Classroom Assessment of Science Learning

Handbook of Research on Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 965-1006

  Bell, Beverley ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85122488807     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203824696-36     Document Type: Chapter

References (270)

1. Aikenhead, G. (1987). Views on science-technology-society (question book and Canadian standard responses). Saskatchewan: Department of Curriculum Studies, University of Saskatchewan.
2. Allal, L. (2002). The assessment of learning dispositions in the classroom. Assessment in Education, 9(1), 55.
3. Allal, L., and Ducrey, G. P. (2000). Assessment of-or in-the zone of proximal development. Learning and Instruction, 10(2), 137-152.
4. Anderson, J. O., and Bachor, D. (1998). A Canadian perspective on portfolio use in student assessment. Assessment in Education, 5(3), 327, 353.
5. Apple, M. (1982). Education and power. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
6. Apple, M. (1996). Cultural politics and power. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
7. Ash, D., and Levitt, K. (2003). Working within the zone of proximal development: Formative assessment as professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(1), 23.
8. Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: beyond the black box. Cambridge, UK:University of Cambridge.
9. Atkin, J. M., Black, P., Coffey, J., and National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education Standards. (2001). Classroom assessment and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: Center for Education National Research Council, National Academy Press.
10. Atkin, M. (2002). How science teachers lose power. Studies in Science Education, 37, 163-171.
11. Baird, J., and Northfield, J. (Eds.). (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne, Australia:Monash University.
12. Barenholz, H., and Tamir, P. (1992). Acomprehensive use of concept mapping in design, instruction and assessment. Research in Science and Technology Education, 10, 37-52.
13. Barker, M., and Carr, M. (1989). Teaching and learning about photosynthesis. Part 1: an assessment in terms of students prior knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(1), 49-56.
14. Bednarski, M. (2003). Assessing performance tasks. The Science Teacher, 70(4), 34.
15. Bell, B. (1995). Interviewing: a technique for assessing science knowledge. In R. Duit (Ed.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Bell, B. (2000). Formative assessment and science education: modelling and theorising. In R. Miller, J. Leach, J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: the contribution of research. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
17. Bell, B., and Cowie, B. (1997). Formative assessment and science education: Research report of the Learning in Science Project (Assessment). Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Science Mathematics Technology Education Research, University of Waikato.
18. Bell, B., and Cowie, B. (1999). Researching teachers doing formative assessment. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching. London: Falmer Press.
19. Bell, B., and Cowie, B. (2001a). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536-553.
20. Bell, B., and Cowie, B. (2001b). Formative assessment and science education. Dordrecht and Boston:Kluwer Academic.
21. Bell, B., and Cowie, B. (2001c). Teacher development and formative assessment. Waikato Journal of Education, 7, 37-50.
22. Bell, B., and Gilbert, J. (1996). Views of learning to underpin teacher development. In Teacher development:A model from science education (pp. 38-69). London: Falmer Press.
23. Bell, B., Jones, A., and Carr, M. (1995). The development of the recent national New Zealand Science Curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 26.
24. Bell, B. F., Osborne, R., and Tasker, R. (1985). Finding out what children think. In P. Freyberg (Ed.), Learning in science: the implications of children’s science. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
25. Berlak, H. (2000). Cultural politics, the science of assessment and democratic renewal of public education. In A. Filer (Ed.), Assessment: social practice and social product. London: Routledge-Falmer.
26. Berlak, H., Newmann, E., Adams, E., Archbald, D., Burgess, T., Raven, J., et al. (Eds.). (1992). Toward a New Science of Educational Testing and Assessment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
27. Biddulph, F. (1989). Children’s questions; their place in primary science education. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton.
28. Biggs, J. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: Arole for summative assessment? Assessment in Education, 5(5), 103-110.
29. Black, P. (1993). Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Studies in Science Education, 21, 49-97.
30. Black, P. (1995a). 1987-1995-The struggle to formulate a national science curriculum for science in England and Wales. Studies in Science Education, 26, 159-188.
31. Black, P. (1995b). Assessment and feedback in science education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21(3), 257.
32. Black, P. (1995c). Can teachers use assessment to improve learning? British Journal of Curriculum and Assessment, 5(2), 7-11.
33. Black, P. (1995d). Curriculum and assessment in science education: The policy interface. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 453.
34. Black, P. (1998a). Assessment by teachers and the improvement of students’ learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), International handbook of science education (pp. 811-822). London: Kluwer Academic.
35. Black, P. (1998b). Learning, league tables and national assessment: Opportunity lost or hope deferred? Oxford Review of Education, 24(1), 57-68.
36. Black, P. (2000). Research and the development of educational assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3-4), 407-419.
37. Black, P. (2001). Dreams, strategies and systems: portraits of assessment past, present and future. Assessment in Education, 8(1), 65-85.
38. Black, P. (2002). Report to the Qualifications Development Group, Ministry of Education, New Zealand, on the proposals for development of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. London:King’s College London.
39. Black, P., and Harrison, C. (2001a). Feedback in questioning and marking: the science teacher’s role in formative assessment. School Science Review, 82(301), 55-61.
40. Black, P., and Harrison, C. (2001b). Self- and peer-assessment and taking responsibility. School Science Review, 83(302).
41. Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
42. Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box-Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139.
43. Bol, L., and Strage, A. (1996). The contradictions between teachers’ instructional goals and their assessment practices in high school biology courses. Science Education, 80(2), 145-163.
44. Broadfoot, P. (1996). Education, assessment and society. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
45. Broadfoot, P. (2002). Editorial. Dynamic versus arbitrary standards: recognising the human factor in assessment. Assessment in Education, 9(2), 157-159.
46. Brookhart, S. M. (2001). Successful students’ formative and summative uses of assessment information. Assessment in Education, 8(2), 153-169.
47. Brown, R. (Ed.). (1992). Authentic assessment: A collection. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education.
48. Buchan, A., and Welford, G. (1994). Policy into practice: the effects of practical assessment on the teaching of science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 12(1), 21, 29.
49. Buchanan, T. (2000). The efficacy of a World-Wide Web mediated formative assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(3), 193-200.
50. Butler, J. (1995). Teachers judging standards in senior science subjects: Fifteen years of the Queensland Experiment. Studies in Science Education, 26, 135-157.
51. Campbell, C., and Evans, J. A. (2000). Investigation of preservice teachers’ classroom assessment practices during student teaching. Journal of Educational Research, 93(6), 350-355.
52. Carr, M. (2001). Assessment in early childhood: Learning stories in learning places. London: Paul Chapman.
53. Carr, M., and Claxton, G. (2002). Tracking the development of learning dispositions. Assessment in Education, 9(9), 9-37.
54. Carr, M., McGee, C., Jones, A., McKinley, E., Bell, B., Barr, H., et al. (2000). Strategic research: Initiative literature review: The effects of curricula and assessment on pedagogical approaches and on educational outcomes. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
55. Cheng, M. H., and Cheung, F. W. M. (2001). Science and biology assessment in relation to the recently proposed education reform in Hong Kong. Journal of Biological Education, 35(4), 170.
56. Cherryholmes, C. (1988). Construct validity and discourses of research. American Journal of Education, 96, 421-457.
57. Cheung, D., Hattie, J., Bucat, R., and Douglas, G. (1996). Measuring the degree of implementation of school-based assessment schemes for practical science. Research in Science Education, 26(4), 375-389.
58. Childers, P. B., and Lowry, M. (1997). Engaging students through formative assessment in science. The Clearing House, 71(2), 97.
59. Chiu, M.-H., Chou, C.-C., and Liu, C.-J. (2002). Dynamic processes of conceptual change: Analysis of constructing mental models of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 688.
60. Cizek, G. J. (1997). Learning, achievement and assessment: constructs at the crossroads. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment: learning, adjustment and achievement. San Diego:Academic Press.
61. Clarke, S. (1998). Targeting assessment in the primary classroom. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
62. Clarke, S., Timperley, H., and Hattie, J. (2003). Unlocking formative assessment: practical strategies for enhancing students’ lerning in the primary and intermediate classroom. New Zealand version. Auckland: Hodder Moa Beckett.
