Cultural challenges to implementation of formative assessment in Saudi Arabia: An exploratory study

References

• Aagaard E, Kane GC, Confori L, Hood S, Caverzagie KJ, Smith C, Chick DA, Holmboe ES, Lobst WF. 2013. Early feedback on the use of the internal medicine reporting milestones in assessment of resident performance. J Grad Med Educ 5(3):433–438
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Agresti A, Coull BA. 1998. Approximate is Better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 52:119–126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrade H, Valtcheva A. 2009. Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory Pract 48(1):12–19
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black P, Harrison C, Lee C, Marshall B, Wiliam D. 2003. Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press
   Google Scholar
• Black P, Harrison C, Lee C, Marshall B, Wiliam D. 2004. Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan 86(1):8–21
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black P, Wiliam D. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning, assessment in education: Principles, policy and practice. Oxfordshire: CARFAX. ISSN: 0969–594X
   Google Scholar
• Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K. 2001. Focus groups in social research. London: SAGE Publications
   Google Scholar
• Brookhart SM. 2010. Formative assessment strategies for every classroom: An ASCD action tool. 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
   Google Scholar
• Burr S. 2009. Integrating assessment innovations in medical education. Brit J Hosp Med 70(3):162–163
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Council of Ministers of Education. 2005. Enhancing learning through formative assessment case studies from Canadian and OECD research. Toronto, ON: Canadian Council of Ministers of Education
   Google Scholar
• Carless D. 2011. From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. Routledge research in education. New York: Routledge
   Google Scholar
• Chisholm L, Leyendecker R. 2008. Curriculum reform in post-1990s sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Educ Devel 28:195–205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke M. 2012b. Measuring learning: How effective student assessment systems can help achieve learning for all [Online]. [Accessed May 2014] Available from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/02/15940684/measuring-learning-effective-student-assessment-systems-can-help-achieve-learning-all
   Google Scholar
• Clarke M. 2012a. What matters most for student assessment systems: A framework paper, the World Bank [online]. [Accessed May 2014] Available from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/04/16238771/matters-most-student-assessment-systems-framework-paper
   Google Scholar
• Cowie B. 2005. Pupil commentary on assessment for learning. Curriculum J 16(2):137–151
   Google Scholar
• Creswell J, Plano Clark V. 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: Sage
   Google Scholar
• Dawson S, Manderson L, Tallo VL. 1993. A manual for the use of focus groups. Boston, MA: International Nutrition Foundation for Developing Countries (INFDC)
   Google Scholar
• Ecclestone K. 2002. Learning autonomy in post-compulsory education: The politics and practice of formative assessment. London: RoutledgeFalmer
   Google Scholar
• Ecclestone K. 2004. Learning in a comfort zone: Cultural and social capital in outcomebased assessment regimes. Assess Educ 11:30–47
   Google Scholar
• Gardner J. 2006. Assessment and learning. London: Sage
   Google Scholar
• Ginsburg HP. 2009. The challenge of formative assessment in mathematics education: Children’s minds, teachers’ minds. Human Devel 52(2):109–128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham W F. 1989. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation design. Educ Eval Policy Anal 11(3):255–274
   Google Scholar
• Guilbert JJ, editor. 1987. How to organize an educational workshop. In: Educational handbook for health personnel. 6th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization
   Google Scholar
• Haywood AM, Shaw MD, Nelson Laird TF, Cole ER. 2011. Relationship between faculty perceptions of institutional participation in assessment and faculty practices of assessment-related activities. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA
   Google Scholar
• Heritage M, Kim J, Vendlinski T, Herman J. 2009. From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educ Measure Issues Pract 28(3):24–31
   Google Scholar
• Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie A. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res 33(7):14–26
   Google Scholar
• Krueger RA. 1994. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
   Google Scholar
• Krumsvik RJ, Ludvigsen K. 2013. Theoretical and methodological issues of formative e-assessment inn plenary lectures. Int J Pedagogies Learn 8(2):78–92
   Google Scholar
• Lewin K. 1990. International perspectives on the development of science education: Food for thought. Stud Sci Educ 18:1–23
   Google Scholar
• Lewin K, Dunne M. 2000. Policy and practice in assessment in Anglophone Africa: Does globalization explain convergence? Assess Educ 7(3):379–399
   Google Scholar
• Maesinero S. 2012. Focus group – Pros and cons. [Accessed 9 October 2014] Available from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/focus-groups
   Google Scholar
• Mertens DM. 2010. Research and evaluation in education in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc
   Google Scholar
• Morse JM. 2003. Principles of mixed methods and multi-method research design. In Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 189–208
   Google Scholar
• Mtika P, Gates P. 2010. Developing learner-centred education among secondary teachers in Malawi: The dilemma of appropriation and application. Int J Educ Devel 30(4):396–404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. 2008. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy 13(2):92–98
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD/CERI. 2008. Assessment for learning –formative assessment [Online]. [Accessed May 2014] Available from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/31/40600533.pdf
   Google Scholar
• OECD/CERI. 2010. Assessment for learning – the case for formative assessment’ [Online]. [Accessed 18 May 2014]. Available from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/31/40600533.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Patel VL, Yoskowitz NA, Arocha JF. 2009. Towards effective evaluation and reform in medical education: A cognitive and learning sciences perspective. Adv Health Sci Educ 14(5):791–812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pat Hutchings. 2011. From departmental to disciplinary assessment: Deepening faculty engagement. Change: Magazine Higher Learning 43(5):36–43
   Google Scholar
• Perrenoud P. 1998. From formative evaluation to a controlled regulation of learning processes. Towards a wider conceptual field. In: Assessment in education: Principles, policy and practice. Vol. 5, No. 1. Oxfordshire: CARFAX. 85–102
   Google Scholar
• Pryor J, Crossouard B. 2008. A socio-cultural theorisation of formative assessment. Oxford Rev Educ 34(1):1–20
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sale J, Brazil KA. 2004. A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Quality Quantity 38(4):351–365
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soper DS. 2013. Effect size (Cohen’s d) calculator for a Student t-test [Software]. [Accessed 6 February 2014] Available from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc
   Google Scholar
• Teddlie CB, Tashakkori A. 2009. Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
   Google Scholar
• Torrance H, Colley H, Garratt D, Jarvis J, Piper H, Ecclestone K, James D. 2005. The impact of different modes of assessment on achievement and progress in the learning and skills sector. Learning and Skills Development Agency. Available from https://www.lsda.org.uk/cims/order.aspx?code=052284&src=XOWEB
   Google Scholar
• Usher E. 2009. Sources of middle school students’ self-efficacy in mathematics: A qualitative investigation. Am Educ Res J 46(1):275–314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNESCO. 2005. Education for all – The quality imperative [online]. [Accessed April 2014] Available from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001373/137333e.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Yorke M. 2003. Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Educ 45(4):477–450
   Google Scholar