The Use of Gamificaiton in Student Centered Learning Environments as Alternative Assessment

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 3, 1227 - 1248, 30.10.2017

Necati Taşkın , Ebru Kılıç Çakmak

https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.333286

Cited By: 7

Öz

It has been thought that gamification whose
structure offers important chances by showing improvement stages to students
will provide a solution for assessment methods needed in student centred
learning environments. In this study, it
has been tried to provide alternative assessment chance for students using
gamification in problem based learning environment. Correlational study has
been performed to prove validity of gamification at the point of alternative
assessment method. This study was carried out on 26 university students
studying at vocational school of technical sciences of a state university for 8
weeks in the context of problem based learning. The data were collected
using metacognition scale, engagement scale, academic achievement test and gamification
points. It has been found that although it is positive, there is a moderately
insignificant relation between students’ gamification points and metacognition
points average and academic achievement points. It has been found that there is
a positive, low level and insignificant relation between academic achievement
points and engagement points averages. In contrast, it has been found that
there is a positive, high level and significant relation between gamification
points and engagement points averages. This relation indicates the increasing
effect of gamification on engagement.  After all, it is truly thought that
gamification is best used as in-process formative assessment rather than as an
assessment tool that directly effects students’ points.

Anahtar Kelimeler

formative assessment, gamification, student centered learning

Öğrenci Merkezli Öğrenme Ortamlarında Oyunlaştırmanın Alternatif Değerlendirme Amaçlı Kullanımı

Öz

Oyunlaştırmanın, öğrencilere ilerleme aşamalarını
göstererek öz değerlendirme yapabilecekleri önemli fırsatlar sunan yapısının,
öğrenci merkezli öğrenme ortamlarında ihtiyaç duyulan değerlendirme
yöntemlerine çözüm sunacağı düşünülmektedir. Bu bağlamda gerçekleştirilen
çalışmada probleme dayalı öğrenme ortamında oyunlaştırma kullanılarak
öğrencilere alternatif değerlendirme fırsatı sağlanmaya çalışılmış ve bu amaçla
gerçekleştirilen uygulamanın incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Oyunlaştırmanın
alternatif değerlendirme yöntemi olarak geçerliliği noktasında kanıt elde
edebilmek için korelasyonel çalışma gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu çalışma, probleme
dayalı öğrenme çerçevesinde sekiz hafta boyunca bir devlet üniversitesinin
teknik bilimler meslek yüksekokulunda öğrenim gören 26 öğrenci üzerinde
yürütülmüştür. Çalışmanın verileri üst biliş ölçeği, bağlılık ölçeği, akademik
başarı testi ve oyunlaştırma puanları kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Öğrencilerin
oyunlaştırma puanları ile üst biliş puan ortalamaları ve akademik başarı puanları
arasında pozitif olmasına karşın orta düzeyde anlamlı olmayan bir ilişkinin
olduğu görülmüştür. Akademik başarı puanları ile bağlılık puan ortalamaları
arasında pozitif, düşük düzeyde ve anlamlı olmayan bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Buna
karşın oyunlaştırma puanları ile bağlılık puan ortalamaları arasında pozitif,
yüksek düzeyde ve anlamlı bir ilişkinin olduğu görülmüştür. Bu ilişki
oyunlaştırmanın bağlılığı artırıcı etkisine işaret etmektedir. Sonuç olarak,
oyunlaştırmanın öğrencilerin notlarına doğrudan etki eden değerlendirme yöntemi
olarak kullanılmasından ziyade süreç içi biçimlendirici değerlendirme olarak
kullanılmasının daha doğru olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

