AskewM., & WiliamD. (1995). Recent research in mathematics education, 5–16. London: HMSO.
2.
Bangert-DrownsR.L., KulikC.L.C., KulikJ.A., & MorganM.T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.
3.
BlackP.J., & WiliamD. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–73.
4.
BlackP.J., & WiliamD. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment.London: King's College London School of Education.
5.
BlackP.J., & WiliamD. (1998c). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
6.
BlackP.J., & WiliamD. (2003). “In praise of educational research”: Formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 751–765.
7.
BlackP. J., HarrisonC., LeeC., MarshallB., & WiliamD. (2002). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom.London: King's College London School of Education.
8.
BlackP.J., HarrisonC., LeeC., MarshallB., & WiliamD. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice.Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
9.
BoalerJ. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex and setting.Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
10.
BransfordJ.A., BrownA., & CockingR. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11.
BrousseauG. (1984). The crucial role of the didactical contract in the analysis and construction of situations in teaching and learning mathematics. In SteinerH.G. (Ed.), Theory of mathematics education: ICME 5 topic area and miniconference (pp. 110–119). Bielefeld, Germany: Institut für Didaktik der Mathematik der Universität Bielefeld.
12.
ButlerR. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474–482.
13.
ButlerR. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 1–14.
14.
CravenR.G., MarshH.W., & DebusR.L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 17–27.
15.
DriverR. (1983). The pupil as scientist?Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
16.
DweckC.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.
17.
FoosP.W., MoraJ.J., & TkaczS. (1994). Student study techniques and the generation effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 567–576.
18.
GlassG.V., McGawB., & SmithM. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19.
HargreavesD.H. (1999). The knowledge creating school. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 122–144.
KlugerA.N., & DeNisiA. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
22.
LeeC. (2000, September). The King's Medway Oxford Formative Assessment Project: Studying changes in the practice of two teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the British Educational Research Association, Cardiff University, London.
23.
MarshallB. (2000). English teachers—the unofficial guide: Researching the philosophies of English teachers.London: RoutledgeFalmer.
24.
MostellerF.W., & TukeyJ.W. (1977). Data analysis and regression: A second course in statistics.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
25.
NewmanR.S., & SchwagerM.T. (1995). Students’ help seeking during problem solving: Effects of grade, goal, and prior achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 352–376.
26.
NewmannF.M., BrykA.S., & NagaokaJ.K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence?Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
27.
NuthallG., & Alton-LeeA. (1995). Assessing classroom learning: How students use their knowledge and experience to answer classroom achievement test questions in science and social studies. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 185–223.
28.
PerrenoudP. (1991). Towards a pragmatic approach to formative evaluation. In WestonP. (Ed.), Assessment of pupil achievement (pp. 79–101). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
29.
PerrenoudP. (1998). From formative evaluation to a controlled regulation of learning processes: Towards a wider conceptual field. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 85–102.
30.
RoweM.B. (1974). Wait time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic and fate control. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 81–94.
31.
SadlerR. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.
32.
SatoM. (2003). Working with teachers in assessment-related professional development. In AtkinJ. M., & CoffeyJ.E. (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 109–119). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
33.
ShulmanL. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4–14.
34.
WiliamD., LeeC., HarrisonC., & BlackP.J. (In press). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education, 29.
35.
WoodD. (1998). How children think and learn: The social contexts of cognitive development (2nd Edition). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.