Teachers’ Use of Open-ended Questions: A Mixed-methods Study

References

• Arffman, I. 2016. Threats to validity when using open-ended items in international achievement studies: Coding ­responses to the PISA 2012 problem solving test in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 60 (6):609–25. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2015.1066429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assessment Reform Group. 2002. Assessment for learning: 10 principles research-based principles to guide classroom practice. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Atılgan, H., A. Kan, and B. Aydın. 2017. Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
   Google Scholar
• Ayas, A., A. Ayaydin, E. Öncü, S. Kaymakçi, B. Börkan, Ç. Hatipoğlu, E. Durukan, F. Karataş, Ö. Çetinkaya, F. Ç. Aslan Tutak, et al. 2020. Strengthening teacher capacity based on school and classroom-based assessment. English as a foreign language teacher guidebook [Okul ve sınıf tabanlı değerlendirmeye dayalı öğretmen kapasitesinin güçlendirilmesi: Yabanci dil olarak İngilizce dersi öğretmen rehber kitapçiği]. Ankara: Ministry of National Education.
   Google Scholar
• Aziza, M. 2018. An analysis of a teacher’s questioning related to students’ responses and mathematical creativity in an elementary school in the UK. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 10 (4):475–87.
   Google Scholar
• Badger, E., and B. Thomas. 1991. Open-ended questions in reading. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 3 (1):1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Bartholomew, S. R., and G. J. Strimel. 2018. Factors influencing student success on open-ended design problems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 28 (3):753–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baykul, Y., and M. F. Turgut. 2013. Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, W., and C. Johnston. 1999. The relationship between multiple choice and essay response question in assessing economics understanding. Economic Record 75 (4):348–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binkley, M., O. Erstad, J. Herman, S. Raizen, M. Ripley, M. MillerRicci, et al. 2012. Defining twenty-first century skills. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills, ed. P. Griffin, B. McGaw, and E. Care, 17–66. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Birgili, B. 2014. Open-ended questions as an alternative to multiple choice: Dilemma in Turkish examination system [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S., M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I. New York: McKay.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. R. 1999. Cognitive processes elicited by multiple-choice and constructed response questions on an assessment of reading comprehension (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Philadelphia: Temple University.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, M. C. E., and D. Clarke. 2017. Structured affordances in the use of open-ended tasks to facilitate collaborative problem solving. ZDM Mathematics Education 49 (6):951–63.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, D. J. 2011. Open-ended tasks and assessment: The nettle or the rose. In Assessment in the mathematics classroom, ed. B. Kaur and K. Y. Wong, 131–63. Singapore: World Scientific.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Cullen, R. 1998. Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal 52 (3):179–87. doi: 10.1093/elt/52.3.179.
   Google Scholar
• Darling-Hammond, L. 2017. Developing and measuring ­higher order skills: Models for state performance assessment systems. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
   Google Scholar
• Demirel, Ö. 2011. Eğitimde Program Geliştirme: Kuramdan Uygulamaya. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
   Google Scholar
• Denson, C. D., J. K. Buelin, M. D. Lammi, and S. D’Amico. 2015. Developing instrumentation for assessing creativity in engineering design. Journal of Technology Education 27 (1):23–40.
   Google Scholar
• Diefes-Dux, H. A., T. Moore, J. Zawojewski, P. K. Imbrie, and D. Follman. 2004. A framework for posing open-ended engineering problems: Model-eliciting activities. In Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004. 34th Annual FIE, Savannah, GA, USA, 20–23 October 2004, pp F1A–3. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Doğan, N. 2019. Eğtimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
   Google Scholar
• Dunn-Rankin, P., G. A. Knezek, S. R. Wallace, and S. Zhang. 2014. Scaling methods. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feng, Z. 2013. Using teacher questions to enhance EFL students’ critical thinking ability. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching 2 (2):147–53.
   Google Scholar
• Fraenkel, J. R., and N. E. Wallen. 2012. How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, G. 1999. Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn. In Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using diverse approaches, ed. S. Brown and A. Glasner, 41–54. Buckingham: SRHE & O.U.P.
   Google Scholar
• Greenfield, D. B., J. Jirout, X. Dominguez, A. Greenberg, M. Maier, and J. Fuccillo. 2009. Science in the preschool classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve science readiness. Early Education & Development 20 (2):238–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guion, L. A., D. C. Diehl, and D. McDonald. 2011. Triangulation: Establishing the validity of qualitative studies. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, EDIS. doi: 10.32473/edis-fy394-2011.
   Google Scholar
• Gül, E., Ç. D. Gül, Ö. Çokluk, and M. Kayri. 2016. Views about the use of open-ended items in large scale assessment in Turkey: A phenomenological approach. Journal of Educational Sciences Research 6 (1):117–33.
   Google Scholar
• Güler, N. 2014. Analysis of open-ended statistics questions with many facet Rasch model. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 55:73–90. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2014.55.5.
   Google Scholar
• Güler, M. 2021. An investigation of the questions mathematics teachers use on exams. Journal of Pedagogical Research 5 (1):141–53. doi: 10.33902/JPR.2021167371.
   Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, D. H. 1984. Teachers’ questions: Open, closed and half-open. Educational Research 26 (1):46–51. doi: 10.1080/0013188840260108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harlen, W., and A. Qualter. 2004. The teaching of science in primary schools. 4th ed. London: David Fulton Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77 (1):81–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, D. G. E. 2005. Why do teachers ask the questions they ask? A Journal of Language Teaching and Research in Southeast Asia 36 (3):297–310. doi: 10.1177/0033688205060052.
   Google Scholar
• Hogan, T. P., and G. Murphy. 2007. Recommendations for preparing and scoring constructed response items: What the experts say. Applied Measurement in Education 20 (4):427–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• İnceçam, B., E. Demir, and E. Demir. 2018. Competencies of middle school teachers to prepare open-ended items used in open-ended test for in classroom assessment. Ilkogretim Online 17 (4):1912–27.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R., J. Penny, and B. Gordon. 2009. Assessing performance. Designing, scoring, and validating performance tasks. NewYork: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Kelting-Gibson, L. 2013. Analysis of 100 years of curriculum designs. International Journal of Instruction 6 (1):39–58.
   Google Scholar
• Khan, W., and H. Inamullah. 2011. A study of lower-order and higher-order questions at secondary level. Asian Social Science 7 (9):149–57. doi: 10.5539/ass.v7n9p149.
   Google Scholar
• Koh, K. H. 2011. Improving teachers’ assessment literacy through professional development. Teaching Education 22 (3):255–76. doi: 10.1080/10476210.2011.593164.
   Google Scholar
• Kosyvas, G. 2016. Levels of arithmetic reasoning in solving an open-ended problem. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 47 (3):356–72. doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2015.1072880.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon, O. N., J. H. Park, and J. S. Park. 2006. Cultivating divergent thinking in mathematics through an open-ended approach. Asia Pacific Education Review 7 (1):51–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lafontaine, D. 2004. From comprehension to literacy: Thirty years of reading assessment. In Comparing learning outcomes. International assessments and education policy, ed. J. Moskowitz and M. Stephens, 24–45. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y., M. B. Kinzie, and J. V. Whittaker. 2012. Impact of online support for teachers’ open-ended questioning in pre-k science activities. Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (4):568–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, P. J. 2004. Supporting teachers on designing problem-posing tasks as a tool of assessment to understand students’ mathematical learning. In Paper presented in proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3–257–264. Bergen: Bergen University College.
   Google Scholar
• Livingston, S. A. 2009. Constructed-response test questions: Why we use them; how we score them. R&D Connections. Number 11. Educational Testing Service. Accessed October 20, 2020. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED507802.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B., and E. J. Tisdell. 2016. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• MoNE. 2004. Primary school science and technology course (4th and 5th grades) curriculum. [İlkogretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (4. & 5. Sınıflar) ögretim programı.]. Ankara: Ministry of National Education.
   Google Scholar
• MoNE. 2010. Elementary technology and design course curriculum and guide (6, 7 and 8th grades) [İlköğretim teknoloji ve tasarım dersi öğretim programı ve kılavuzu (6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar)]. Ankara: Ministry of National Education.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). 1995. Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Omari, H. A. 2018. Analysis of the types of classroom questions which Jordanian English language teachers ask. Modern Applied Science 12 (4):1–12. doi: 10.5539/mas.v12n4p1.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill, J., and P. Adams. 2014. The future of teacher professionalism and professionality in teaching. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work 11 (1):1–2.
   Google Scholar
• Ozuru, Y., S. Briner, C. A. Kurby, and D. S. McNamara. 2013. Comparing comprehension measured by multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 67 (3):215–27. doi: 10.1037/a0032918.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2016. P21 framework definitions. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework.
   Google Scholar
• Popham, W. J. 2000. Modern educational measurement: Practical guidelines for educational leaders. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Popham, W. J. 2011. Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Boston, MA: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Print, M. 1993. Curriculum development and design. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Ritz, W. C. 2007. A head start on science: Encouraging a sense of wonder. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W. M. 1996. Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33 (7):709–36. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199609)33:7<709::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-R.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tekin, H. 1991. Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. Ankara: Yargı yayınları.
   Google Scholar
• van den Akker, J. 2003. Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In Curriculum landscapes and trends, ed. J. van den Akker, W. Kuiper, and U. Hameyer, 1–10. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Vercellotti, M. L., and D. E. McCormick. 2021. Constructing analytic rubrics for assessing open-ended tasks in the language classroom. TESL-EJ 24 (4):1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Viseu, F., and I. B. Oliveira. 2012. Open-ended tasks in the promotion of classroom communication in mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 4 (2):287–300.
   Google Scholar
• Volante, L., and X. Fazio. 2007. Exploring teacher candidates’ assessment literacy: Implications for teacher education reform and professional development. Canadian Journal of Education 30 (3):749–70.
   Google Scholar
• Weiner, I., J. Graham, and J. Nagliewri. 2013. Handbook of psychology. Vol. 10. Assessment psychology. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Wragg, E. C., and G. Brown. 2001. Questioning in the primary school. London: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar