Developing classroom formative assessment in dutch primary mathematics education

References

• Anderson, T., and J. Shattuck. 2012. “Design-based Research: A Decade of Progress in Education Research?” Educational Researcher 41 (1): 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X11428813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antoniou, P., and M. James. 2013. “Exploring Formative Assessment in Primary School Classrooms: Developing a Framework of Actions and Strategies.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 26: 153–176. doi:10.1007/s11092-013-9188-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashford, S. J., and K. E. M. De Stobbeleir. 2013. “Feedback, Goal Setting and Task Performance Revisited.” In New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance, edited by E. A. Locke and G. P. Latham, 51–64. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 2009. “Developing the Theory of Formative Assessment.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21 (1): 5–31. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandon, P. R., D. B. Young, R. J. Shavelson, R. Jones, C. C. Ayala, M. A. Ruiz-Primo, and Y. Yin. 2008. “Lessons Learned from the Process of Curriculum Developers’ and Assessment Developers’ Collaboration of the Development of Embedded Formative Assessments.” Applied Measurement in Education 21: 390–402. doi:10.1080/08957340802347886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, A. C., J. D. Karpicke, and H. L. Roediger. 2007. “The Effect of Type and Timing of Feedback on Learning from Multiple-choice Tests.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 13 (4): 273–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callingham, R. 2008. “Dialogue and Feedback: Assessment in the Primary Mathematics Classroom.” Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom 13 (3): 18–21.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, D., G. D. Borman, and M. Robinson. 2011. “A Multistate District-level Cluster Randomized Trial of the Impact of Data-driven Reform on Reading and Mathematics Achievement.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 33 (3): 378–398.10.3102/0162373711412765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Dutch Inspectorate of Education. 2008. De Staat van het Onderwijs: Onderwijsverslag 2006/2007 [The Status of Education: Educational Report 2006/2007]. Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
   Google Scholar
• Dutch Inspectorate of Education. 2010. Opbrengstgericht Werken in het Basisonderwijs. Een Onderzoek naar Opbrengstgericht Werken bij Rekenen-Wiskunde in het Basisonderwijs [Data-Driven Decision-making in Primary Education. A Study after Data-Driven Decision-Making in Primary Mathematics Education]. Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
   Google Scholar
• Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. 2014. Kerncijfers 2009-2013 Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap [Key Figures 2009–2013 Education, Culture and Science]. Den Haag: Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. file:///H:/kerncijfers-ocw.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Falkoner Hall, E. 1992. “Assessment for Differentiation.” British Journal of Special Education 19 (1): 20–23.
   Google Scholar
• Furtak, E. M., M. A. Ruiz-Primo, J. T. Shemwell, C. C. Ayala, P. R. Brandon, R. J. Shavelson, and Y. Yin. 2008. “On the Fidelity of Implementing Embedded Formative Assessments and Its Relation to Student Learning.” Applied Measurement in Education 21: 360–389. doi:10.1080/08957340802347852.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginsburg, H. P. 2009. “The Challenge of Formative Assessment in Mathematics Education: Children’s Minds, Teachers’ Minds.” Human Development 52 (2): 109–128.10.1159/000202729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guskey, T. R. 2002. “Professional Development and Teacher Change.” Teachers and Teaching 8 (3): 381–391. doi:10.1080/135406002100000512.
   Google Scholar
• Guskey, T. R., and K. S. Yoon. 2009. “What Works in Professional Development?.” Phi Delta Kappan 90 (7): 495–500.10.1177/003172170909000709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, M., and D. Niemi. 2006. “Toward a Framework for Using Student Mathematical Representations as Formative Assessments.” Educational Assessment 11 (3–4): 265–282.10.1080/10627197.2006.9652992
   Google Scholar
• Janssen, J., F. Van Der Schoot, B. Hemker, and N. Verhelst. 1999. Balans van het Rekenwiskundeonderwijs aan het Einde van de Basisschool 3: Uitkomsten van de Derde Peiling in 1997 [Overview of Mathematics Education at the End of Primary Education 3: Results of the Third Study in 1997]. Arnhem: Cito.
   Google Scholar
• Kretlow, A., and C. C. Bartholomew. 2010. “Using Coaching to Improve the Fidelity of Evidence-based Practices: A Review of Studies.” Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children 33 (4): 279–299. doi:10.1177/0888406410371643.
