The Effect of formative assessment on reading comprehension

Abstract

The aim of this research is to set forth the effects of formative assessment methods on reading comprehension. To this end, reading status of a group of students was assessed with formative assessment methods, while that of another group was evaluated with traditional ones. The research was carried out by using unequalised quasi-experimental design. The experimental and control groups of the research were randomly assigned. The study group consisted of 50 3rd grade students of a primary school in the Dilovası district of Kocaeli city, Türkiye. The data of the study were obtained from the texts within 3rd grade curriculum and from the comprehension questions prepared for these texts. The data were analyzed via SPSS 22 program. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used during analyses. In the findings of the research, a highly significant difference was observed in favor of the experimental group. As a result of the findings of the research, it was observed that formative assessment methods contributed to reading comprehension success positively.

Keywords

• Reading assessment
• formative assessment
• reading
• reading comprehension
• primary school

References

1. Aktaş, N. (2015). Okuma öncesi strateji öğretiminin 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin ekrandan okuduğunu anlama düzeyine etkisi [The effect of pre-reading strategy instruction on reading on screen comprehension levels of elementary school 4th graders] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi University.
2. Akyol, H. (2006). Türkçe öğretim yöntemleri [Turkish teaching methods]. Kök Yayıncılık.
3. Akyol, H. (2011). Türkçe öğretim yöntemleri [Turkish teaching methods]. Pegem Akademi.
4. Akyol, H., & Ketenoğlu Kayabaşı, Z. E. (2018). Okuma güçlüğü yaşayan bir öğrencinin okuma becerilerinin geliştirilmesi: Bir eylem araştırması [Improving the reading skills of a students with reading difficulties: An action research]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 43(193), 143-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2018.7240
5. Akyol, H., Yıldırım K., Ateş, S., & Çetinkaya, Ç. (2013). Anlamaya yönelik ne tür sorular sorarız? Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [What Kinds of Questions Do We Ask for Making Meaning?]. 9(1), 41-56. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/160845
6. Akyol, H., Yıldırım, K., Ateş, S., Çetinkaya, Ç., & Rasinski, T.V. (2014). Okumayı değerlendirme: Öğretmenler için kolay ve pratik bir yol [Assessing reading: The easy and practical way for teachers]. Pegem Akademi,
7. Alkharusi, H. (2008). Effects of classroom assessment practices on students’ achievement goals. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 243 266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190802602509
8. Applegate, M.D. (2007). Teacher’s use of comprehension questioning to promote thoughtful literacy. Journal of Reading Education, 32(3), 12-19.

9. Ateş, S. (2011). İlköğretim beşinci sınıf Türkçe dersi öğrenme-öğretme sürecinin anlama öğretimi açısından değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of fifth-grade Turkish course learning and teaching process in terms of comprehension instruction] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.
10. Ateş, S., & Akyol, H. (2013). Türkçe dersi öğrenme-öğretme sürecinin anlama öğretimi açısından değerlendirilmesi [The evaluation of Turkish language arts course with regard to comprehension instruction]. Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 11(3), 268-300. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tebd/issue/26091/274940
11. Aydemir, Y., & Çiftçi, Ö. (2008). Edebiyat öğretmeni adaylarının soru sorma becerileri üzerine bir araştırma (Gazi üniversitesi eğitim fakültesi örneği) [A research on asking question ability of literature teacher candidates (Gazi University education faculty pattern)]. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 103 115. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/yyuefd/issue/13714/166035
12. Başaran, M. (2013). Okuduğunu anlamanın ölçülmesinde paragraftan anlam kurmaya dayalı çoktan seçmeli sorular [Measurement of reading comprehension using meaning-based paragraphs with multiple-choice questions]. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 107-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/jesr.2013.327a
13. Baştuğ, M., & Keskin, H.K. (2011). Bilgi verici metin yapıları öğretiminin okuduğunu anlamaya etkisi [The effect of expository text structure on reading comprehension]. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 6(4), 2598 2610. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/nwsaedu/issue/19818/212034
14. Black, P., & McCormick, R. (2010). Reflections and new directions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(1), 493-499. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.493696
15. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2012). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (2nd ed., pp. 81-100). Sage.
16. Bormuth, J.R. (1963). Cloze as a measure of readability. Proceedings of the lnternational Reading Association, 13(1), 1-134. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1433978
17. Boumediene, A., & Hamzaoui-Elachachi, H. (2017). The effects of formative assessment on Algerian secondary school pupil’s text comprehension. AWEJ, 8(3), 172 190. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol8no3.12
18. Bredekamp, S. (2015). Erken çocukluk eğitiminde etkili uygulamalar [Effective Practices in Early Childhood Education]. (H. Z. İnan & T. İnan, Trans.). Nobel Yayıncılık.
19. Brown, R.G. (1991). School of thoughts: How the politics of literacy shape thinking in the classroom. Jossey Bass.
20. Bulunuz, M., & Bulunuz, N. (2013). Fen öğretiminde biçimlendirici değerlendirme ve etkili uygulama örneklerinin tanıtılması [Formative assessment in science teaching and demonstration of its effective implementation]. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 10(4), 119-135.
21. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E.K., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods] (23.bs.). Pegem Akademi.
22. Çeliktürk Sezgin, Z., & Akyol, H. (2018). Kavram odaklı okuma öğretiminin ilkokul dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin okuma motivasyonuna ve okuduklarını anlamaya etkisi [Influences of concept oriented reading instruction on reading motivation and reading comprehension of fourth graders]. İlköğretim Online, 17(2), 546 561. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2018.418901
23. Chappuis, J., Stiggins, R.J., Chappuis, S., & Arter, J., (2011). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right-using it well (2nd ed.). NJ: Merrill/Pearson.
24. Chappuis, S., & Chappuis, J. (2008). The best value in formative assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 14-19.
25. Choi, K., Nam, J.H., & Lee, H. (2001). The effects of formative assessment with detailed feedback on students’ science learning achievement and attitudes regarding formative assessment. Science Educational International, 12(2), 28-34.
26. Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 205-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6
27. Clarke, S. (2012). Active learning through formative assessment. Hodder Education.
28. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2
29. Çöklü Özkan, E. (2018). Okuduğunu anlamada yaratıcı dramanın etkisi ve önemi [The effect and importance of creative drama on reading comprehension]. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 6(2), 343-368. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.399213
30. Creswell, J.W. (2014). Araştırma deseni nicel, nitel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları [Research design quantitative, qualitative and mixed method approaches] (S. B. Demir Trans.). Eğiten Kitap.
31. Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2.ed.). Sage.
32. Doğan, C.D. (2016). Biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin üniversite öğrencilerinin değerlendirme tercihleri üzerindeki etkisi: Bir ölçekleme çalışması [Effect of formative assessment on assessment preferences of the university students: A scaling study]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(2), 413 431. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2016.16.2-5000194935
33. Doğanay, A., & Yüce, S.G. (2010). Öğrencilerin düşünme becerilerinin geliştirilmesinde rehberli yardım: Bir öğretmenin sözel ifadelerinin analizine ilişkin durum çalışması [Scaffolding in improving students’ thinking skills: A case study of the analysis of a teacher’s verbal expressions]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 2(2), 185-214. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kuey/issue/10334/126644
34. Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31(3), 349 365. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00047-2
35. Duman, N. (2006). Hikaye haritasi yönteminin eğitilebilir zihinsel engelli öğrencilerin okuduğunu anlama becerileri üzerindeki etkisi [The effect of story mapping method on educable mentally retarded students' reading comprehension skills] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Abant İzzet Baysal University.
36. Dupont, P. (2018). Assessing adolescent reading comprehension in a French middle school: performance and beliefs about knowledge. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(7), 30-61. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n7.3
37. Durukan, E. (2009). 7. sınıf Türkçe ders kitaplarındaki metinleri anlamaya yönelik sorular üzerine taksonomik bir inceleme [A taxonomic analysis on questions for understanding the texts in 7th grade Turkish textbooks]. Milli Eğitim, 38(181), 84-93.
