Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Apostol, S., Zaharescu L., & Aleze, I. (2013). Gamification of Learning and Educational Games. eLearning & Software for Education, 2, 67.
• Banfield, J., & Wilkerson, B. (2014). Increasing Student Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Efficacy through Gamification Pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER) CIER, 7(4), 291. doi:10.19030/cier.v7i4.8843.
• Biggs, J. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning: A role for summative assessment? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 103-110. doi:10.1080/0969595980050106.
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102.
• Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, B., & Serret, N. (2010). Validity in teachers’ summative assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 215-232. doi:10.1080/09695941003696016.
• 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. doi:10.1177/003172170408600105.
• Black, P., Harrison, P., Hodgen, C., Marshall, J., & Serret, N. (2011). Can teachers’ summative assessments produce dependable results and also enhance classroom learning? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 451-469. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2011.557020.
• Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., Madaus, G. F., & Baldwin, T. S. (1971). Handbook on the formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Bloom, D. (2009). Collaborative Test Taking. College Teaching, 57(4), 216-220.
• Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., Rodenbaugh, D. W., & Dicarlo, S. E. (2003). Student Retention Of Course Content Is Improved By Collaborative-Group Testing. Advances in Physiology Education, 27(3), 102-108. doi:10.1152/advan.00041.2002.
• Dahlström, O. (2012). Learning during a collaborative final exam. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(4), 321-332. doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.674689.
• Dallmer, D. (2004). Collaborative test taking with adult learners. Adult Learning, 15, 4-7. doi:10.1177/104515950401500301.
• Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 2425). Vancouver, US. doi:10.1145/1979742.1979575.
• Dicheva, D., Dichev C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in Education: A Systematic Mapping Study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88.
• Ding, L. (2014). Seeking missing pieces in science concept assessments: Reevaluating the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment through Rasch analysis. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.010105.
• Ding, L., Chabay, R., Sherwood, B., & Beichner, R. (2006). Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 2(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010105.
• Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-350. doi:10.1080/03075079912331379935.
• Docktor, J. L., Strand, N. E., Mestre, J. P., & Ross, B. H. (2015). Conceptual problem solving in high school physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020106.
• Doran, R. L., Boorman, J., Chan, F., & Hejaily, N. (1993). Alternative assessment of high school laboratory skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1121-1131.
• Duane, B. T., & Satre, M. E. (2014). Utilizing constructivism learning theory in collaborative testing as a creative strategy to promote essential nursing skills. Nurse Education Today, 34(1), 31-34. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.03.005.
• Earl, L. M. (2004). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Fakcharoenphol, W., & Stelzer, T. (2014). Physics exam preparation: A comparison of three methods. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.010108.
• Fernandezbreis, J., Castellanosnieves, D., & Valenciagarcia, R. (2009). Measuring individual learning performance in group work from a knowledge integration perspective. Information Sciences, 179(4), 339-354. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2008.10.014.
• Franklin, S. V., & Hermsen, L. M. (2014). Real-time capture of student reasoning while writing. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020121.
• Garriso, C., & Ehringhaus, M. (2007). Formative and summative assessments in the classroom. Retrieved on March 25, 2016 from http://www.amle.org/Publications/WebExclusive/Assessment/tabid/1120/Default.aspx.
• Gery, F. W. (1972). Does mathematics matter? In Research Papers in Economic Education, A. Welsh (Ed.), 142–157. New York: Joint Council on Economic Education.
• Gilley, B., & Clarkston, B. (2014). Research and Teaching: Collaborative Testing: Evidence of Learning in a Controlled In-Class Study of Undergraduate Students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 043(03), 83.
• Guest, K. E., & Murphy, D. S. (2000). In support of memory retention: A cooperative oral final exam. Education, 121, 350-354.
• Haberyan, A. & Barnett, J. (2010). Collaborative testing and achievement: are two heads really better than one? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(1), 32-41.
• Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. doi:10.1119/1.18809.
• Halliday, D., Resnick, R. & Walker, J. (2001). Fundamentals of Physics, 3. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Hanus, M., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152-161.
• Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and Learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 4(3), 365-379. doi:10.1080/0969594970040304.
• Hendrix, J. C. (1996). Cooperative Learning: Building a Democratic Community. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 69(6), 333-336.
• Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158. doi:10.1119/1.2343497.
• Hickey, D. T., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Cross, D. (2012). Assessment as learning: Enhancing discourse, understanding, and achievement in innovative science curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(10), 1240-1270.
• Hitt, G. W., Isakovic, A. F., Fawwaz, O., Bawa’Aneh, M. S., El-Kork, N., Makkiyil, S., & Qattan, I. A. (2014). Secondary implementation of interactive engagement teaching techniques: Choices and challenges in a Gulf Arab context. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education, 10(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020123.
• Ifenthaler, D., Eseryel, D., & Ge, X. (2012). Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives. New York: Springer.
• Ives, J. (2014). Measuring the Learning from Two-Stage Collaborative Group Exams. In 2014 PERC Proceedings (p. 123). Minneapolis, US. doi:10.1119/perc.2014.pr.027.
• Jensen, M., Moore, R., & Hatch, J. (2002). Cooperative Learning: Part I: Cooperative Quizzes. The American Biology Teacher, 64(1), 29-34. doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2002)064[0029:CLPICQ]2.0.CO;2.
• Jolliffe, W. (2007). Cooperative learning in the classroom: Putting it into practice. London: Paul Chapman.
• Kagan, S. (1990). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47, 12-15.
• Kapitanoff, S. H. (2009). Collaborative testing: Cognitive and interpersonal processes related to enhanced test performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1). http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/1469787408100195.
• Kost, L. E., Pollock, S. J., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 5(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010101.
• Kruglak, H. (1965). Experimental Study of Multiple-Choice and Essay Tests. I. Am. J. Phys. American Journal of Physics, 33(12). doi:10.1119/1.1971143.
• Lindsey, B. A., & Nagel, M. L. (2015). Do students know what they know? Exploring the accuracy of students’ self-assessments. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020103.
• Looney, J. (2011). Integrating Formative and Summative Assessment. OECD Education Working Papers, 58(5).
• Lusk, M. & Conklin, L. (2003) Collaborative testing to promote learning. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(3), 121-124.
• Madsen, A., McKagan, S. B., & Sayre, E. C. (2013). Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 9(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020121.
• Maries, A., & Singh, C. (2013). Exploring one aspect of pedagogical content knowledge of teaching assistants using the test of understanding graphs in kinematics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020120 · Source: arXiv.
• McTighe, J., & O’Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective learning. Educational Leadership, 63(10), 10+17.
• Moccozet, L., Tardy, C., Opperecht, W., & Leonard, M. (2013). Gamification-based assessment of group work. In Proceedings of the Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) Conference (p. 171). Kazan, RU.
• Moncada, S., & Moncada, T. (2014). Gamification of Learning in Accounting Education. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 14, 9.
• Pawl, A., Teodorescu, R. E., & Peterson, J. D. (2013). Assessing class-wide consistency and randomness in responses to true or false questions administered online. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020102.
• Pollock, S. J., Finkelstein, N. D., & Kost, L. E. (2007). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010107.
• Rao, S. P., Collins, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2002). Collaborative testing enhances student learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 26(1). doi:10.1152/advan.00032.2001.
• Rebello, N. S. (2011). Comparing students’ performance on research-based conceptual assessments and traditional classroom assessments. In 2011 PERC Proceedings (pp. 66-68). Omaha, US.
• Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., Stuart, P. E., & Merle-Johnson, D. (2013). Game-Based Curricula in Biology Classes: Differential Effects among Varying Academic Levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 479-499. doi:10.1002/tea.21085.
• Sandahl, S. S. (2010). Collaborative testing as a learning strategy in nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(3), 142-147.
• Sawtelle, V., Brewe, E., & Kramer, L. H. (2012). Exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and retention in introductory physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1096-1121. doi:10.1002/tea.21050.
• Schuwirth, L. W., & Cees P M Van Der Vleuten. (2004). Different written assessment methods: What can be said about their strengths and weaknesses? Med Educ Medical Education, 38(9), 974-979. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01916.x.
• Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation, 39-83. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
• Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14-31.
• Shindler, J. V. (2003). “Greater Than the Sum of the Parts?” Examining the Soundness of Collaborative Exams in Teacher Education Courses. Innovative Higher Education, 28(4), 273-283.
• Simpkin, M. G. (2005). An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Collaborative Testing in an Entry-Level Computer Programming Class. Journal of Information Systems, 16, 273-280.
• Slavin, R. E. (2000). Cooperative Learning: Theory, research, and practice. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
• Slepkov, A. D., & Shiell, R. C. (2014). Comparison of integrated testlet and constructed-response question formats. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020120.
• Stang, J. B. & Roll, I. (2014). Interactions between teaching assistants and students boost engagement in physics labs. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020117.
• Sung, H. & Hwang, G. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students’ learning performance in science courses. Computers & Education, 63, 43-51.
• Talanquer, V., Bolger, M., & Tomanek, D. (2015). Exploring prospective teachers’ assessment practices: Noticing and interpreting student understanding in the assessment of written work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 585-609. doi:10.1002/tea.21209.
• Taras, M. (2005). Assessment – Summative and Formative – Some Theoretical Reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466-478.
• Taras, M. (2009). Summative assessment: The missing link for formative assessment. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 57-69. doi:10.1080/03098770802638671.
• Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Vercellati, S., Michelini, M., Santi, L., Sokolowska, D., & Brzezinka, G. (2013). Investigating MST curriculum experienced by eleven-year-old Polish and Italian pupils. In E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference: Science Education Research For Evidence-based Teaching and Coherence in Learning (Vol. 10, pp. 180-189). Cyprus.
• Wilcox, B. R., & Pollock, S. J. (2014). Coupled multiple-response versus free-response conceptual assessment: An example from upper-division physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020124.
• Wilcox, B. R., & Pollock, S. J. (2015). Upper-division student difficulties with the Dirac delta function. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.010108.
• Wilcox, B. R., Caballero, M. D., Baily, C., Sadaghiani, H., Chasteen, S. V., Ryan, Q. X., & Pollock, S. J. (2015). Development and uses of upper-division conceptual assessments. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020115.
• Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and Consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 22(5), 537-548.
• Wininger, S. (2005). Using Your Tests to Teach: Formative Summative Assessment. Teaching of Psychology, 32(3), 164-166.
• Wooten, M. M., Cool, A. M., Prather, E. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2014). Comparison of performance on multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions in an introductory astronomy laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020103.
• Yu, H., & Li, H. (2014). Group-based Formative Assessment: A Successful Way to Make Summative Assessment Effective. TPLS Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(4), 839-844. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.4.839-844.
• Zimbardo, P. G., Butler, L. D., & Wolfe, V. A. (2003). Cooperative College Examinations: More Gain, Less Pain When Students Share Information and Grades. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 101-125. doi:10.1080/00220970309602059.
• Zwolak, J. P., & Manogue, C. A. (2015). Assessing student reasoning in upper-division electricity and magnetism at Oregon State University. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020125.

APA

Dziob, D., Kwiatkowski, L., & Sokolowska, D. (2018). Class Tournament as an Assessment Method in Physics Courses: A Pilot Study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1111-1132. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/81807

Vancouver

Dziob D, Kwiatkowski L, Sokolowska D. Class Tournament as an Assessment Method in Physics Courses: A Pilot Study. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(4):1111-32. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/81807

AMA

Dziob D, Kwiatkowski L, Sokolowska D. Class Tournament as an Assessment Method in Physics Courses: A Pilot Study. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(4), 1111-1132. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/81807

Chicago

Dziob, Daniel, Lukasz Kwiatkowski, and Dagmara Sokolowska. "Class Tournament as an Assessment Method in Physics Courses: A Pilot Study". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2018 14 no. 4 (2018): 1111-1132. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/81807

Harvard

Dziob, D., Kwiatkowski, L., and Sokolowska, D. (2018). Class Tournament as an Assessment Method in Physics Courses: A Pilot Study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), pp. 1111-1132. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/81807

MLA

Dziob, Daniel et al. "Class Tournament as an Assessment Method in Physics Courses: A Pilot Study". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 14, no. 4, 2018, pp. 1111-1132. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/81807