63. Claxton, G. (1995). What kind of learning does self-assessment drive? Assessment in Education, 2(3), 335, 339.
64. Codd, J., McAlpine, D., and Poskitt, J. (1995). Assessment policies in New Zealand: Educational reform or political agenda. In B. Tuck (Ed.), Setting the standards. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
65. Collins, A. (1992). Portfolios for science education: Issues in purpose, structure, and authenticity. Science Education, 76(4), 451.
66. Collins, A. (1995). National Science Education Standards in the United States: A process and a product. Studies in Science Education, 26, 7-37.
67. Collins, A. (1998). National science education standards: A political document. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 711.
68. Cowie, B. (1997). Formative assessment and science classrooms. In B. a. B. Bell (Ed.), Developing the science curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand. Auckland: Addison Wesley Longman.
69. Cowie, B. (2000). Formative assessment in science classrooms. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
70. Cowie, B., and Bell, B. (1996). Validity and formative assessment in the classroom. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Validity in Educational Assessment, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, June 28-30, 1996.
71. Cowie, B., and Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 102-116.
72. Crooks, T. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.
73. Crooks, T. (2001). The validity of formative assessments. Paper presented at the paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the British Educational Research Association, Leeds, UK, September 13-15, 2001.
74. Crooks, T. (2002a). Assessment, accountability and achievement-Principles, possibilities and pitfalls. Paper presented at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, Palmerston North, New Zealand, December 5-8, 2002.
75. Crooks, T. (2002b). Educational assessment in New Zealand schools. Assessment in Education, 9(2), 217, 237.
76. Crooks, T., and Flockton, L. (1996). National Education Monitoring Report 1: Science assessment results 1995. Dunedin, New Zealand: Educational Assessment Research Unit, University of Otago.
77. Crooks, T., Kane, M., and Cohen, A. (1996). Threats to the valid use of assessments. Assessment in Education, 3(3), 265-285.
78. Cumming, J., and Maxwell, G. (1999). Contextualising authentic assessment. Assessment in Education, 6(2), 177-194.
79. Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Performance-based assessment and educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 5-30.
80. Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Authentic assessment in action. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
81. Darling-Hammond, L., and Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 523-545.
82. Daws, N., and Singh, B. (1996). Formative assessment: to what extent is its potential to enhance student learning being relaised? School Science Review, 77(281), 93-100.
83. Deese, W. C., Ramsey, L. L., Walczyk, J., and Eddy, D. (2000). Using demonstration assessments to improve learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(11), 1511.
84. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.
85. DeTure, L., Fraser, B. J., Giddings, J., and Doran, R. L. (1995). Assessment and investigation of science laboratory skills among year 5 students. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 253-266.
86. Donnelly, J. F., and Jenkins, E. W. (2001). Science education. Policy, professionalism and change. London:Paul Chapman.
87. Doran, R. L., Lawrenz, F., and Helgeson, S. (1993). Research on assessment in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 388-442). New York: Macmillan.
88. Dori, Y. (2003). From nationwide standardised testing to school-based alternative embedded assessment in Israel: Students’ performance in the Matriculation 2000 Project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 34-52.
89. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., and Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science:Research into children’s ideas. London: Routledge.
90. Duit, R., and Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science-From behaviorism towards social constructivism and beyond. In K. Tobin (Ed.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
91. Duschl, R., and Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4, 37-73.
92. Edmondson, K. (1999). Assessing science understanding through concept maps. In J. Novak (Ed.), Assessing science understanding: a human constructivist view. San Diego: Academic Press.
93. Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.
94. Eisner, E. (1993). Reshaping assessment in education: some criteria in search of practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25, 219-233.
95. Eley, L., and Caygill, R. (2001). Making the most of testing: Examination of different assessment formats. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 2, 20-23.
96. Eley, L., and Caygill, R. (2002). One test fits all? An examination of differing assessment task formats. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 37(1), 27-38.
97. Enger, S. K., and Yager, R. (1998). The Iowa assessment handbook. Iowa City: Science Education Center, University of Iowa.
98. Erickson, G., and Meyer, K. (1998). Performance assessment tasks in science: What are they measuring? In K. Tobin (Ed.), International handbook of science education. London: Kluwer Academic.
99. Fairbrother, B. (1993). Problems in the assessment of scientific skills. In D. West (Ed.), Teaching, learning and assessment in science education. London: Paul Chapman.
100. Fairbrother, B., Black, P., and Gill, P. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers assessing pupils. London: Association of Science Education.
101. Feltham, N. F., and Downs, C. T. (2002). Three forms of assessment of prior knowledge, and improved performance following an enrichment programme, of English second language biology students within the context of a marine theme. International Journal of Science Education, 24(2), 157-184.
102. Filer, A. (1995). Teacher Assessment: social process and social product. Assessment in Education, 2(1).
103. Filer, A. (Ed.). (2000). Assessment: social practice and social product. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
104. Filer, A., and Pollard, A. (2000). The social world of pupil assessment: Processes and contexts of primary schooling. London: Continuum.
105. Fisher, K., Wandersee, J. H., and Moody, D. (2000). Mapping biology knowledge. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
106. Francisco, J. S., Nakhleh, M. B., Nurrenbern, S. C., and Miller, M. L. (2002). Assessing student understanding of general chemistry with concept mapping. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(2), 248.
107. Frederiksen, J., and White, B. (1997). Reflective assessment of students’ research within an inquiry-based middle school science curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, Chicago.
108. Fusco, D., and Barton, A. C. (2001). Representing student achievements in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 337-354.
109. Gale, K., Martin, K., and McQueen, G. (2002). Triadic assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 557-567.
110. Gauld, C. (1980). Subject orientated test construction. Research in Science Education, 10, 77-82.
111. Gilmore, A. (2002). Large-scale assessment and teachers’ assessment capacity: Learning opportunities for teachers in the National Monitoring Project in New Zealand. Assessment in Education, 9(3), 319.
112. Gilmore, A., and Hattie, J. (2001). Understanding usage of an Internet based information resource for teachers: The assessment resource banks. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 36(2), 237-257.
113. Gipps, C. (1994a). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: The Falmer Press.
114. Gipps, C. (1994b). Developments in educational assessment or what makes a good test? Assessment in Education, 1(3).
115. Gipps, C. (1998). Equity in education and assessment. Paper presented at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, Dunedin, December 1998.
116. Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education, 24, 355-392.
117. Gipps, C., Brown, M., Mccallum, B., and McAlister, S. (1995). Intuition or evidence? Buckingham, UK:Open University Press.
118. Gipps, C., and James, M. (1998). Broadening the basis of assessment to prevent the narrowing of learning. The Curriculum Journal, 9(3), 285-297.
119. Gipps, C., and Murphy, P. (1994). A fair test? Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
120. Gipps, C., and Tunstall, P. (1996a). “How does your teacher help you to make your work better?" Children’s understanding of formative assessment. Curriculum Journal, 7(2), 185-203.
121. Gipps, C., and Tunstall, P. (1996b). Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment:A typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389-404.
122. Gitomer, D. H., and Duschl, R. (1995). Moving towards a portfolio culture in science education. In R. Duit (Ed.), Learning science in schools: Research reforming practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
123. Gitomer, D. H., and Duschl, R. (1998). Emerging issues and practices in science assessment. In K. Tobin (Ed.), International handbook of science education. London: Kluwer Academic.
124. Glover, P., and Thomas, R. (1999). Coming to grips with continuous assessment. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 111, 117.
125. Gott, R., Welford, G., and Foulds, K. (1998). The assessment of practical work in science. Oxford:Blackwell.
126. Griffard, P. B., and Wandersee, J. H. (2001). The two-tier instrument on photosynthesis: What does it diagnose? International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1039-1052.
127. Grigorenko, E. L., and Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 75-111.
128. Han, J.-J. (1995). The quest for national standards in science education in Korea. Studies in Science Education, 26, 59-71.
129. Harlen, W. (1995a). Standards and science education in Scottish schools. Studies in Science Education, 26, 107-134.
130. Harlen, W. (1995b). To the rescue of formative assessment. Primary Science Review, 37, 14-16.
131. Harlen, W. (1998). Classroom assessment: A dimension of purposes and procedures. Paper presented at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association of Educational Research, Dunedin, December 1998.
132. Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 129.
133. Harlen, W., and James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning. Assessment in Education, 4(3), 365.
134. Hattie, J. (1999). Influences on student learning. Paper presented at the Inaugural Professorial lecture, University of Auckland. Retrieved 1 August 2003 from http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/ edu/staff/jhattie/Inaugural.html.
135. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., and Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning:A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99-136.
136. Hattie, J., and Jaeger, R. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: a deductive approach. Assessment in Education, 5(5), 111.
137. Heady, J. E. (2001). Gauging students’ learning in the classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(3), 157.
138. Hickey, D. T., and Zuiker, S. J. (2003). A new perspective for evaluating innovative science programs. Science Education, 87(4), 539-563.
139. Higgins, R., Hartley, P., and Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53-64.
140. Hill, M. (1999). Assessment in self-managing schools: Primary teachers balancing learning and accountability demands in the 1990s. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 34(1), 176-185.
141. Hill, M. (2001). Dot, slash, cross: How assessment can drive teachers to ticking instead of teaching. SET: Research information for teachers, 1, 21-25.
142. Hunt, E., and Pellegrino, J. (2002). Issues, examples, and challenges of formative assessment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89, 73.
143. Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist enquiry. London: The Falmer Press.
144. Johnston, P., Guice, S., Baker, K., Malone, J., and Michelson, N. (1995). Assessment of teaching and learning in “literature-based” classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(4), 359-371.
145. Jones, A., Cowie, B., and Moreland, J. (2003). Enhancing formative interactions in science and technology:a synthesis of teacher student perspectives. Paper presented at the NARST Annual Conference, Philadelphia, March 23-26, 2003.
146. Kamen, M. (1996). A teacher’s implementation of authentic assessment in an elementary science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 859-877.
147. Keeves, J., and Alagumalai, S. (1998). Advances in measurement in science education. In K. Tobin (Ed.), International handbook of science education. London: Kluwer Academic.
148. Keiler, L., and Woolnough, B. (2002). Practical work in school science: The dominance of assessment. School Science Review, 83(304), 83-88.
149. Kennedy, D., and Bennett, J. (2001). Practical work at the upper high school level: The evaluation of a new model of assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 97-110.
150. Kent, L. (1996). How shall we know them? Comparison of Maori student responses for written and oral assessment tasks. Unpublished M.Ed. thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
151. Keys, C. W. (1995). An interpretive study of students’ use of scientific reasoning during a collaborative report writing intervention in ninth grade general science. Science Education, 79(4), 415.
152. Kinchin, I. M. (2001). If concept mapping is so helpful to learning biology, why aren’t we all doing it? International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1257-1269.
153. Klein, J. (2002). The failure of a decision support system: Inconsistency in test grading by teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 1023.
154. Klein, S., Jovanovic, J., Stecher, B., McCaffrey, D., Shavelson, R., Haertel, E., et al. (1997). Gender and racial/ethnic differences on performance assessments in science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 83-97.
155. Lawrence, M., and Pallrand, G. (2000). Acase study of the effectiveness of teacher experience in the use of explanation-based assessment in high school physics. School Science and Mathematics, 100(1), 36.
156. Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D., and Welch, W. (2001). The science achievement of various subgroups on alternative assessment formats. Science Education, 85(3), 279-290.
157. Leat, D., and Nichols, A. (2000). Brains on the table: Diagnostic and formative assessment through obsevation. Assessment in Education, 7(1), 103.
158. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., and Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
159. Lee, O. (1999). Equity implications based on the conceptions of science achievement in major reform documents. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 83.
160. Lee, O. (2001). Culture and language in science education: what do we know and what do we need to know? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 499.
161. Lester, F., Lambdim, D., and Preston, R. (1997). A new vision of the nature and purposes of assessment in the mathematics classroom. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment:learning, adjustment and achievement. San Diego: Academic Press.
162. Lidz, C. S. (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford Press.
163. Lin, H. S., and Frances, L. (1999). Using time-series design in the assessment of teaching effectiveness. Science Education, 83(4), 409.
164. Linn, R. L., Baker, E., and Dunbar, S. (1991). Complex, peformance-based assessment: expectations and validity criteria. Education Researcher, 20, 15-21.
165. Liu, X., and Hinchey, M. (1996). The internal consistency of a concept mapping scoring scheme and its effect on prediction validity. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 921-937.
166. Lokan, J., Adams, R., and Doig, B. (1999). Broadening assessment, improving fairness? Some examples from school science. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 83.
167. Lorsbach, A., Tobin, K., Briscoe, C., and LaMaster, S. (1992). An interpretation of assessment methods in middle school science. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 305-317.
168. Lowe, P., and Fisher, D. L. (2000). Peer power: The effect of group work and assessment on student attitudes in science. SAMEpapers 2000, 129-147.
169. Lubben, F., and Ramsden, J. B. (1998). Assessing pre-university students through extended individual investigations: teachers’ and examiners’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 833-848.
170. Marston, C., and Croft, C. (1999). What do students know in science? Analysis of data from the assessment resource banks. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 12(2), 1-4.
171. Mavrommatis, Y. (1997). Understanding assessment in the classroom: Phases of the assessment process-the assessment episode. Assessment in Education, 4(3), 381.
172. Mawhinney, H. B. (1998). Patterns of social control in assessment practices in Canadian frameworks for accountability in education. Educational Policy, 12(1-2), 98-109.
173. McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., and Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475-492.
174. McGinn, M. K., and Roth, W. M. (1998). Assessing students’ understanding about levers: Better test instruments are not enough. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 813-832.
175. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement in education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education and National Council on Measurement in Education.
176. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessment. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.
177. Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington: Learning Media.
178. Ministry of Education. (2003). Assessment exemplars. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.tki.org.nz/e/community/ncea
179. Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J. H., and Novak, J. (Eds.). (1999). Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego: Academic Press.
180. Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J. H., and Novak, J. (2001). Assessing understanding in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 118-124.
181. Moreland, J., and Jones, A. (2000). Emerging assessment practices in an emergent curriculum:Implications for technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(3), 283-305.
182. Moreland, J., Jones, J., and Northover, A. (2001). Enhancing teachers’ technological knowledge and assessment practices to enhance stuent learning in technology: A two year classroom study. Research in Science Education, 31(1), 155-176.
183. Morgan, C., and Morris, G. (1999). Good teaching and learning: Pupils and teachers speak. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
184. Moss, P. A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications of performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 229-258.
185. Moss, P. A. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher, 23(2), 5-12.
186. National Research Council. (1999). The assessment of science meets the science of assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
187. Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. Educational Psychologist, 22, 155-175.
188. Newmann, D., Griffin, P., and Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
189. Nitko, A. (1995). Curriculum-based continuous assessment: a framework for concepts, procedures and policy. Assessment in Education, 2(3), 321.
190. Norris, S. P. (1992). Testing for the disposition to think critically. Informal Logic, 2/3, 157-164.
191. Orphwood, G. (1995). Juggling educational needs and political realities in Canada: National standards, provincial control and teachers’ professionalism. Studies in Science Education, 26, 39-57.
192. Orpwood, G. (2001). The role of assessment in science curriculum reform. Assessment in Education, 8(2), 135.
193. Osborne, J., and Ratcliffe, M. (2002). Developing effective methods of assessing ideas and evidence. School Science Review, 83(305), 113-123.
194. Osborne, R., and Gilbert, J. (1980). A method for the investigation of concept understanding in science. European Journal of Science Education, 2(3), 311-321.
195. Parker, J., and Rennie, L. (1998). Equitable assessment issues. In K. Tobin (Ed.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 897-910). London: Kluwer Academic.
196. Peat, M., and Franklin, S. (2002). Supporting student learning: the use of computer-based formative assessment modules. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 515-523.
197. Perrenoud, P. (1998). From formative evaluation to a controlled regulation of learning processes. Towards a wider conceptual field. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 85-102.
198. Phye, G. D. E. (1997). Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, adjustment and achievement. San Diego: Academic Press.
199. Pittman, K. M. (1999). Student-generated analogies: Another way of knowing? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 1-22.