   Google Scholar
• Lantz, M. E. 2010. “The Use of ‘Clickers’ in the Classroom: Teaching Innovation or Merely an Amusing Novelty?” Computers in Human Behavior 26: 556–561.10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leahy, S., C. Lyon, M. Thompson, and D. Wiliam. 2005. “Classroom Assessment: Minute by Minute, Day by Day.” Educational Leadership 63 (3): 19–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locke, E. A., and G. P. Latham. 2006. “New Directions in Goal-setting Theory.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 15 (5): 265–268.10.1111/cdir.2006.15.issue-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandinach, E. B. 2012. “A Perfect Time for Data Use: Using Data-driven Decision Making to Inform Practice.” Educational Psychologist 47 (2): 71–85. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.667064.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marzano, R. J. 2006. Classroom Assessment & Grading that Work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
   Google Scholar
• Mazur, E. 1997. Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Moon, T. R. 2005. “The Role of Assessment in Differentiation.” Theory into Practice 44 (3): 226–233.10.1207/s15430421tip4403_7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulder, L., J. Roeleveld, and H. Vierke. 2007. Onderbenutting van Capaciteiten in Basis- en Voortgezet Onderwijs [Underperformance in Primary and Secondary Education]. Den Haag: Onderwijsraad.
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, C. C., and S. M. Crespo. 2006. “Learning to Teach with Mathematics Textbooks: How Preservice Teachers Interpret and Use Curriculum Materials.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 62 (3): 331–355. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-5423-y.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J. C., and I. H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Quint, J. C., S. Sepanik, and J. K.Smith. 2008. Using Student Data to Improve Teaching and Learning. Findings from an Evaluation of the Formative Assessments of Student Thinking in Reading (FAST-R) Program in Boston Elementary Schools. New York: MDRC.
   Google Scholar
• Richey, R. C., J. D. Klein, and W. A. Nelson. 2003. “Development Research: Studies of Instructional Design and Development.” In Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, edited by D. H. Jonassen, 2nd ed., 1099–1130. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, D. R. 1998. “Formative Assessment: Revisiting the Territory.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5 (1): 77–84. doi:10.1080/0969595980050104.
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, S., and J. C. Wayman. 2012. Third-year Results from an Efficacy Study of the Acuity Data System. Austin: University of Texas.
   Google Scholar
• Shepard, L. A. 2000. “The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture.” Educational Researcher 29 (7): 4–14.10.3102/0013189X029007004
   Google Scholar
• Shepard, L. A. 2008. “Formative Assessment: Caveat Emptor.” In The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning, edited by C. A. Dwyer, 279–303. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Shute, V. J. 2008. “Focus on Formative Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 78 (1): 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Den Akker, J. 2010. “Building Bridges: How Research may Improve Curriculum Policies and Classroom Practices.” In Beyond Lisbon 2010: Perspectives from research and development for education policy in Europe (CIDREE Yearbook 2010), edited by S. Stoney, 177–195. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.
   Google Scholar
• Van Weerden, J., B. Hemker, and K. Mulder. 2014. Peiling van de Rekenvaardigheid en de Taalvaardigheid in Jaargroep 8 en Jaargroep 4 in 2013 [Study after the Mathematics and Language Proficiency in Sixth grade and Second Grade in 2013]. Arnhem: Cito.
   Google Scholar
• Veldhuis, M., M. Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, J. A. Vermeulen, and T. J. H. M. Eggen. 2013. “Teachers’ Use of Classroom Assessment in Primary School Mathematics Education in the Netherlands.” CADMO 21 (2): 35–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wayman, J. C., S. Stringfield, and M. Yakimowski. 2004. Software Enabling School Improvement through Analysis of Student Data. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.
   Google Scholar
• Wiliam, D., and M. Thompson. 2008. “Integrating Assessment with Learning: What Will it Take to make it Work?” In The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning, edited by C. A. Dwyer, 53–82. New York: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Wylie, E. C., and C. J. Lyon. 2015. “The Fidelity of Formative Assessment Implementation: Issues of Breadth and Quality.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 22 (1): 140–160. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.990416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar