Öğrencilerin Matematik Dersine İlişkin Değerlendirme Tercihleri

Yıl 2012, Sayı: 27, 59 - 73, 01.02.2012

Ayten Pınar Bal

Öz

Bu araştırma, öğrencilerin matematik dersindeki değerlendirme tercihlerini belirlemek amacıyla yapılmıştarama modelinde betimsel bir çalışmadır. Araştırmanın örneklemini, Çukurova Üniversitesi Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Bölümü ile Sınıf Öğretmenliği Anabilim Dalı’nda okuyan 677 öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Veri toplama aracıolarak Birenbaum 1994 tarafından geliştirilen ve Türkçe formun dil eşdeğerliği, geçerliği ve güvenirliği Gülbahar & Büyüköztürk 2008 tarafından yapılan “Değerlendirme Tercihleri Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Verilerin çözümlenmesinde betimsel istatistikler, bağımsız gruplar t-testi, tek yönlü varyans analizi, Kruskal Wallis ve Mann Whitney-U teknikleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda, öğrencilerin değerlendirmeye hazırlık aşamasında bilgi istedikleri ve bilişsel süreçleri ortaya koyacak nitelikte ölçme araçlarınıtercih ettikleri bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Buna göre, matematik dersi kapsamında değerlendirme yapılırken öğretim döneminin başında nasıl değerlendirilme yapılacağıkonusunda öğrencilere gerekli yönergelerin verilmesi önerilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Değerlendirme Tercihleri Ölçeği, Geleneksel Ölçme-Değerlendirme, Alternatif Ölçme-Değerlendirme

Students Assessment Preferences About Mathematics Course

Öz

Assessment is carried out in order to determine students’ learning needs Black & William, 1998a, 1998b; Ostrow, 1999 , arrange the effectiveness of the teaching process Chamoso & Caceres, 2008; Heddens & Speer, 2006 and analyse the knowledge and skills that are acquired during this process. Alkan 1999 stated that although assessment and evaluation in all the fields of science have some standards, they might reveal some differences according to the field being investigated. While the changes in mathematics teaching programs started in the 1980s worldwide, the Assessment Standards for School Mathematics of National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NCTM started in the mid 1990s. Parallel to this, alternative assessment and evaluation approaches reflecting the constructivism began to replace traditional assessment and evaluation approaches reflecting the behaviourism as a result of the developments in the fields of education and psychology and it was started to combine education and assessment Webb, 2001 . It is seen that traditional assessment and evaluation approaches in teaching of mathematics are not effective in measuring the individual characteristics and high order cognitive processes of students; they evaluate only a small part of students’ mathematical skills and they are disconnected from the teaching process Bachman, 2002 . In this regard, alternative assessment and evaluation approaches based on constructivism which can overcome the deficiencies of traditional assessment and evaluation approaches have become to the agenda. Krulick, Rudnick & Milou, 2003; Sheffield & Cruikshank, 2000 . In line with the constructivist approach, the standards of “teaching”, “assessment” and “program development” were rearranged and the objectives of learning were defined again. Stiggins, 1999 . In this situation, the roles of teachers and students have changed and not only assessing the learning product but also assessing the learning processes within the classroom environment have become a permanent part of education Mcmillan, 2004; Shepard, 2000 . In addition, the teaching strategies which the teachers use together with alternative assessment and evaluation approaches have changed and as a result of this, high order thinking skills and the activities they do have become more meaningful Kulm, 1993 . Although there are many studies Cavanagh, 2006; Uchiyama, 2005 about assessment especially intended for teachers in the literature, limited studies Ben-Chaim & Zoller, 1997; Birenbaum & Feldman, 1998 intended for students at higher education level draws the attention. In this context, as determining the assessment preferences of students attending tofaculty of education reflect their viewpoints towards teaching, it is very important in increasing the quality of teaching and providing the effectiveness of the program. As explained above, despite the limited studies about determining the assessment preferences of the students at higher education in the related literature, no studies about determining the assessment preferences of undergraduate students in the scope of mathematics course were found. Based on this case, this study was carried out to investigate the assessment preferences of the students at higher education level in the mathematics course. Besides, it was investigated whether or not there is a significant difference between the assessment preferences of the undergraduate studnets and their genders, academic achievements, grade levels and the departments they study. This research was carried out to determine the assessment preferences of students attending to the Department of Computer and Instructional Technology CIT and of Elementary Education EE of Cukurova University in the mathematics course and it is a descriptive survey study. The “Assessment Preferences Inventory API ” which was developed by Birenbaum 1994 and the language equivalance, validity and reliability of which as done Gülbahar and Büyüköztürk 2008 in the Turkish version were used as data collection tools. Cronbach’s Alpha Internal Consistency coefficient of API ranges between .74 and .85. In the research, when the mean of assessment preferences scale on the basis of factors were analysed the highest mean’s X=3.90 being at the sub-factor of preparation for the assessment revealed that the students wanted to get a preliminary information before being assessed and to make the scope of the exam be clearer. This result shows similarities with the results of the studies of Büyüköztürk and Gülbahar 2010 , Carnevale 2006 , Kazu, Eroğlu & Şenol 2010 and Long 2001 . In addition to this, it was seen that the students also preferred the simple/multiple choice multiple-choice, true/false type exams most X=3.46 in terms of item type/operation type. This finding shows parallelism with the studies carried out about assessment Baeten, Dochy & Struyven, 2008; Çakan, 2004; Jennings & Pankhurst, 1999; Miller, 2004, Morgan & Watson 2002; Watering, Gijbels, Dochy & Rijt, 2008; Watt, 2005 & Zeidner, 1987 . In this research, it was obviously seen that the students preferred the alternative assessment and evaluation X=3.36 more than the traditional assessment type X=2.65 according to the assessment types. In line with this, this important finding that was obtained from this research indicates similar results with the studies of Bryant 2001 , Büyüköztürk & Gülbahar 2010 , Cooney, Sanchez & Ice 2001 , Kulm 1993 ; Mertler 1999 , Miller 2004 , Motsoeneng 2005 and Webb 2001 . Zoller et al. revealed that the students preferred studying types which require higher order learning such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation and adopted deep learning approach. Another finding obtained from this research revealed that the students expressed assessment preferences which required critical thinking including cognitive processes X=3.76 . This finding shows parallelism with the suggestions of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in the USA NCTM 2000 . A significant difference in favour of the female students between the gender factor and “alternative assessment types” and “the student role/responsibility” factors and a significant difference in favour of the male students between the gender factor and “traditional assessment types” factors were found in this research. This finding shows parallelism with the studies of Beller & Gafni 2000 , Birenbaum & Feldman 1998 , Kazu et al. 2010 , Okur & Azar 2011 and Zoller & Ben-Chaim 1989 . It was seen in this research that the students with medium academic success wanted to get preliminary information in advance about the assessment and they wanted simple and multiple-choice assessment type questions to be asked in the tests. This finding also shows integrity with the studies of Struyven et al. and Watering et al. However, Brown & Hirschfeld 2007 , Bryant 2001 and Karaca 2003 reached opposite results in their studies. For example; according to the study of Karaca 2003 , it can be said that the students with high academic success preferred alternative assessment and evaluation types which are harmonious with real life complex, which include forming the information, which expose high order thinking skills and individual differences more. When the assessment preferences of the students were analysed according to their grade levels in this research, it was observed that third and fourth grade students preferred alternative assessment types that are complex and constructivist including cognitive processes in the mathematics course. This result of the research shows parallelism with the studies of Birenbaum & Rosenau 2006 , Gülbahar & Büyüköztürk 2008 and Kazu et al. 2010 . Gülbahar and Büyüköztürk found out in their study that the students preferred alternative assessment and evaluation as they gained experiences in complex and constructivist processes and moved away from the traditional structure as the years passed. In conclusion, when the assessment preferences of the students were analysed according to their departments, it was found out that the students at elementary school department preferred the alternative assessment types which include simple/multiplechoice and complex cognitive processes more than those studying at computer and instructional technology department and the students attending to elementary school department wanted to take charge in this process. This can derive from the fact that students attending to elementary school department learnt the necessary learning-teaching methods in mathematics teaching course and they knew the assessment methods that were implemented in mathematics courses during the teaching practice course different from those studying at computer and instructional technology department. To sum up, it is an outstanding finding in this research that the undergraduate students wanted to get preliminary information in the preparation for the assessment stage and preferred the assessment tolls which could present the cognitive processes as part of mathematics course. Considering the gender, the female students preferred alternative assessment types more and the male students preferred the traditional assessment types more. Furthermore, it is another important finding that, considering the academic success level, the students with medium academic success wanted to get information at the stage of preparation for the assessment and they preferred the simple/multiple-choice examinations more. Considering the grade levels, it was clearly seen that the students attending to elementary school department preferred the factors of “alternative assessment type”, “complex/constructivist item type” and “cognitive processes” more. In line with these results, it can be suggested that the necessary instructions should be provided for the students for assessment in the context of the mathematics course at the beginning of the academic year and the assessment types which bring out the cognitive processes of the students should be used

Anahtar Kelimeler

Assessment Preferences Inventory, Traditional Assessment and Evaluation and Alternative Assessment

Kaynakça

• Alkan, H. (1999). Matematikte ölçme ve değerlendirme, A. Özdaş (Editör) Matematik Öğretimi, Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açık Öğretim Fakültesi Yayınları No:591, [Online] Available at:: , [Erişim Tarihi: 11.12.2008].
• Archbald, D. A. & Grant, T. J. (2000). “What’s on the test? An analytical framework and findings from an examination of teachers’ math tests”, Educatıonal Assessment, 6(4), 221–256.
• Atılgan, H. (2006). “Değerlendirme ve not verme”, H. Atılgan, (Ed.), Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme (ss. 405-454), Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Atkin, J. M., Black, P. & Coffey, J. (2001). Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• Aydın, A. (2001). “Eğitim fakültesi mezunu olan ve olmayan öğretmenlerin ölçme ve değerlendirme yeterliliklerinin karşılaştırılmasına yönelik bir çalışma”, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Bachman, L. F. (2002). “Alternative interpretations of alternative assessments: some validity ıssues in educational performance assessments”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(3), 5-18.
• Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2008). “Students’ approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment”, Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and Cognition, 36(3), 59-374.
• Bahar, M., Nartgün, Z., Durmuş, S. ve Bıçak, B. (2006). Geleneksel ve Alternatif Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Öğretmen El Kitabı. Ankara: PegemA.
• Beller, M. & Gafni, N. (2000). “Can Item Format (Multiple Choice vs. Open-Ended) Account for Gender Differences in Mathematics Achievement?”, Sex Roles, 42(1/2), 11-21.
• Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (1997). “Examination-type preferences of secondary school students and their teachers in the science disciplines”, Instructional Science, 25(5), 347–367.
• Birenbaum M. & Feldman, R. A. (1998). “Relationships between learning patterns and attitudes towards two assessment formats”, Educational Research, 40(1), 90-98.
• Birenbaum, M. & Rosenau, S. (2006). “Assessment preferences, learning orientations, and learning strategies of pre‐service and in‐service teachers”, Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 32(2), 213-225
• Birenbaum, M. (1994). “Toward adaptive assessment - the student's angle”, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 239-255.
• Birenbaum, M. (1997). “Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and orientations”, Higher Education, 33 (71-84).
• Birgin O. (2007). “Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının ölçme ve değerlendirme konusundaki okur-yazarlık düzeylerinin incelenmesi” E. Erginer (Ed.), XVI. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi (Cilt 3, ss. 498-503). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998b). “Assessment and Classroom Learning”, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-68.
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). “Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment”, Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
• Brookhart, S. M. (1994). “Teachers’ grading: practice and theory”, Applied Measurement in Education, 7(4), 279-301.
• Brown, G., T., L., & Hirschfeld, G. H. F. (2007). “Students’ conception of assessment and mathematics: Self regulation raises achievement”, Australian Journal of Education & Deveolpmet Psychology, 7, 63-74.
• Bryant, D. D. (2001). “The perception of secondary mathematics teachers in christian schools on the effectiveness of alternative assessment on academic achievement”, Unpublished Master Dissertation. Memphis: University of Memphis.
• Buhagiar, M., A. & Murphy, R. (2008). “Teachers’ assessment of students’ learning mathematics”, Aseessmenet in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 15(2), 169-182.
• Burke, K. (1999). How to Authentics Learning (3rd Ed), Arlington Heights, İllinois: Skyligth Professional Development Ons Elawer, Corna.
• Burrill, J. , Feijs, E. , Meyer, M., Reeuwijk, M. V. ,Webb, D. & Wijers, M. (2001). The role of assessment standarts based middle school mathematics curriculum materials, [Online] Available at:: www.showmecenter.missouri.edu >, [Erişim Tarihi: 8.12.2008].
• Buschman, L. (2001). “Using students interviews to guide classroom ınstruction: An action research Project”, Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(4), 222–227.
• Büyüköztürk Ş. ve Gülbahar Y. (2010). “Assessment Preferences of Higher Education Students”, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 41, 55-72.
• Carnevale, J. (2006). “The Impact of self-assessment on mathematics teachers beliefs and reform practices”, Unpublished Master Dissertation. Canada: University of Toronto Ontario.
• Cathcart, W. G. , Pothier, Y. M., Vance, J. H. & Bezuk, N. S. (2006). Learning Mathematics in Elemantary and Middle Schools (4th Ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearon Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Cavanagh, M. (2006). Mathematics teachers and working mathematically: Responses to curriculum change, [Online] Available at:: ,[ErişimTarihi:10.10.2008].