200. Pollard, A., Triggs, P., Broadfoot, P., McNess, E., and Osborn, M. (2000). What pupils say: Changing policy and practice in primary education. London: Continuum.
201. Popham, W. J. (1987). Two decades of educational objectives. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(1).
202. Popham, W. J. (2003). Trouble with testing. The American School Board Journal, 190(2), 14.
203. Preece, P. F. W., and Skinner, N. C. (1999). The national assessment in science at Key Stage 3 in England and Wales and its impact on teaching and learning. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 11.
204. Pryor, J., and Torrance, H. (2000). Questioning the three bears: The social construction of classroom assessment. In A. Filer (Ed.), Assessment: social practice and social product. London: Routledge-Falmer.
205. Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Science, 28(1), 4-13.
206. Reay, D., and Wiliam, D. (1999). “I’ll be a nothing”: Structure, agency and the construction of identity through assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 25(3), 343-354.
207. Rice, D. C., Ryan, J., and Samson, S. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1103-1127.
208. Rodriguez, A. J. (1998). Strategies for counterresistence: Toward sociotransformative constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 589-622.
209. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
210. Rop, C. J. (2002). The meaning of student inquiry questions: A teacher’s beliefs and responses. International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 717.
211. Roth, W.-M., and McGinn, M. K. (1997). Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice? Science Education, 81(1), 91.
212. Roth, W. M., and McGinn, M. K. (1998). UnDELETE science education: Lives/work/voices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 399-421.
213. Roth, W. M., and Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 503-534.
214. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., and Shavelson, R. J. (1996a). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569-600.
215. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., and Shavelson, R. J. (1996b). Rhetoric and reality in science performance assessments:An update. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1045-1063.
216. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., and Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 369-393.
217. Rye, J. A., and Rubba, P. A. (2002). Scoring concept maps: An expert map-based scheme weighted for relationships. School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 33.
218. Sadler, P. (1998). Psychometric models of student conceptions in science: Reconciling qualitative studies and distractor-driven assessment instruments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 265-296.
219. Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.
220. Sarf, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(4-13).
221. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In M. Scriven (Ed.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
222. Scriven, M. (1990). Beyond formative and summative evaluation. In K. J. Rehage, M. McLaughlin, and D. Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century. NSSE yearbook. Chicago:NSSE.
223. Sewell, R. D. E., Stevens, R. G., and Lewis, D. J. A. (1995). Multimedia computer technology as a tool for teaching and assessment of biological science. Journal of Biological Education, 29, 27.
224. Shapley, K. S., and Bush, M. J. (1999). Developing a valid and reliable portfolio assessment in the primary grades: Building on practical experience. Applied Measurement in Education, 12(2), 111-132.
225. Shaw, J. (1997). Threats to the validity of science performance assessments for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 721-743.
226. Shepardson, D. P. (Ed.). (2001). Assessment in science: A guide to professional development and classroom practice. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
227. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reforms. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
228. Simpson, M. (1993). Diagnostic assessment and its contribtuion to pupils’ learning. In D. West (Ed.), Teaching, learning and assessment in science education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
229. Slater, T. F. (1997). The effectiveness of portfolio assessments in science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(5), 315.
230. Slater, T., Ryan, J., and Samson, S. (1997). Impact and dynamics of portfolio assessment and traditional assessment in a college physics course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(3), 255-271.
231. Smith, P. S., Hounshell, P., Copolo, C., and Wilkerson, S. (1992). The impact of end-of-course testing in chemistry on curriculum and instruction. Science Education, 76(5), 523-530.
232. Solano-Flores, G., and Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 553-573.
233. Solano-Flores, G., and Shavelson, R. J. (1997). Development of peformance assessment in science:conceptual, practical and logistical issues. Educational Measurement, 1997, 16.24.
234. Stefani, L. A. J., and Tariq, V. N. (1996). Running group practical projects for first-year undergraduate students. Journal of Biological Education, 30, 36.
235. Stern, L., and Ahlgren, A. (2002). Analysis of students’ assessments in middle school curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at benchmarks and standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 889-910.
236. Stoddart, T., Abrams, R., Gasper, E., and Canaday, D. (2000). Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning-a report of methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1221-1246.