biçimlendirici değerlendirme, oyunlaştırma, öğrenci merkezli öğrenme

Kaynakça

• Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2014). Aktif Öğrenme (13 ed.). İzmir: Biliş Yayıncılık.
• Anderson, L. W. ve Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
• Anderson, R. S. (1998). Why talk about different ways to grade? The shift from traditional assessment to alternative assessment. New directions for teaching and learning, 1998(74), 5-16. doi: 10.1002/tl.7401.
• Armier Jr, D. D., Shepherd, C. E. ve Skrabut, S. (2016). Using Game Elements to Increase Student Engagement in Course Assignments. College Teaching, 1-9.
• Attali, Y. ve Arieli-Attali, M. (2015). Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test performance?. Computer & Education, 83, 57-63. Doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.012
• Banfield, J. ve Wilkerson, B. (2014). Increasing student intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy through gamification pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (Online), 7(4), 291.
• Barrows, H. ve Myers, A. (1993). Problem-based learning in secondary schools. Unpublished monograph. Springfield, IL: Problem-Based Learning Institute, Lanphier High School and Southern Illinois University Medical School.
• Başturk, R. (2005). Overviews of the Performance Assessment. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER)(21), 62-75.
• Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M. ve Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link. Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation, 17-34.
• Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 18(1), 5-25. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
• Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Research Monograph: ERIC.
• Bintz, W. P. (1991). 'Staying Connected'-Exploring New Functions For Assessment. Contemporary Education, 62(4), 307.
• Black, P. (1999). Assessment, learning theories and testing systems. In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, learning and assessment (pp. 118-134). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
• Black, P. ve Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 7-74.
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Cognitive Domain: Longman.
• Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self assessment. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor&Francis Group.
• Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in continuing education, 22(2), 151-167.
• Boud, D. ve Associates. (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
• Boz, N. ve Boz, Y. (2005). Bilgilendirici Değerlendirmenin İncelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 30(138).
• Braun, H., Kanjee, A., Bettinger, E. ve Kremer, M. (2006). Improving education through assessment, innovation, and evaluation. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
• Buyukozturk, S., Kilic Cakmak, E., Akgun, O., Karadeniz, S. ve Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel Arastirma Yöntemleri (6 ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı: İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum (7 Ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Kahveci, Ö. ve Demirel, F. (2004). Güdülenme ve öğrenme stratejileri ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 4(2), 207-239.
• Caballé, S. ve Clarisó, R. (2016). Formative Assessment, Learning Data Analytics and Gamification: In ICT Education: Morgan Kaufmann.
• Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D. ve Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in higher education, 47(1), 1-32.
• Case, L. P., Harris, K. R. ve Graham, S. (1992). Improving the mathematical problem-solving skills of students with learning disabilities Self-regulated strategy development. The Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 1-19.
• Chou, Y.-K. (2016). Actionable Gamification: Beyond Points, Badges, and Leaderboards: Lean Publishing.
• Chung, J. C. ve Chow, S. M. (2004). Promoting student learning through a student‐centred problem‐based learning subject curriculum. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(2), 157-168.
• Clarisó, R., Arnedo Moreno, J., Bañeres Besora, D., Caballé Llobet, S., Conesa, J. ve Gañán Jiménez, D. (2017). Gamification as a Service for Formative Assessment E-Learning Tools. Paper presented at the 1 st Workshop on Gamification and Games for Learning (GamiLearn’17).
• Collins, A. (1990). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. In K. Sheingold ve M. S. Tucker (Eds.), Restructuring for Learning with Technology (pp. 29-48). New York: Center for Technohgy in Education and the National Center on Education and the Economy.
• Committee, J. I. S. (2010). Effective assessment in a digital age: A guide to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback: JISC Innovation Group.
• Coutinho, S. A. (2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition, and academic success. Educate~, 7(1), 39-47.
• Cózar-Gutiérrez, R. ve Sáez-López, J. M. (2016). Game-based learning and gamification in initial teacher training in the social sciences: an experiment with MinecraftEdu. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(2). doi: 10.1186/s41239-016-0003-4
• Crisp, G. T. (2014). Assessment in next generation learning spaces. In K. Fraser (Ed.), The future of learning and teaching in next generation learning spaces (pp. 85-100): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Cronk, R. (2012). Using Gamification to Increase Student Engagement and Participation in Class Discussion. Paper presented at the Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications.
• da Rocha Seixas, L., Gomes, A. S. ve de Melo Filho, I. J. (2016). Effectiveness of gamification in the engagement of students. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 48-63. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.021
• Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. ve Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification". Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, Tampere, Finland.
• Dochy, F. ve Moerkerke, G. (1997). The present, the past and the future of achievement testing and performance assessment. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(5), 415-432.