• Chamoso, J. M. ve Caceres, M. J. (2008). “Analysis of the reflections of student-teachers of mathematics when working with learning portfolios in Spanish university classrooms”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 198-206.
• Charlesworth, R. & Lind, K. K. (2003). Math and Science for Young Children (4th Ed.), Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.
• Christou, C. , Eliophotou-Menon, M. ve Philippou, G. (2004). “Teachers’ Concerns Regarding The Adaptation of a New Curriculum: An Application of CBAM”, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(2), 157-177.
• Cooney, T. J. , Sanchez, W. B. & Ice, N. F. (2001). “Interpreting teachers’movement toward reform in mathematics”, The Mathematics Educator, 11(1), 10-14.
• Çakan, M. (2004). “Öğretmenlerin ölçme-değerlendirme uygulamaları ve yeterlik düzeyleri: İlk ve ortaöğretim”, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(2), 99-114.
• Eisner, E. W. (1999). “The uses and limits of performance assessment”,Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 658-660.
• Erdemir, Z. A. (2007). “İlköğretim ikinci kademe öğretmenlerinin ölçme ve değerlendirme tekniklerini etkin kullanabilme yeterliliklerinin araştırılması (Kahramanmaraş örneği)”, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kahramanmaraş.
• Fuch, L. S. & Deno, S. L. (1994), “Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum”, Expectional Children, 61, 15-24.
• Gülbahar, Y. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2008). “Değerlendirme Tercihlerin Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, 35, 148-161.
• Güven, B. ve Eskitürk, M. (2007). “Sınıf öğretmenlerinin ölçme ve değerlendirmede kullandıkları yöntem ve teknikler”, E. Erginer (Ed.), XVI. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi (Cilt 3. 504-511), Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• Haertel E. H. (1999). “Performance assessment and education reform”, Phi Kappan Delta, 80(9), 662-666.
• Heddens, J. W. & Speer, W. R. (2006). Today’s Mathematics: Concepts, Methods and Instructional Activities (11th Ed.), Hoboken NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
• Holaway-Johnson, C. A. (2005). “Best practies in middle school mathematics”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Arkansas: University of Arkansas.
• Jennings, S. & Pankhurst, K. (1999). “To what extend can national curriculum tests in mathematics inform and guide teaching?”, International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 30(1),1-10.
• Jimarez, T. (2005). “Does alignment of constructivist teahing, curriculum, and assessment strategise promote meaningful learning?”, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New Mexico: New Mexico State University.
• Karaca, E. (2003). “Öğretmen adaylarının ölçme ve değerlendirme yeterliliklerine ilişkin algıları”, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Kazu, İ.Y., Eroğlu, M. & Şenol C. (2010). “İlköğretim öğretmen adaylarının değerlendirme tercihlerinin incelenmesi (Fırat Üniversitesi örneği)”, IX. Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Sempozyumu, 20-22 Mayıs 2010 (Bildirili). Fırat Üniversitesi, Elazığ.
• Krulick, S. , Rudnick, J. & Milou, E. (2003). Teaching Mathematics in the Middle School, Newyork: Pearson Education.
• Kulm, G. (1993). A theory of classroom assessment and teacher practice in mathematics, [Online] Available at: , [Erişim Tarihi:02.03.2006].
• Kulm, G. (1994). Mathematics Assesment: What Works in the Classroom, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
• Kyriakides, L. (1997). “Primary teachers perceptions of policy for curriculum reform in mathematics”, Educational Reseaerch and Evaluation, 3(3), 214-242.
• Liebers, C. (1999). “Journals and portfolios: Alternative assessment for pre service teachers”, Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(3), 164-169.
• Long, V. (2001). “The myth of objectivity in mathematics assessment”, Mathematics Teacher, 94(1), 31-37.
• Mabry, L. (1999). Writing to the rubric: Lingering effect of traditional standardized testing ob direct writing assessment, [Online] Available at: , [Erişim Tarihi: 28.05.2007].
• Maxwell V. L. ve Lassak, M. B. (2008). “An experiment in using portfo in the middle school”, Mathematics Teaching in The Middle School, 13(7), 404-409.
• Mcmillian, (2004). Classroom Assessment Principles and Practice for Effective Instruction, Boston: Pearson Education.
• Mertler, C. A. (1999). “Assessing student performance: A descriptive study of the classroom assessment practices of Ohio teachers”, Education, 120(2), 285-296.
• Miller, T. (2004). “Assessment in practice grade 9 academic and applied mathematics”, Unpublished Master Dissertation, Canada: Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario.
• Morgan C. & Watson A. (2002). “The Interpretative nature of teachers' assessment of students' mathematics: Issues for equity”, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(2), 78-110.
• Motsoeneng, K. G. (2005). “The attitude of theacher and parents and learners involved in primary and intermediate schools in the Thabı mofutsanyana district regarding assesment reform in education”, Unpublished Master Dissertation. Mofutsanya Thabo: Bloemfontein Unıversty.
• Nash, L. E. (1993). “What they knows vs. what they show: An ınvestigation of teachers’ practices and perceptions regarding student assessments”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, United States: Georgia State University Georgia.