237. Swain, J. (1996). The impact and effect of key stage 3 science tests. School Science Review, 78(283), 79-90.
238. Swain, J. (1997). The impact and effect of key stage 3 science tasks. School Science Review, 78(284), 99-104.
239. Tamir, P. (1998). Assessment and evaluation in science education: Opportunities to learn and outcomes. In K. Tobin (Ed.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 761-789). London:Kluwer Academic.
240. Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., and Treagust, D. F. (2002). Development and application of a two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrument to assess high school students’ understanding of inorganic chemistry qualitative analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 283-301.
241. Taras, M. (2002). Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 501-510.
242. Tariq, V. N., Stefani, L. A. J., Butcher, A. C., and Heylings, D. J. A. (1998). Developing a new approach to the assessment of project work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(3), 221.
243. Taylor, C., and Gardner, P. (1999). An alternative method of answering and scoring multiple choice tests. Research in Science Education, 29(3), 353-363.
244. Tittle, C. (1994). Toward an educational psychology of assessment for teaching and learning:Theories, contexts and validation arguments. Educational Psychologist, 29(3), 149-162.
245. Torrance, H. (1993). Formative assessment: Some theoretical problems and empirical questions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 23(3), 333-343.
246. Torrance, H. (2000). Post-modernism and educational assessment. In A. Filer (Ed.), Assessment; social practice and social product. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
247. Torrance, H., and Pryor, J. (1995). Investigating teacher assessment in infant classrooms: Methodological problems and emerging issues. Assessment in Education, 2(3), 305-320.
248. Torrance, H., and Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
249. Torrance, H., and Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: using action research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 615-631.
250. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., and Lesgold, A. M. (2002). “Mapping to know”: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86(2), 264-286.
251. Treagust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment. In R. Duit (Ed.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
252. Treagust, D. F., Jacobowitz, R., Gallagher, J. L., and Parker, J. (2001). Using assessment as a guide in teaching for understanding: A case study of a middle school science class learning about sound. Science Education, 85(2), 137-157.
253. Tripp, G., Murphy, A., Stafford, B., and Childers, P. B. (1997). Peer tutors and students work with formative assessment. The Clearing House, 71(2), 103.
254. Volkmann, M. J., and Abell, S. K. (2003). Seamless assessment. Science and Children, 40(8), 41.
255. Wallace, J., and Mintzes, J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: Exploring conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1033-1052.
256. Welzel, M., and Roth, W. M. (1998). Do interviews really assess students’ knowledge? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 25-44.
257. White, R., and Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.
258. Wiediger, S. D., and Hutchinson, J. S. (2002). The significance of accurate student self-assessment in understanding of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(1), 120.
259. Wiggins, G. (1989). Atrue test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 703-713.
260. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance. San Franisco: Jossey-Bass.
261. Wiliam, D. (1992). Some technical issues in assessment: Auser’s guide. British Journal of Curriculum and Assessment, 2(3), 11-20.
262. Wiliam, D. (1994). Towards a philosophy for educational assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Education Research Association, Bath, England.
263. Wilson, J. (1996). Concept maps about chemical equilibrium and students’ achievement scores. Research in Science Education, 26(2), 169-185.
264. Wolfe, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J. I., and Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education, 17, 31-74.
265. Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477-501.
266. Yung, B. H. W. (2001). Three views of fairness in a school-based assessment scheme of practical work in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 985-1005.
267. Zachos, P., Hick, T. L., Doane, W. E. J., and Sargent, C. (2000). Setting theoretical and empirical foundations for assessing scientific inquiry and discovery in educational programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 938-962.
268. Zeegers, Y. (2003). Pedagogical content knowledge or pedagogical reasoning about science teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Melbourne, July 2003.
269. Zoller, U. (1996). The use of examinations for revealing and distinguishing between students’ misconceptions, misunderstandings and “no conceptions” in college chemistry. Research in Science Education, 26(3), 317-326.
270. Zoller, U., Fastow, M., Lubezky, A., and Tsaparlis, G. (1999). Students’ self-assessment in chemistry examinations requiring higher- and lower-order cognitive skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 112.