• Domínguez, A., Saenz-De-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., FernáNdez-Sanz, L., PagéS, C. ve MartíNez-HerráIz, J.-J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380-392. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020
• Doyle, T. (2011). Learner-centered teaching: Putting the research on learning into practice. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
• Driscoll, M. (2005). Constructivism. Psychology of learning for instruction, 384-410.
• Dunn, K. E. ve Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(7), 1-11.
• Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J. ve Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83-87.
• Ergün, E. ve Usluel, Y. K. (2015). Çevrimiçi Öğrenme Ortamlarında Öğrenci Bağlılık Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 5(1).
• Felder, R. M. ve Brent, R. (2003). Designing and Teaching Courses to Satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 7-25.
• Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An Integrated Approach to Desinging College Courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Frank, M. ve Barzilai, A. (2004). Integrating alternative assessment in a project-based learning course for pre-service science and technology teachers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 41-61.
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J. ve Paris, A. (2005). School Engagement. In K. A. Moore ve L. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 305-325). New York: Springer.
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C. ve Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
• Gañán, D., Caballé, S., Clarisó, R. ve Conesa, J. (2016). Evaluation of an eLearning platform featuring learning analytics and gamification. Paper presented at the International Conference on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing.
• George, D. ve Mallery, M. (2010). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference,17.0 update (10 ed.). Boston: Pearson.
• Gibbs, G. (2006). Why assessment is changing. In C. Bryan ve K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. 11-22). London: Routledge.
• Gillett, A. ve Hammond, A. (2009). Mapping the maze of assessment: An investigation into practice. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(2), 120-137.
• Goehle, G. ve Wagaman, J. (2016). The Impact of Gamification in Web Based Homework. PRIMUS, 26(6), 557-569. doi: 10.1080/10511970.2015.1122690
• Gülbahar, Y. (2016). E-Değerlendirme. In K. Çağıltay ve Y. Göktaş (Eds.), Öğretim Teknolojilerinin Temelleri: Teorileri, Araştırmalar, Eğilimler (2 ed., pp. 655-666). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Hanus, M. D. ve 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. ve James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 4(3), 365-379.
• Henly, D. C. (2003). Use of Web‐based formative assessment to support student learning in a metabolism/nutrition unit. European Journal of Dental Education, 7(3), 116-122.
• Hew, K. F., Huang, B., Chu, K. W. S. ve Chiu, D. K. (2016). Engaging Asian students through game mechanics: Findings from two experiment studies. Computers & Education, 92, 221-236.
• Hung, W., Jonassen, D. H. ve Liu, R. (2008). Problem-based learning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 3, 485-506.
• James, A. R., Griffin, L. L. ve France, T. (2005). Perceptions of assessment in elementary physical education: A case study. Physical Educator, 62(2), 85.
• Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A. ve Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC Horizon Report: Edición sobre Educación Superior 2013. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
• Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V. ve Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium (2015 Higher Education Edition ed.): The New Media Consortium.
• Johnson, L., Adams, S. ve Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium: New Media Consortium.
• Johnson, L., Becker, S., Estrada, V. ve Freeman, A. (2014). The NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium: New Media Consortium.
• Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational technology research and development, 39(3), 5-14.
• Kang, M., Heo, H., Jo, I.-H., Shin, J. ve Seo, J. (2011). Developing an Educational Performance Indicator for New Millennium Learners. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), 157-170.
• Kapa, E. (2001). A metacognitive support during the process of problem solving in a computerized environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(3), 317-336.
• Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamifi cation of learning and instruction : game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
• Kopcha, T. J., Ding, L., Neumann, K. L. ve Choi, I. (2016). Teaching Technology Integration to K-12 Educators: A ‘Gamified’Approach. TechTrends, 60(1), 62-69.
• Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. ve Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach: McGraw-Hill College.
• Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R. ve Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 225-250.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
• Krause, K. L. ve Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first‐year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.
• Kruger, J. ve Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121.
• Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of college student development, 50(6), 683-706.
• Landine, J. ve Stewart, J. (1998). Relationship between Metacognition, Motivation, Locus of Control, Self-Efficacy, and Academic Achievement. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 32(3), 200-212.
• Larson, L. C. ve Miller, T. N. (2011). 21st Century Skills: Prepare Students for the Future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 121-123. doi: 10.1080/00228958.2011.10516575
• Lee, J. J. ve Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: What, how, why bother? Academic exchange quarterly, 15(2), 146.
• Marczewski, A. (2015). Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Gamification, Game Thinking and Motivational Design (1 ed.): CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