• NCTM (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• NCTM (1995). Aseessment Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• NCTM, (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Okur, M. & Azar, A. (2011). “Fen ve teknoloji dersinde kullanılan alternatif ölçme ve değerlendirme tekniklerine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri”, Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 19(2), 387-400.
• Ostrow J. (1999). Making Problems, Creating Solution Challenging Young Mathematicians, Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.
• Palm, T. (2008). “Performance assessment and authentic assessment: A conceptual analysis of the literature”, Practical Assessment Research & Evalation, 13(4),1-11.
• Payne, J. N. (1993). Mathematics for The Young Child, (2nd Ed.), Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Sarıer, Y. (2007). “Altıncı sınıf matematik öğretmenlerinin matematik dersi öğretim programına ilişkin görüşleri”, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniveristesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
• Saxe, G. B. , Franke, M. L. Gearhart, M., Howard, S., & Crockett, M. (1997). Teachers’ shifting assessment practices in the context of educational reform in mathematics, CSE Technical Report 471, CRESST University of California, Los Angeles, [Online] Available at:; , [Erişim Tarihi: 10.10.2008].
• Scouller, K. (1998). “The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay”, Higher Education, 35, 453–472.
• Senger, E. S. (1999). “Reflective reform in mathematics: The recursive nature of teacher change”, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 199-221.
• Senk, S. L., Beckmann C. E., & Thompson, D. R. (1997a). “Assessment and gradeing in high school mathematics classroom”,Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 187-215.
• Senk, S. L., Beckmann C. E., & Thompson, D. R. (1997b). “Improving classrooom tests as a maens of improving assessment”, The Mathematics Teacher, 90(1), 58-64.
• Sheffield, L. J. & Cruikshank, D. E. (2000). Teaching and Learning Elementary and Middle School Mathematics, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
• Shepard, L. A. (2000). “The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture”, Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.
• Sherin, M. G. & Drake, C. (tarihsiz). Identifying patterns in teachers’use of a reform-based elemantary mathematics curriculum, [Online] Available at: , [Erişim Tarihi: 21.03.2006].
• Solomon, P. G. (2003). The Curriculum Bridge: From Standarts To Actual Classroom Pratice (2nd Ed.), California: Corwin Press.
• Stiggins, R. J. (1999). “Assessment, student confidence, and school success”, Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 191-198.
• Stiggins, R. J. (2002). “Assessment crisis: the absence of assessment for learning”, Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765.
• Stiggins, R. J. (2005). “From Formative Assessment to Assessment For Learning: A Path to Success in Standards-Based Schools”, Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324-328.
• Struyven, K., Dochy, F. & Janssens, S. (2005). “Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 325-341.
• Uchiyama, M. K. (2004). “Teachers use of formative assessment in middle school reform based mathematics classrooms”. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
• Uchiyama, M. K. (2005). Teachers' Use of Formative Assessment. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Reserarch Assocition, Colorado State University, [Online] Available at:: , [Erişim Tarihi: 13.04.2005].
• Volante, L., & Fazio, X. (2007). “Exploring teacher candidates’ assessment literacy: Implications for teacher education reform and professional development”. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3), 749- 770.
• Watering, G. V., Gijbels, D., Dochy, F.,& Rijt, J. V. (2008). “Students’assessment preferences, perceptions of assessment and their relationships to study results”, High Education, 56, 645-658.
• Watt, H. M. G. (2005). “Attitudes to the use of alternative assessment methods in mathematics: A study with secondary mathematics teacher in Sdney, Australia”, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 21-44.
• Webb, D. C. (1992). Assessment of student’ knowledge of mathematics: Steps toward a theory. D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook Of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, (pp. 661-683). New York: Macmillan Library.
• Webb, D. C. (2001). “Instructinally embedded assessment practices of two middle grades mathematics teachers”, Doctoral Dissertation, Madison: University of Wisconsin.
• Wiggins, G. P. (1989). “Teaching to the (authentic) test”, Educational Leadership, 46(7), 141-147.
• Zeidner, M. (1987). Essay versus multiple choice type classroom exams: The students’ perspective. Journal of Educational Research, 80(6), 352–358.
• Zoller U.& Ben Chaim, D. (1989). “Interaction between examination type, anxiety state, and academic achievement in college science; an action-oriented research”, Journal Of Research In Science Teaching, 26(1), 65-77.
• Zoller, U., Ben-Chaim, D. & Kamm, S. D. (1997). “Examination-Type Preferences of College Science Students and Their Faculty in Israel and USA: A Comparative Study”, School Science and Mathematics, 97(1), 1-10.