38. Elden, A. (2019). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin biçimlendirici değerlendirme uygulamaları [The formative assessment practices of early childhood teachers] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Baskent University.
39. Fordham, N.W. (2006). Strategic questioning: What can you tell me about sharks? Principal leadership, 7(1), 33-37.
40. Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298605300301
41. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. Journal of Educational Research, 83(2), 103−110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1989.10885938
42. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20 28. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258800900206
43. Gardner, J. (2012). Assessment for learning: A compelling conceptualization. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (2nd ed., pp. 197-204). Sage
44. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research, Review of Educational Research, 71(21), 279-320. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002279
45. Glesne, C. (2015). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
46. Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
47. Green, S.B., & Salkind, N.J. (2014). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (7th ed.) [Kindle DX version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com
48. Gustafson, S., Nordström, T., Andersson, U.B., Fälth, L., & Ingvar, M. (2019). Effects of a formative assessment system on early reading development. Education, 140(1), 17–27.
49. Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N.M., Perenevich, K.C., Taboada, A., & Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 232 246. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.4.232-246
50. Heitink, M.C., Van der Kleij, F.M., Veldkamp, B.P., Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W.B. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17, 50 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.002
51. Herman, J., Osmundson, E., Ayala, C., Schneider, S., & Timms, M. (2006). The nature and impact of teachers’ formative assessment practices (CRESST Report No. 703). University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
52. Hervey, S. (2006). Who asks the questions? Teaching PreK-8, 37, 68-69.
53. Hock, M., & Mellard, D. (2005). Reading comprehension strategies for adult literacy outcomes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(3), 192 200. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.49.3.3
54. Hooley, D.S., & Thorpe, J. (2017). The effects of formative reading assessments closely linked to classroom texts on high school reading comprehension. Education Tech Research Dev 65, 1215–1238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9514-5
55. İlter, İ. (2018). Zayıf okuyucuların okuduğunu anlama becerilerinin geliştirilmesinde ana fikir belirleme becerisinin öğretimi [The instruction on identifying main ideas in improving the reading comprehension of poor readers]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 19(2), 303 334. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.315887
56. İnaltun, H., & Ateş, S. (2018). Fen bilimleri eğitiminde biçimlendirici değerlendirme: Literatür taraması [Formative assessment in science education: A literature review]. GEFAD, 38(2), 567-613. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.353975
57. Johnston, P.H. (1997). Knowing literacy: Constructive literacy assessment. ME: Stenhouse
58. Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research method] (24.bs.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
59. Karasu, H.P., Girgin, Ü., & Uzuner, Y. (2011). Okuma becerilerini değerlendirmede formal olmayan okuma yöntemlerinin kullanımı [Utilizing informal reading inventories on evaluation of reading skills], Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 1(1), 108 124. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/etku/issue/6274/84243
60. Keeley, P.D. (2008). Science formative assessment: 75 practical strategies for linking assessment, instruction, and learning. Corwin & NSTA Press.
61. Keskin, H.K., & Akıllı, M. (2013). Fen ve teknoloji ders kitaplarının okunabilirliğinin farklılaştırılmış boşluk doldurma teknikleriyle ölçülmesi [An assessment of the readability of science and technology textbooks through differentiated cloze tests]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(27), 47 66. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/maeuefd/issue/19400/206159
62. Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28 37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x
63. Kline, A.J. (2013). Effects of formative assessment on middle school student achievement in mathematics and reading [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. North Carolina University.
64. Knapp, M.S. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high poverty classrooms. Teachers College Press.
65. Kocaarslan, M. (2015). Zihinsel imaj oluşturma öğretiminin 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama becerilerini geliştirmeye etkisi [The impact of teaching mental imagery on reading comprehension skills of 4th graders] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.
66. Kodan, H. (2015). Koro, tekrarlı ve yardımlı okuma yöntemlerinin zayıf okuyucuların okuma ve anlama becerileri üzerine etkisi [The effects of the methods of choral, repeated and assisted reading on the reading and reading comprehension skills of poor readers] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.
67. Kuşdemir, Y. (2014). Doğrudan Öğretim Modeli'nin ilkokul dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama becerilerine etkisi [The effect of Direct Instruction Model on reading comprehension skills of elementary school fourth graders] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.
68. Landauer, T.K., Lochbaum, E.K., & Dooley, S. (2009). A new formative assessment technology for reading and writing, Theory into Practice, 48(1), 44 52, https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577593
69. Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative reading inventory-4 (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
70. Li, H. (2016). How is formative assessment related to students’ reading achievement? Findings from PISA 2009. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(4), 473-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1139543
71. Marchand, G.C., & Furrer, C.J. (2014). Formative, informative, and summative assessment: The relationship among curriculum based measurement of reading, classroom engagement, and reading performance. Psychology in the Schools, 51(7), 659 676. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21779
72. Marcotte, A.M., & Hintze, J.M. (2009). Incremental and predictive utility of formative assessment methods of reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 47(5), 315 335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.04.003
73. Mathes, P.G., & Fuchs, D. (1997). Cooperative story mapping. Remedial & Special Education, 18(1), 20-27
74. May, F.B., & Rizzardi, L. (2002). Reading as communication. Prentice Hall.
75. McMillan, J.H. (2014). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective standards-based instruction (5th ed.). Pearson.
76. Metin, M., & Özmen, H. (2010). Biçimlendirici değerlendirmeye yönelik öğretmen adaylarının düşünceleri [Prospective teachers’ views about formative assessment]. Milli Eğitim, 40(187), 293-310. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/milliegitim/issue/36197/407045
77. Ministry of National Education (2019). Türkçe dersi (ilkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. sınıflar) öğretim program [Turkish lesson (primary and secondary school 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8th grades) curriculum]. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/
78. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2005). PISA 2003 projesi ulusal nihaî rapor [PISA 2003 survey national final report]. Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
79. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2010). PISA 2006 projesi ulusal nihaî rapor [PISA 2006 survey national final report]. http://pisa.meb.gov.tr
80. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2013). PISA 2012 ulusal ön raporu [PISA 2012 National Preliminary Report]. http://pisa.meb.gov.tr
81. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2015). PISA 2012 araştırması ulusal nihai rapor [PISA 2012 survey national final report]. http://pisa.meb.gov.tr
82. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2019). PISA 2018 Türkiye ön raporu [PISA 2018 National Preliminary Report], Eğitim Analiz ve Değerlendirme Raporları Serisi.
83. Ness, M. (2011). Explicit reading comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms: Teacher use of reading comprehension strategies, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(1), 98-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2010.531076
84. Neuman, S.B. (2001). The role of knowledge in early literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 468-475. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.4.6
85. Offerdahl, E.H., & Montplaisir, L. (2013). Student-generated reading questions: Diagnosining student thinking with diverse formative assessments. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42(1) 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20757
86. Oosterhof, A., Conrad, R.M., & Ely, D.P. (2008). Assessing learners online. Pearson.
87. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (OECD). (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. OECD.
88. Ozan, C. (2017). Biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin öğrencilerin akademik başarı, tutum ve öz düzenleme becerilerine etkisi [The effects of formative assessment to students' academic achievement, attitude and self-regulation skills] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Atatürk University.
89. Öztürk, M. (2019). Kelime duvarı yönteminin ilkokul 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin akıcı okuma ve okuduğunu anlama becerilerine etkisi [The effect of word wall method on 4th grade students' fluent reading and reading comprehension skills] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University.
90. Papatğa, E. (2016). Okuduğunu anlama becerilerinin SCRATCH program aracılığıyla geliştirilmesi [Developing reading comprehension skills through SCRATCH program] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Atatürk University.
91. Pearson, P.D., & Duke N.K. (2002). Comprehension instruction in the primary grades. In Cathy Collins Block & Sheri R. Parris (eds.), Comprehension instruction: research-based best practices (pp, 247-258). The Guildford.
92. Piazza, S.V. (2012). Cultural responsiveness and formative reading assessment: Retellings, comprehension questions, and student interviews. Language and Literacy, 14(3), 133-149.
93. Rankin, E.F., & Culhane, J.W. (1969). Comparable cloze and multiple-choice comprehension test scores. Journal of Reading, 13(3), 193-198
94. Reutzel, D.R., & Cooter, R.B. (2007). Strategies for reading assessment and instruction: Helping every child succeed (3rd ed.) Pearson Education, Inc.
95. Rogoff, B., Turkanis, C.G., & Bartlett, L. (2001). Learning together: Children and adults in a school community. Oxford University Press.
96. Roskos, K., & Neuman, S.B. (2012). Formative assessment: Simple, no additives. Reading Teacher, 65(8), 534-538. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01079
97. Royer, J.M. (2001). Developing reading and listening comprehension test based on the sentence verification technique (STW). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(1), 30-41
98. Royer, J.M., Hastings, C.N., & Hook, C. (1979). A sentence verification technique for measuring reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(4), 355–363.
99. Sanaeifar, S.H., & Nafari, F. (2018). The effects of formative and dynamic assessments of reading comprehensions on intermediate EFL learners’ test anxiety. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(5), 533-540. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0805.12
100. Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97–110). Guilford
101. Shaughnessy, M.F. (2005). An interview with James M. Royer about reading and comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 17(3), 273-283.
102. Sidekli, S. (2010). Eylem araştırması: İlköğretim dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin okuma ve anlama güçlüklerinin giderilmesi [An action-research: Correcting the fourth-grade students’ reading and comprehension problems]. TÜBAR, 27(1), 563 580. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tubar/issue/16968/177248
103. Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.006
104. Sözen, N., & Akyol, H. (2018). Rehberli okuma yöntemi: Bir eylem araştırması [Guided reading: An action research]. Turkish Studies, 13(19), 1633 1658. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.13812
105. Stiggins, R.J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208301010
106. Temizkan, M., & Sallabaş, M.E. (2011) Okuduğunu anlama becerisinin değerlendirilmesinde çoktan seçmeli testlerle açık uçlu yazılı yoklamaların karşılaştırılması [Comparison of multiple-choice tests and open-ended written exams in the evaluation of reading comprehension skills]. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 30(1), 207-220. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/dpusbe/issue/4772/65689
107. Ulusoy, M. (2009). Boşluk tamamlama testinin okuma düzeyini ve okunabilirliği ölçmede kullanılması [Using cloze test to measure students’ reading levels and readability of texts]. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 105 126. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tebd/issue/26140/275303
108. Ulusoy, M., & Çetinkaya, Ç. (2012). Cümle doğrulama tekniğinin okuma ve dinlemenin ölçülmesinde kullanılması [The use of sentence verification technique for measuring reading and listening]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H.U Journal of Education), 43,460-471.
109. Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment in online learning. Asynchronous Discussions and Assessment in Online Learning, 39(3), 309–328.
110. Wiliam, D. (2006). Formative assessment: Getting the focus right, Educational Assessment, 11(3-4), 283-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2006.9652993
111. Yazıcı, E., & Kurudayıoğlu, M. (2017). 5. sınıf Türkçe ders kitaplarındaki dinleme metinlerinin öğrencilerin seviyesine uygunluğunun incelenmesi [Examination of the appropriateness of listening texts in the 5th grade of Turkish textbooks to students’ level]. Anadili Eğitim Dergisi, 5(4), 967-984. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.340839
112. Yıldırım, K. (2012). Öğretmen ve öğrencilerin okuduğunu anlama becerilerini değerlendirmede kullanacakları bir sistem: Barrett taksonomisi [A system to be used by teachers to evaluate students’ reading comprehension skills: Barrett taxonomy]. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(18), 45 58. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mkusbed/issue/19552/208323
113. Zengin, Y., Bars, M., & Şimşek, Ö. (2017). Matematik öğretiminin biçimlendirici değerlendirme sürecinde Kahoot! ve Plickers uygulamalarının incelenmesi [Investigation of using Kahoot! and Plickers in formative evaluation process in mathematics teaching]. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 602- 626. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.318647
114. Zipke, M. (2007). Metalinguistic instruction improves third graders’ reading comprehension [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The City University of New York.