• McClenney, K., Marti, C. N. ve Adkins, C. (2012). Student Engagement and Student Outcomes: Key Findings from. Community College Survey of Student Engagement.
• Newmann, F. M. (1992). Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools,Madison, WI.; National Center on Effective SecondarySchools, Madison, WI.
• Nicholson, S. (2012). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. Games+ Learning+ Society, 8(1), 223-230.
• Nicol, D. J. ve Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199-218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090
• Oliver, E. (2015). Alternative assessment to enhance theological education. HTS Theological Studies, 71(3), 01-10.
• Özsoy, G. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between metacognition and mathematics achievement. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(2), 227-235.
• Parmaksız, Ş. ve Yanpar, T. (2006). Alternatif değerlendirme yaklaşımlarının sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde kullanılabilirliği. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(2), 159-172.
• Perryer, C., Celestine, N. A., Scott-Ladd, B. ve Leighton, C. (2016). Enhancing workplace motivation through gamification: Transferrable lessons from pedagogy. The International Journal of Management Education, 14(3), 327-335.
• Piech, C., Huang, J., Chen, Z., Do, C., Ng, A. ve Koller, D. (2013). Tuned models of peer assessment in MOOCs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.2579.
• Pintrich, P. R. ve De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of educational Psychology, 82(1), 33.
• Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., García, T. ve McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and psychological measurement, 53(3), 801-813.
• Pirker, J., Riffnaller-Schiefer, M. ve Gütl, C. (2014). Motivational active learning: Engaging university students in computer science education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education.
• Reeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 101-111.
• Reeves, T. C. ve Okey, J. R. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 191-202). New Jersey: Educational technology Publitions Englewood Cliffs.
• Rowntree, D. (1977). Assessing students: How shall we know them? : London: Harper and Row.
• Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 77-84.
• Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria‐based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175-194.
• Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1). doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1002
• Savery, J. R. ve Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-38.
• Seaborn, K. ve Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14-31.
• Senemoğlu, N. (2012). Gelişim, Öğrenme ve Öğretme Kuramdan Uygulamaya (21 ed. Vol. 21). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Diversifying Instruction and Assessment. The Educational Forum, 59(1), 47-52. doi: 10.1080/00131729409336362
• Stobart, G. (2006). The validity of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 233-241): Sage.
• Sun, J. C.-Y. ve Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191-204. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
• Sundström, A. (2005). Self-assessment of knowledge and abilities. A literature study. Em Eucational Measurement(54).
• Surendeleg, G., Murwa, V., Yun, H. K. ve Kim, Y. S. (2014). The role of gamification in education - a literature review. Contemporary Engineering Sciences, 7(29-32), 1609-1616. doi: 10.12988/ces.2014.411217
• Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (15 ed.): Pearson.
• Tenório, T., Bittencourt, I. I., Isotani, S., Pedro, A. ve Ospina, P. (2016). A gamified peer assessment model for on-line learning environments in a competitive context. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 247-263.
• Teong, S. (2003). The effect of metacognitive training on mathematical word‐problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 46-55.
• Thompson, M., Goe, L., Paek, P. ve Ponte, E. (2004). Study of the California formative assessment and support system for teachers: Relationship of BTSA/CFASST and student achievement. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
• VanTassel-Baska, J. (2014). Performance-based assessment: The Road to authentic learning for the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 41-47.
• Veronesi, P. (2000). Testing and assessment in science education: Looking past the scoreboard. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 74(1), 27-30.
• Walvoord, B. E. (2010). Assessment clear and simple (2 Ed.). San Francisco: Josssey-Bass.
• Wang, T.-H. (2007). What strategies are effective for formative assessment in an e‐learning environment? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 171-186.
• Wanner, T. ve Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course. Computers and Education, 88, 354-369. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.008
• Whitelock, D. (2006). Electronic assessment: marking, monitoring and mediating learning. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(2-3), 264-276.
• Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C. ve Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 11(1), 49-65.
• Wilson, A. (2013). Feedback as a transformative tool. The role of feedback in learning and assessment. In K. Coleman ve A. Flood (Eds.), Marking time: leading and managing the development of assessment in higher education (pp. 193–200). Champaign, IL: Common Ground.
• Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design: Educational Technology.
• Wininger, S. R. (2005). Using your tests to teach: Formative summative assessment. Teaching of Psychology, 32(3), 164-166.
• Yaman, S. ve Karamustafaoglu, S. (2011). Investigating prospective teachers' perceived levels of efficacy towards measurement and evaluation. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 44(2), 53.
• Yurdabakan, İ. (2011). Yapılandırmacı kuramın değerlendirmeye bakışı: Eğitimde alternatif değerlendirme yöntemleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 44(1), 51-77.
• Zacharis, N. Z. (2010). Innovative assessment for learning enhancement: Issues and practices. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(1), 61.
• Zichermann, G. ve Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps: O'Reilly Media, Inc.