日常課業、語文活動及課外閱讀？
6. 校本評核的形式、次數及質量如何？
7. 你如何利用評核的資料改進教與學？
8. 評分後如何處理學生的作業？
9. 校本評核與日常教學工作能否融合？
10. 校本評核有什麼部分應該刪除或保留？
11. 學生對校本評核的態度如何？
12. 學生在校本評核中的表現如何？
13. （科主任）你如何調配同事協助處理校本評核的工作呢？
14. （科主任）你的同事是否願意配合校本評核的工作？為什麼？