AndersonK. T. (2007, April). Discursive meta-tools for the development of practice and identity in an elementary math classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
2.
AndersonK. T., ZuikerS., TaasoobshiraziG., and HickeyD. T. (in press). Discourse analysis for enhancing the formative value of classroom assessment practices in science. International Journal of Science Education.
3.
BarabS., and SquireK. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 1—14.
4.
BarabS. A., HerringS., HickeyD., and BlantonB. (2004). Quest Atlantis: Advancing a socially-responsive, meta-game for learning. Grant REC-0411846 from the National Science Foundation to Indiana University.
5.
BarabS., SadlerT., HeiseltC., HickeyD., and ZuikerS. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 59—82.
6.
BeachK. (2003). Learning in complex social situations meets information processing and mental representation: Some consequences for educational assessment. Measurement, 1, 149—177.
7.
BlackP., and WiliamD. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7—74.
8.
BurkhardtH., and SchoenfeldA. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3—14.
9.
BurroughsS., GroceE., and WebeckM. L. (2005). Social studies education in the age of testing and accountability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24, 13—20.
10.
CaseR. (1996). Changing views of knowledge and the impact on educational research and practice. In OlsonD.R., and TorranceN. (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development (pp. 75—99). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
11.
CobbP., ConfreyJ., DiSessaA., LehrerR., and SchaubleL. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9—13.
12.
DuschlR. A., and GitomerD. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37—73.
13.
GeeJ. P. (2001). Educational linguistics. In AronoffM., and MillerJ.R. (Eds.), Handbook of linguistics (pp. 647—663). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
14.
GeeJ. P. (2003). Opportunity to learn: A language-based perspective on assessment. Assessment in Education, 10, 25—44.
15.
GhezziP. (2006, August 31). Report: Georgia student tests are too easy. State works to revise standards for achievement. Atlanta Journal Constitution, p. 1.
16.
Greeno, J.G., & the Middle School Mathematics through Application Project Group (MMAP). (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, & research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5—26.
17.
GreenoJ. G., CollinsA. M., and ResnickL. (1996). Cognition and learning. In BerlinerD., and CalfeeR. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15—46). New York: Macmillan.
18.
HaertelE. H., and GreenoJ. G. (2003). A situative perspective: Broadening the foundations of assessment. Measurement, 1(2), 154—162.
19.
HickeyD. T. (2001). Assessment, motivation, & epistemological reconciliation in a technology-supported learning environment. Grant REC-0196225 from the National Science Foundation to the University of Georgia.
20.
HickeyD. T. (2003). Design-based implementation and evaluation of NASA CET multimedia science curriculum. Subcontract from the Wheeling Jesuit University Center for Educational Technology to the University of Georgia.
21.
HickeyD. T., and CrossD. I. (2006, April). Design-based multi-level assessment for enhancing discourse, learning, curriculum, and achievement in elementary mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
22.
HickeyD. T., and PellegrinoJ. W. (2005). Theory, level, and function: Three dimensions for understanding the connections between transfer and student assessment. In and and MestreJ.P. (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 251—253). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.
23.
HickeyD. T., and ZuikerS. (2003). A new perspective for evaluating innovative science learning environments. Science Education, 87, 539—563.
24.
HickeyD. T., KindfieldA. C. H., HorwitzP., and ChristieM. A. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology-supported genetics environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 495—538.
25.
HickeyD. T., MewbornD. S., and LewisonM. A. (2005). Multi-level assessment for enhancing mathematical discourse, curriculum, and achievement in diverse elementary school classrooms. Grant REC 0553072 from the U.S. National Science Foundation to Indiana University.
26.
HickeyD. T., WallaceC., HayK., and RecessoA. (2002). Video-supported formative assessment of inquiry-oriented activity and instruction. Grant from the University of Georgia Professional Preparation of Educators Mini-Grant Program to the UGA Learning and Performance Support Laboratory.
27.
HickeyD. T., WolfeE. W., and KindfieldA. C. H. (2000). Assessing learning in a technology-supported genetics environment: Evidential and consequential validity issues. Educational Assessment, 6, 155—196.
28.
HickeyD. T., ZuikerS. J., TaasoobshiraziG., SchaferN. J., and MichaelM. A. (2006). Three is the magic number: A design-based framework for balancing formative and summative functions of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 180—201.
29.
HorwitzP., and ChristieM. (2000). Computer-based manipulatives for teaching scientific reasoning: An example. In JacobsonM.J., and KozmaR.B. (Eds.), Learning the sciences of the twenty-first century: Theory, research, and the design of advanced technology learning environments (pp. 163—191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30.
Jiménez-AleixandreM.P., RodríguezA.B., and DuschlR. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757—792.
31.
LemkeJ. J. (2000). Across the scale of time: Artifacts, activities, and meaning in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7, 273—290.
32.
LeungC., and MohanB. (2004). Teacher formative assessment and talk in classroom contexts: Assessment as discourse and assessment of discourse. Language Testing, 21, 335—359.
33.
O'ConnorM.C. (2001). “Can any fraction be turned into a decimal?” A case study of a mathematical group discussion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 143—185.
34.
Ruiz-PrimoM.A., ShavelsonR. J., HamiltonL., and KleinS. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 369—393.
35.
SchaferN. J., KrugerA., HickeyD. T., and ZuikerS. (2003, April). Using video feedback to facilitate classroom assessment conversation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
36.
SherinM. G., and HanS. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 163—183.
37.
TaasoobshiraziG., ZuikerS. J., AndersonK. T., and HickeyD. T. (2006). Enhancing inquiry, understanding, and achievement in an astronomy multimedia learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 383—395.
38.
VygotskyL. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, & identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
WigginsG. P., and McTigueJ. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
41.
WineripM. (2005, November 2). Are schools passing or failing? Now there's a third choice. both. New York Times, p. 1.
42.
ZuikerS. J., HickeyD. T., KwonE. J., ChapmanR., and BarabS. A. (2005, August). Assessing student learning in, around, and for a multi-user virtual environment. Presentation at the bi-annual conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, Cyprus.